What's new

Views of Pakistanis regarding 1965 war

At this point may i present a very informative post by Mythbusters on another thread.

THE 1965 INDO- PAKISTAN WAR
"The Partition of 1947 signalled the end of the British Empire in India, and the establishment of two independent states, India and Pakistan. They took opposite sides over Kashmir's struggle for independence in 1947-49, and although open war was averted, India lost 6000 men in the conflict. India annexed Kashmir in January 1957 and there followed a long period of tension with Pakistan. Armed clashes in the Rann of Kutch in western India during January 1965 and Pakistan's recruitment of a 'Free Kashmir' guerrilla army finally erupted into open warfare in August 1965.

Sunday Times,
London,
September 19, 1965.
The ground forces of the two countries appeared to be evenly matched, and their respective offensives (although involving approximately 6000 casualties on each side) were indecisive. The Pakistan Air Force, however, emerged with great credit from its conflict with the Indian Air Force, destroying 22 IAF aircraft in air-to-air combat for the loss of only eight of its own - a remarkable achievement considering that the PAF faced odds of nearly four to one. During the conflict India and Pakistan came under strong international pressure to end the war, and arms supplies to both sides were cut off by Britain and the US. A ceasefire imposed by the UN Security Council then reduced the conflict to a series of sporadic minor clashes, and the national leaders were persuaded to attend a peace conference at Tashkent in January 1966. Their decision to renounce the use of force finally ended the war."

(Anthoney Robinson, former staff of the RAF Museum, Hendon and now a free lance Military aviation writer . Book: Elite Forces Of The World)

Combat Over The Indian Subcontinent
"In September 1965 a festering border dispute between India and Pakistan erupted into full scale war. The Indian possessed the larger air force numerically, composed maily of British and French types- Hawker Hunter, Folland Gnat and Dassault Mystere fighters, Dassault Ouragon fighter-bombers and English electric Camnberra bombers. The smaller but highly trained Pakistan air force was equipped in large part with F-86F Sabers, plus a few F-104 Starfighters. Fighting lasted little more than two weeks, but during that time, Pakistan gained a definite ascendancy in the air……….. It was the well proven Sabers that emerged with honors, being credited with all but five of the 36 victories claimed. The Indians claimed 73 victories - undoubtly a considerable overestimate - for an admitted loss of 35."

(Christopher Sivores, Book: Air Aces)

"Pakistan's success in the air means that she has been able to redeploy her relatively small army -- professionally among the best in Asia -- with impunity, plugging gaps in the long front in the face of each Indian thrust."

"By all accounts the courage displayed by the Pakistan Air Force pilots is reminiscent of the bravery of the few young and dedicated pilots who saved this country from Nazi invaders in the critical Battle of Britain during the last war."

Patrick Seale,
The Observer, London,
September 12, 1965.

"India is claiming all out victory. I have not been able to find any trace of it. All I can see are troops, tanks and other war material rolling in a steady stream towards the front."

"If the Indian Air Force is so victorious, why has it not tried to halt this flow?. The answer is that it has been knocked from the skies by Pakistani planes."

"These muslims of Pakistan are natural fighters and they ask for no quarter and they give none. In any war, such as the one going on between India and Pakistan right now, the propoganda claims on either side are likely to be startling. But if I have to take bet today, my money would be on the Pakistan side."

"Pakistan claims to have destroyed something like 1/3rd the Indian Air Force, and foreign observers, who are in a position to know say that Pakistani pilots have claimed even higher kills than this; but the Pakistani Air Force are being scrupulously honest in evaluating these claims. They are crediting Pakistan Air Force only those killings that can be checked from other sources."

Roy Meloni,
American Broadcasting Corporation
September 15, 1965.

"One thing I am convinced of is that Pakistan morally and even physically won the air battle against immense odds."

"Although the Air Force gladly gives most credit to the Army, this is perhaps over-generous. India with roughly five times greater air-power, expected an easy air-superiority. Her total failure to attain it may be seen retrospectively as a vital, possibly the most vital, of the whole conflict."

"Nur Khan is an alert, incisive man of 41, who seems even less. For six years he was on secondment and responsible for running Pakistan's civil air-line, which, in a country where 'now' means sometime and 'sometime' means never, is a model of efficiency. he talks without the jargon of a press relations officer. He does not quibble abobut figures. Immediately one has confidence in what he says."

"His estimates, proffered diffidently but with as much photographic evidence as possible, speak for themselves. Indian and Pakistani losses, he thinks, are in something like the ration of ten to one."

"Yet, the quality of equipment, Nur insists, is less important than flying ability and determination. the Indians have no sense of purpose. The Pakistanis were defending their own country and willingly taking greater risks. 'The average bomber crews flew 15 to 20 sorties. My difficulty was restraining them, not pushing them on.' "

"This is more than nationalistic pride. Talk to the pilots themselves and you get the same intense story."

Peter Preston,
The Guardian, London
September 24, 1965.

"One point particularly noted by military observers is that in their frist advances the Indians did not use air power effectively to support their troops. by contrast, the Pakistanis, with sophisticated timing, swooped in on Ambala airfield and destroyed some 25 Indian planes just after they had landed and were sitting on the ground out of fuel and powerless to escape (NOTE: PAF has not claimed any IAF aircraft during it's attacks on Ambala due to non-availability of concrete evidence of damage in night bombing.)"

"By the end of the week, in fact, it was clear that the Pakistanis were more than holding their own."

Everett G. Martin,
General Editor, Newsweek
September 20, 1965.

"India's barbarity is mounting in fury as the Indian army and Air Force, severely mauled, are showing signs of demoralisation. The huge losses suffered by the Indian Armed Forces during the last 12 days of fighting could not be kept from the Indian public and in retaliation, the Indian armed forces are indulging in the most barbaric methods."

"The Chief of Indian Air Force could no longer ensure the safety of Indian air space. A well known Indian journalist, Mr Frank Moraes, in a talk from All-india radio, also admitted that IAF had suffered severe losses and it was no use hiding the fact and India should be prepared for more losses...."

Indonesian Herald
September 11, 1965.


During 1965 war, India's General Chaudri ordered his troops to march on Sialkot and Lahore - jauntily inviting his officers to join him for drinks that evening in lahore Gymkhana. He didn;t reckon on the Pakistani troops.

"The first Indian regiment that found itself face to face with pakistanis didn't get clobbered," said a report in Washington DC, America. "They just turned and ran, leving all of their equipment, artillery supplies and even extra clothing and supplies behind".

I have been a journalist now for twenty years, 'reported American Broadcasting Corporation's Roy Maloni, "and want to go on record that I have never seen a more confident and victoroius group of soldiers than thosefighting for Pakistan, right now.

"India is claiming all-out victory. I have not been able to find any trace of it. All I can see are troops, tanks and other war material rolling in a steady towards the front ... These muslims of pakistan are natural fighters and they ask for no quater and they give none. n any war, such as the one going on between India and Pakistan right now, the propoganda claims on either side are likely to be startling. But if I have to take bet today, my money would be on the Pakistan side."

The London Daily Mirror reported: "There is a smell of death in the burning Pakistan sun. For it was here that India's attacking forces came to a dead stop.

"During the night they threw in every reinforcement they could find. But wave after wave of attacks were repulsed by the Pakistani troops."

"India", said the London Daily Times, "is being soundly beaten by a nation which is outnumbered by four and a half to one in population and three to one in size of armed forces."

In Times reporter Louis Karrar wrote: "Who can defeat a nation which knows how to play hide and seek with death".

"... I will never forget the smile full of nerve the conducting army officers gave me. this smile told me how fearless and brave are the Pakistani young men.

"Playing with fire to these men -- from the jawan to the general Officer Commanding -- was like children playing with marbles in the streets.

"I asked the GOC, how is it that despite a small number you are overpowering the Indians?

he looked at me, smiled and said: "if courage, bravery and patriotism were purchaseable commodities, then India have got them along with American aid."

"Pakistan has been able to gain complete command of the air by literally knocking the Indian planes out of the skies, if they had not already run away."

"Indian pilots are inferior to Pakistan's pilots and Indian officers' leadership has been generally deplorable. India is being soundly beaten by a nation which is outnumbered by a four and a half to one in population and three to one three to one in size of armed forces."
 
.
Pakistan also lost only 20 aircrafts, whereas India lost about 75 of their aircrafts. After the 1965 war, Pakistan was also awarded 350 square miles (900 km²) of the Rann of Kutch.
 
.
The wikipedia info seems to be edited, & I can't find the original Time link on the territories lost/gained. According to India (not neutral sources), Pakistan occupied & held onto 1500 km^2 of Indian territory (579 mi^2).

A probe and its prospects
:

I thought we were talking about the 1965 war and not the Kargil war :/


If we compare Pakistan occupying & holding onto 579 mi^2 of Indian territory, as compared to India occupying & holding 690 mi^sq of Pakistani territory; with India's Army strength of 700,000 Infantry & Pakistan's of 260,000; we can say that Pakistan scored a clear victory over India.

Pakistan never held on to 579 miles^2 of Indian territory.

Also this is not per-capita GDP calculation. Its just plain war between two nation states. Whereby the victor is the one who achieved his pre-war objectives and the loser is one who did not. Though you seem to have forgotten that Indian Army was at that time deployed extensively on the Chinese border as well in the North Eastern states with no such problems for Pakistan.

Pakistan did not achieve the pre-war objective of liberating Kashmir . Also links #2,# 10 ,# 12 & #13 clearly blast the myth that Pakistan won the war and only propaganda by the Army led the general populace to believe they 'won' the war

---------- Post added at 08:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:24 AM ----------

Pakistan also lost only 20 aircrafts, whereas India lost about 75 of their aircrafts. After the 1965 war, Pakistan was also awarded 350 square miles (900 km²) of the Rann of Kutch.

Wrong. Again. The numbers.
 
.
The wikipedia info seems to be edited, & I can't find the original Time link on the territories lost/gained. According to India (not neutral sources), Pakistan occupied & held onto 1500 km^2 of Indian territory (579 mi^2).:



A probe and its prospects

If we compare Pakistan occupying & holding onto 579 mi^2 of Indian territory, as compared to India occupying & holding 690 mi^sq of Pakistani territory; with India's Army strength of 700,000 Infantry & Pakistan's of 260,000; we can say that Pakistan scored a clear victory over India.

1. Pakistan did not hold on to 579 sq miles but 579 sq Km of Indian land that translates to 220 sq miles .
Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. Pakistan gained in desert areas of Rann of Kutch with little economic importance as against India's hold of 700+ sq miles of territory in fertile areas of Lahore, Sialkot and Kashmir
3. Buddy, victory and defeat does not factor in the handicap for strength. This is not golf, you know.. ;)
 
.
@Bamxa - It is nobody's argument that IAF was not well-prepared againt PAF. PAF had the overall upper hand in the air combat and the links you gave only say that.

What matters is the result of the whole war (Land,air and Sea) not the air battles.

Taking all into account, it was India that enjoyed the upper hand as clearly proved by dozens of International/unbiased sources.
 
.
Well the question being asked is how do Pakistanis percieve the 65 war. I think considering the odds, the Pak armed forces performed remarkably well against a much larger and stronger enemy. This is what i believe the general belief is amongst most Pakistanis and this is what my previous post (thanks to mythbuster) proves.
 
.
Foxbat, Grounder, can you quote the original link from a credible source (not a blog or wikipedia) that says India won 690 mi^2 of Pakistani territory, & Pakistan won 210 mi^2 of Indian territory? I believe someone has edited the wikipedia, can't find the Time link.
 
.
Well the question being asked is how do Pakistanis percieve the 65 war. I think considering the odds, the Pak armed forces performed remarkably well against a much larger and stronger enemy. This is what i believe the general belief is amongst most Pakistanis and this is what my previous post (thanks to mythbuster) proves.

I agree the thread was about how "Pakistanis" perceive the 1965 war.

But it is worth to note that even the men in the midst of the heat like ex-ACM Nur Khan say that Pakistan suffered a defeat in the war. (I personally feel that it was a stalemate with India enjoying the upper hand).

And this general perception follows exactly what was relayed by the then Consul General of the US in Pakistan in his telegram.Refer post # 12
 
.
Well the question being asked is how do Pakistanis percieve the 65 war. I think considering the odds, the Pak armed forces performed remarkably well against a much larger and stronger enemy. This is what i believe the general belief is amongst most Pakistanis and this is what my previous post (thanks to mythbuster) proves.

Thats a pretty sorry argument, considering that it was Pakistan who initiated the war.. Pakistan sent in militants and terrorists in the Kashmir sector along with its own forces to repeat 1947 misadventure. This time around the Kashmiri civilians (who were supposed to be liberated by these irregulars) themselves reported this activity to Indian govt. India reacted and opened other fronts to relieve pressure in the Kashmir sector. In the end, Pakistan held to lesser amount of India land than what India conquered from Pakistan. And the pre war objectives for which Pakistan initiated the action were defeated.

Also do remember that at this time, Pakistan was the west's darling blue eyed boy.. So when you read some of the western press on this, take it with a pinch of salt.. ;)
 
.
Foxbat, Grounder, can you quote the original link from a credible source (not a blog or wikipedia) that says India won 690 mi^2 of Pakistani territory, & Pakistan won 210 mi^2 of Indian territory? I believe someone has edited the wikipedia, can't find the Time link.

In his "A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947", 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.

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 square kilometers of Pakistani territory: 640 square kilometers in Azad Kashmir, Pakistan's portion of the state; 460 square kilometers of the Sailkot sector; 380 square kilometers far to the south of Sindh; and most critical, 360 square kilometers on the Lahore front. Pakistan took 540 square kilometers of Indian territory: 490 square kilometers in the Chhamb sector and 50 square kilometers around Khem Karan.

Though there are some minor variations in the claims (+/- 50 miles^2) it should give you a rough idea.

As for the strength of the Indian Army, don't forgot that Indian Army was at that time deployed extensively on the Chinese border (as it was just 3 years after '62 war with them) as well in the North Eastern states (Naga,Mizo rebellions) with no such problems for Pakistan.
 
.
1101650917_400.jpg


Asia: Ending the Suspense

At dawn one morning last week, war came to the dusty Pakistan village of Dhankeal, near Lahore. Mystère jets of the Indian air force slammed rockets into a train at the station, killing three passengers and wounding eleven. Wakened by the explosions, a young peasant named Zakaullah clambered to the roof of his mud hut. "I saw planes in the sky," he said. "And suddenly they started throwing things with fire coming from them. Then one plane started to fall. It came down with a big noise."

Near by bearded Mohammed Sharif was leaving the village mosque after morning prayer when he looked up and saw the French-built Mystères in a dogfight with U.S.-made F-86 jets of the Pakistan air force. With peasant wisdom Sharif decided, "The Indians must be losing in Kashmir. Now they are trying to bother us down here." He urged the young men of the village to arm themselves with clubs and search through the cane and cornfields for downed Indian pilots.

Smeared Dung

To the hundreds of millions of illiterate Indian and Pakistani peasants in the villages, the war may be just another disaster to add to the constant plagues of drought, flood, tornado and poverty. Not so in the cities. New Delhi crowds danced in the streets at the rumor of Indian victories. As antiaircraft guns in Amritsar opened up on Pakistani planes, citizens cheered each white puff in the blue sky, shouting "Shoot him down! Kill him! Kill, kill, kill!" Workmen put up baffle walls in offices as protection against bomb blast, shopkeepers pasted strips of paper to window panes, husbands and fathers dug slit trenches outside their homes. As hospitals were hurriedly emptied to provide beds for expected wounded, Indians queued up to donate blood. The capital's mood was reflected by a businessman who said, "We've been kicked around too often. Let us lose 200 million people if we have to, and have done with it. Our national honor is at stake."

The same air of stern determination spread through Rawalpindi. Civil servants worked round the clock, and on the desks of key officials lay a blue volume of contingency papers labeled "War Book." Auto headlights were dimmed with smears of mud and cow dung, and trucks were camouflaged with leafy branches. For three successive nights, Indian bombers struck at Karachi's harbor installations, and the wail of air-raid sirens blended with the sobbing call to prayer of muezzins atop minarets. A bitter Pakistani official said, "Let's fight it out and get it over with. Either we become slaves of India, or India accepts us as an independent state. This suspense must end."

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-history/41455-time-magazine-1965-a.html

---------- Post added at 08:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:43 AM ----------

(2 of 10)

Shimmering Dust

The major theater of war is the broad Punjab plain, which stretches flat from horizon to horizon. It is lushly green, dotted with clumps of trees, laced by canals. The days are swelteringly hot, and dust clouds shimmer in the glaring sun. It is Rudyard Kipling country, immortalized in such books as Kim and Indian Tales. And the soldiers on both sides are very like the men Kipling so deeply revered. The officers are British-trained, and many are graduates of Sandhurst. They have the British manner, right down to clipped accents, mustaches and swagger sticks. The enlisted men are also right out of Kipling's pages—sturdy Jats and turbaned Sikhs, rawboned Pathans and sinewy Sindhis, volunteers all, whose regimental flags are inscribed with battle names ranging from Ypres and Gallipoli to El Alamein and Monte Cassino and Rangoon.

Since its army is much the larger (867,000 men to 253,000), India went on the attack in five widely separated sectors of the Punjab front—three columns aimed at encircling Lahore, Pakistan's second largest city, one thrust at Sialkot, and the last struck at Karachi via the town of Gadra. The Indians hoped to force the dispersion of the smaller but better-trained and -armed Pakistani forces and then chop them up piecemeal.

The strategy worked, at least partially. A Pakistani armored force that had driven 30 miles into Kashmir with the object of seizing Jammu city, and thus cutting off more than 100,000 Indian troops in Kashmir, slowed down before reaching its goal and detached tanks to defend Sialkot.

In the air, it was much the same story—Indian quantity and Pakistan quality. Indian pilots are flying a variety of fighters, from French Mystères and British Vampires to Russian MIG-21s and Indian-built Gnats. The Pakistanis have U.S. supersonic jets, which seem to have made a spectacular number of kills—Pakistani Air Vice Marshal Nur Khan claims that 108 Indian planes have been shot down. If true, that amounts to a fifth of the Indian air force.

At week's end, both armies were digging in along the Punjab plain, their battalions stretching 800 miles, from the Kashmir border to the Rann of Kutch on the Arabian Sea. New Delhi reported "very fierce fighting" around Lahore and Sialkot and said its tank forces had killed two Pakistani generals, but neither side was claiming major advances and the battle line appeared to be temporarily stable. No ground fighting at all was reported from East Pakistan, 1,000 miles from the Punjab front, although Shastri warned that Indian troops might move at any time. On the Indian side, there were innumerable reports of nightly drops by Pakistani paratroopers, but police and army patrols found no evidence that the reports were true.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-history/41455-time-magazine-1965-a.html

---------- Post added at 08:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:43 AM ----------

(8 of 10)

Closed Routes

The instrument used was the mujahid, or local warrior. Subsequent Indian interrogations of captured mujahids indicate that they are mostly inhabitants of Azad (Free) Kashmir, the ***************** one-third of the state. As army veterans, they were given a brisk course of retraining, taught methods of sabotage. Last month they began crossing the porous cease-fire line with instructions to start an insurrection.

All in all, an estimated 3,000 mujahids made the trip. It seemed an obviously doomed operation. The Indian share of Kashmir is firmly held by 100,000 troops. Though most Kashmiri ******* would undoubtedly vote to join Pakistan, few showed any inclination to die for the cause. The infiltrators were rounded up or slain with considerable ease, but the outcries from the Indian government often made it sound as if Kashmir were being invaded by hordes of warlike Huns.

In order to "close the infiltration routes," Indians in battalion strength crossed the cease-fire line and occupied a series of abandoned Pakistani outposts. There was a pause of some days, presumably to test the Pakistani reaction. When nothing happened, the Indians moved forward two weeks ago in regimental and brigade strength. Two Pakistani hilltop positions were stormed at dawn. In the Punch-Uri sector, the Indians advanced 25 miles into Pakistani territory. A large salient in the 1949 U.N. cease-fire line that bulged toward Srinagar was swiftly erased, and India announced that the occupied ground was now Indian, as were the 5,000 dazed peasants who lived there.

By last week, the world's eyes were on Kashmir. Pakistan would either have to react strongly or abandon its claims. Within 48 hours, Ayub Khan made his military answer. A rumbling column of 70 powerful Patton tanks rolled across the Kashmir border far to the south, where the land is flat. The Indian villages of Chhamb and Dewa were swiftly taken. Backed by a brigade of infantry, and with its flanks protected by patrols of mujahids, the tanks rolled on, driving Indian defenders from village after village.

Indian jet fighters streaked from the sky to smash the armored spearhead. Fearful of losing the strategic city of Jammu, the Indian high command ordered the drive on Lahore, removing the battle from Kashmir to Pakistan proper, and changing a brush-fire war into a full-scale challenge. The escalation had increased, and the suspense was over. Whatever else Ayub Khan and Shastri accomplished last week, they had noisily reopened the question of Kashmir.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-history/41455-time-magazine-1965-a.html

---------- Post added at 08:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:44 AM ----------

(10 of 10)

Closer Parity

Both the Indian and Pakistan governments were also dropping public hints as to the ground rules for future fighting. Each disclaimed any intention of bombing the other's jammed, slum-packed cities, which are easily flammable and prone to panic. And seemingly, neither side intends to launch a massive, win-the-war offensive with the aim of destroying the enemy's army and occupying his land.

Most military observers thought the fighting so far had gone about as expected. In the short run, Pakistan's small, highly trained army is more than a match for the Indians. But each skirmish and each day in the field reduces the efficiency of the U.S. weapons and equipment, and brings the Pakistanis toward closer parity with the Indians.

All of the Indian drives in the Punjab seem to have been stopped cold a short distance across the border. One unit attacking Lahore was severely handled and driven back into India, where it has dug in in defense of Ferozepore. But should the war be prolonged several more weeks, military men think that the more numerous Indian army will begin to prevail.

Peking Laughter

There is one imponderable: China. Even a military demonstration on the Himalayan front would seriously weaken the Indian effort. A Chinese offensive on the scale of their last one in 1962 would be more than India could handle, for New Delhi is barely equipped for a one-enemy war. It could never deal with two at once.

Who knew how Red China would react? Ayub, no friend of Communism, had not asked for aid from that quarter. Also, the Chinese might recall that in the 1962 clash with India, Ayub made clear to Delhi that Indian troops could safely be transferred from the Pakistan frontier to the Himalayas. True, Peking has been mumbling about Indian "aggression" in the border area. But these noises began long before the present conflict, and have not been significantly renewed. At the present moment, China's interests are well served by letting its two neighbors waste their scanty substance in war against each other. As an Indian official said grimly, "They must be laughing hard in Peking."

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-history/41455-time-magazine-1965-a.html

---------- Post added at 08:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:44 AM ----------

Asia: Silent Guns, Wary Combatants
Times, October 1, 1965

In the green and gold chamber of the U.N.'s Security Council, the eyes of the diplomats flicked back and forth from the clock on the north wall to the impassioned face of Pakistan's Foreign Minister Zulfikar AH Bhutto. Before him lay the answer to everyone's question: Would it be wider war or tempo rary peace for South Asia? Bhutto waited until the last possible moment before answering.

At one minute before 3 a.m. — the deadline — he interrupted a scorching, anti-Indian diatribe, plucked from the stack of papers before him a telegram from Pakistan's President Mohammed Ayub Khan: "In the interests of inter national peace ... I have issued the following order to the Pakistani armed forces: they will stop fighting as from 1205 hours West Pakistan time today."

Claims of Victory. Soon, the guns fell silent along 1,000 miles of battle ground between India and Pakistan. At Pakistani airbases, pilots stepped wear ily from their American-built Sabres and Starfighters. On the Plain of Sialkot, tank-recovery vehicles clanked up to the hulks of shattered Indian and Pakistani armor to drag them off for salvage. In New Delhi and Rawalpindi, Indians and Pakistanis began to count their dead and gild their battles of the last three weeks with claims of victory.

Victory, in fact, belonged to no one in last week's ceasefire. Kashmir remained divided. India still claimed 690 sq. mi. of Pakistani territory (see map), but had failed by a scant three miles to capture the strategic Sialkot plateau. Pakistan held 250 sq. mi. of Indian Kashmir and Rajasthan, but had lost —temporarily at least — half its armor. And Red China had lost that most val uable of Asian commodities: face.

Peking's stern ultimatum to India, which once sounded like the voice of certain war, was resolved in a squeaky backdown. Peking announced that the Indians had dismantled 56 outposts on Chinese territory, thus precluding the possibility of a three-cornered war. But Peking kept up the threat of future trouble by demanding the immediate return of "two kidnaped Tibetans, 800 sheep and 59 yaks." India, of course, denied everything from dismantling to yaknaping. And in New Delhi, a mob promptly marched on the Chinese Embassy, leading a herd of sheep bearing placards that read: "Eat me, but save the world."

"A New Phase." The lull in the war 'may well be short-lived, as both Pakistan's Ayub and India's Prime Minister Lai Bahadur Shastri indicated in their-post-cease-fire speeches. "From now on we enter a new phase in our struggle to show the righteousness of our cause," said Ayub. He added warm praise for Red China, whose "moral support . . . will forever remain enshrined in our hearts," as well as for Indonesia and other Moslem nations. The U.S. understandably received no public praise from Ayub for its role in the ceasefire, though Ayub quickly called President Johnson by phone to advise L.B.J. of Pakistan's acceptance of the ceasefire. Nothing was said of the anti-American demonstrations in Karachi and Lahore the day before the ceasefire, in which mobs smashed U.S. libraries and embassy windows.

Punctured Euphoria. In New Delhi, a wave of euphoria swept the population, but not the top level of Indian leadership. Shastri took to the radio to puncture the jubilation. "Pakistan is still in a bellicose mood," he said. "I must state clearly that if Pakistan launches an attack again on the state of Jammu and Kashmir, we shall meet the challenge with full determination and full force. Let there be no miscalculations again." Shastri evidently had in mind infiltrations of Pakistani "freedom fighters," whose raids had triggered the crisis. Indeed, no sooner was the cease-fire in effect than each side accused the other of violations.

Clearly, Pakistan had little choice but to accept the U.N.'s cease-fire ultimatum. Cut off from U.S. and British arms supplies, denied Russian aid, and 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. To take those steps would have meant a permanent break with the West and an end to the Western aid that has so greatly stimulated Pakistan's economy. India, by contrast, is still the big gainer in the war. Shastri had united the nation as never before. Said one Western ambassador last week: "It used to be you could feed the word 'India' into the machine and it would spit out 'Maharajahs, snakes, too many babies, too many cows, spindly-legged Hindus.' Now it's apparent to everybody that India is going to emerge as an Asian power in its own right."

http://www.defence.pk/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=582559
 
.
In his "A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947", Robert Johnson mentions –



As for the strength of the Indian Army, don't forgot that Indian Army was at that time deployed extensively on the Chinese border (as it was just 3 years after '62 war with them) as well in the North Eastern states (Naga,Mizo rebellions) with no such problems for Pakistan.

There's no link here that Pakistan won 210 sq miles of Indian territory, & India won 690 sq mi of Pakistani territory.

---------- Post added at 08:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:21 AM ----------

This is what Carnegie Middle East Center (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), Washington DC had to say about the war:

During the 1965 war, the nation was led to believe that it had won the war against India though in fact the war had ended in a stalemate. Pakistan occupied 1,600 sq miles of Indian territory, 1,300 of it in the desert, while India secured 350 sq miles of Pakistani real estate.

Carnegie Middle East Center - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace - Carnegie Middle East Center - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
 
.
There's no link here that Pakistan won 210 sq miles of Indian territory, & India won 690 sq mi of Pakistani territory.

---------- Post added at 08:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:21 AM ----------

This is what Carnegie Middle East Center (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), Washington DC had to say about the war:



Carnegie Middle East Center - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace - Carnegie Middle East Center - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Kashmir is still with us do you need further proof.
 
.
There's no link here that Pakistan won 210 sq miles of Indian territory, & India won 690 sq mi of Pakistani territory.

The source is the two books ("A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947" by Robert Johnson and "The greater game: India's race with destiny and China" by David Van Praagh ) which detail who won how much and in which area. Believing it is upto you.

This is what Carnegie Middle East Center (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), Washington DC had to say about the war:

Hussain Haqqani. Seriously ? :rolleyes:
 
.
The source is the two books ("A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947" by Robert and "The greater game: India's race with destiny and China" by David Van Praagh ) which detail who won how much and in which area. Believing it is upto you.



Hussain Haqqani. Seriously ? :rolleyes:

When I quoted wikipedia, it was a different figure. Unless you provide a link for your claim, it is baseless.
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom