What's new

Views of Pakistanis regarding 1965 war

So hold on....are we going to talk about all the four wars India won against pakistan ?......My senses tell me pakistanis are heading for a big whupping on this thread.
 
.
So your claim of putting them on the same plane is just ridiculous. There are numerous articles written by Indian analysts on Kashmir on international fora. Will you accept them ?

If they come from a Global Think Tank like Carnegie Endowment, sure.
 
.
depends on who one talks to....
in the end the war was a 'stalemate' at best with both countries not being able to obtain their 'ultimate' objectives. there were episodes of valour and bravery on both sides as well as episodes of 'sheer stupidity' by field commanders on both sides. the PAF played a pivotal and vital role in ensuring that the might of the indian armed forces is held 'at bay'. the PN had a minor role in this war.
u guys can read the 'official' propoganda of both countries and it will suggest that both countries had 'glourious' victories!
 
.
BTW this is not about 1948 ware either. So lets us not de-rail the thread.
 
.
Either your'e delusional or you live in some other dimension and accidentally ended up in this website due to some inter-dimensional anomaly. I do not think i have the time to waste on you, except this comment. Sorry.

You indians are all delusional and denying the truth like always.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
If they come from a Global Think Tank like Carnegie Endowment, sure.

First of all it did not come from Carnegie. Rather from a now-disgraced Pakistani, Hussain Haqqani. Stop this denial. An op-ed written by a disgraced Pakistani can be hardly compared with a on-the-event report filed by Time.

Secondly feast your eyes on this.

Bad Company

---------- Post added at 10:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 AM ----------

depends on who one talks to....
in the end the war was a 'stalemate' at best with both countries not being able to obtain their 'ultimate' objectives. there were episodes of valour and bravery on both sides as well as episodes of 'sheer stupidity' by field commanders on both sides. the PAF played a pivotal and vital role in ensuring that the might of the indian armed forces is held 'at bay'. the PN had a minor role in this war.
u guys can read the 'official' propoganda of both countries and it will suggest that both countries had 'glourious' victories!

The only Indian objective was to deny the Pakistani objective and I think they were pretty sucessful in that.
 
.
I'll quote my post again.



In 1948, it was a different story. Pakistani tribals did not invade the Indian state of Kashmir. They invaded the then Independent princely state of Kashmir ruled by a Maharaja. This prompted the Raja to accede to India which then went to capture about 65% of the territory. From then on none of Pakistan's advances met with any victory and were repulsed effectively.

India captured 60% of the territory. Pakistan captured 40% (this includes Aksai Chin) of the territory. India's troop strength size was 6 times that of Pakistan, hence, Pakistan should have captured (100/6 =) 16.66% of the overall territory, but it gained about 40%, meaning that it won (40-16.66=) 23.33% of Kashmir in the war.
 
.
depends on who one talks to....
in the end the war was a 'stalemate' at best with both countries not being able to obtain their 'ultimate' objectives. there were episodes of valour and bravery on both sides as well as episodes of 'sheer stupidity' by field commanders on both sides. the PAF played a pivotal and vital role in ensuring that the might of the indian armed forces is held 'at bay'. the PN had a minor role in this war.
u guys can read the 'official' propoganda of both countries and it will suggest that both countries had 'glourious' victories!

Agreed but International media outlets maintain that India won all four wars....and no stalemates. '65 war could have been avoided if the pakistanis held their peace and did not venture out to capture what was never theirs to begin with.
 
.
^ the question is.. why did you capture kargil when the Indian PM was invited to Pakistan for peace talks? what sense does that make?
- back to topic : It is obvious that most political parties put a "spin" on the actual happening of a war to cover thier backs. Its up to the people to realize how bizarre or real they are.

Peace talks with india never works for any country. indians claim everyone's territory.

You have to grab the territory like China did in 1962.

Pakistan grabbed all of Kargil in 1999 but the coward Nawaz Sharif gave into US pressure told the Army to surrender then Army threw Nawaz out in a coup.
 
.
So hold on....are we going to talk about all the four wars India won against pakistan ?......My senses tell me pakistanis are heading for a big whupping on this thread.

It was your Indian friend that derailed this thread with this post:

I think Pakistani Army wanted to convince their people that we are some worth. It's not like that we have zero success and use 1965 as their report card . 4 wars and not a single convincing victory is something they won't like to live with. Thatsy this propaganda.
 
.
Pakistan won 40% of Kashmir (including Aksai Chin & Azad Kashmir) in 1948.

Statistics from the 1948 war:

India's troops: 30,000
Pakistan's troops: 5000

India's/Pakistan's troop ratio: 30,000/5000 = 6

Part of Kashmir Pakistan should have won: 100/6= 16.67%
Part of Kashmir India should have won: 100 - 16.67 = 83.33%

Amount of Kashmir Pakistan won in 1948: 40%

Net amount of Kashmir won by Pakistan: 40 - 16.67 = 23.33%

When Pakistan attacked Kashmir in 1948 it was not part of India. Harisingh accepted India as Kashmir's nation only after attackers came close to Shrinagar. After India army entered in war the picture was different altogether. So won against Harisingh half trained army can't take it as victory against India. And my point against Pakistani army should see in bigger picture. Destroying democratic establishment for own interests, allowing jihadist elements in Pakistan which are turning against Pakistani common man, Couldn't save east Pakistan from Indian Army are some points which shows Pakistani Army;s not so good performance. Neither on internal front nor on external front. But in opinion 1965 was a stale mate for both countries. Nobody won but Pakistan failed to gain Kashmir from weaken Indian army after 1962 defeat was not so good.
 
.
@gounder....I'll just post "bad company" just in case bilal misses out on it.
Hope you don't mind.

Despite recently resumed talks, tensions between nuclear-armed neighbors India and Pakistan remain high. In testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ashley Tellis warned that continued Pakistani support for the terrorist group Lashkar e-Tayyiba (LeT) threatens to undermine the delicate peace between the two countries and plunge the region into conflict, with significant consequences for American interests abroad.

The Situation on the Ground in Pakistan:

LeT is—with the exception of al-Qaeda—arguably the most important terrorist group operating from South Asia and was the mastermind of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks. It remains the spearhead of the Pakistani military’s campaign against India.

LeT remains primarily Pakistani in its composition, uses Pakistani territory as its main base of operation, and continues to be supported extensively by the Pakistani state, especially the Army and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

LeT’s capability to conduct terrorism multinationally has increased: it does not need constant operational support from the ISI to be effective.

LeT’s ambitions extend beyond India. The organization’s close ties with al-Qaeda in Pakistan and its support for the Afghan Taliban’s military operations pose a direct threat to U.S. citizens, soldiers, and interests.
U.S. Policy Recommendations:

Be candid about Pakistan’s role: The United States should stop pretending that LeT is an independent actor. Candid recognition that the organization receives protection and support from Pakistan would go a long way toward solving the problem.

Partner together with India on joint counterterrorism operations: Since the attack on Mumbai in 2008, the United States and India have successfully partnered together on matters of intelligence and counterterrorism. This cooperation should expand further.

Be prepared to take action if Pakistan is unable or unwilling: If Pakistan cannot or will not take decisive action against LeT, then the United States and its allies should be prepared to act in its place. Doing so may be increasingly necessary not simply to prevent a future Indo-Pakistani crisis, but more importantly to protect the United States, its citizens, its interests, and its allies.

Bad Company
 
.
India captured 60% of the territory. Pakistan captured 40% (this includes Aksai Chin) of the territory. India's troop strength size was 6 times that of Pakistan, hence, Pakistan should have captured (100/6 =) 16.66% of the overall territory, but it gained about 40%, meaning that it won (40-16.66=) 23.33% of Kashmir in the war.

Pakistan gained that 35% against a defenceless Independent princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. Not from the Indian state of Kashmir. After India entered the war Pakistan could hardly add any new territory and it has been so in all the remaining wars.

BTW this is not about the 1948 war so let us not de-rail.

The 'four wars' included 1965 war and was mentioned in that context. No need to get defensive.
 
.
Agreed but International media outlets maintain that India won all four wars....and no stalemates. '65 war could have been avoided if the pakistanis held their peace and did not venture out to capture what was never theirs to begin with.

Pakistan won the war in 1948 when it won a net 23.33% of Kashmir (refer to post # 82), 1965 was a stalemate in terms of territory (but a victory in terms of troop strength/troop lost ratio), 1971 was won by India, & Pakistan won in 1999 with respect to the (troop strength/troops lost) ratio.

Look at it this way. India only recaptured Kargil in 1999 when it went to the international community (US), & pressurized them to act against Pakistan. In terms of net land lost, India recaptured the territory it lost from Pakistan, & didn't gain anything. In other words, there was no net loss of territory from either side. But in terms of (troop strength/troops lost) ratio, Pakistan defeated India.

In 1965, there was no net loss or gain of territory. In terms of (troop strength/troops lost) ratio, Pakistan defeated India again. It was only in 1971 that India won against Pakistan.
 
.
Agreed but International media outlets maintain that India won all four wars....and no stalemates. '65 war could have been avoided if the pakistanis held their peace and did not venture out to capture what was never theirs to begin with.

if that makes you happy then so be it.......
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom