Views of Pakistanis regarding 1965 war

[Omar1984]

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.

1948: We freed half of Kashmir

1965: We kicked you out, took your soldiers as war prisoners, took your tanks, when you tried capturing Lahore thus you failed in your objectives.

1971: We had internal problems, you intervened, and crossed international borders again violating international law. Bengladesh was born because we were having a war with our own people.

1999: We captured all of Kargil, but coward Nawaz Sharif surrendered after one phone call from Bill Clinton.

So india didnt win squat.

 

[Shabz Nist]

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

So we have your opinion and then some irrelevant opinions from outlets like WSJ....

The army controls all aspects of the nuclear program, while the civilian administration exercises only nominal supervision. Having lost four wars to India since 1947, the Pakistani military sees the bomb as an equalizer and deterrent against its bigger neighbor—the primary reason it has spent scarce resources on this capability.

Opinion: South Asia's Looming Arms Race - WSJ.com

---------- Post added at 10:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:34 AM ----------

1948: We freed half of Kashmir

1965: We kicked you out, took your soldiers as war prisoners, took your tanks, when you tried capturing Lahore thus you failed in your objectives.

1971: We had internal problems, you intervened, and crossed international borders again violating international law. Bengladesh was born because we were having a war with our own people.

1999: We captured all of Kargil, but coward Nawaz Sharif surrendered after one phone call from Bill Clinton.

So india didnt win squat.

Ignored. Not worth my time.

---------- Post added at 10:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:35 AM ----------

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

I'm just calling the pakistani bluff and propaganda here... don't shoot the messenger...lol

 

[Omar1984]

indians are always spreading propaganda and lies. its that what they teach you in your hindustani schools.

 

[Kalyugi Mirza]

1999 war:

Indian troop strength: 30,000
Pakistan troop strength: 5000

Indian troops losses: 527
Pakistan troops losses: 626

India's injuries figures: 1,363 wounded
Pakistan's injuries figures: 665 wounded

ek to chori uper se seena jori...
u guys were in better position geographically and u guys were prepared at that time for this...

 

[alimukhtar]

bhai g jang jazbon se lari jati na k weapons se....................... janab e wala aur tareekh gawah ha k ham hamesha jazbon se lary hain na k hathyaron se

 

[Ambitious449]

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

Let's 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.

Dost you making same mistake again and again. Your criteria to won the war is casualties. This is not the case. Objectives should be met after war. Casualties are secondary. If casualties is criteria then Britain and Russia already lost second world war. Isn't it? tell me one single war where Pakistani Army met their objectives. Single one. And i am not blind nationalist so you can tell me.

 

[Bhairava]

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.

I cant believe that such a naive/simplistic view is even possible.

There is no metric like troop strength/troop lost atleast that I have heard of. Better not got there.

Regarding the 'net loss of territory' metric, then USA was not defeated in 'Nam nor was the Soviet Union defeated in Afghanistan because 'Nam or Afg was neither theirs to start with.

See how stupid it sounds ?

p.s.: India had a net gain in territory in 1965.

 

[53fd]

In 1999, India recaptured all of its lost territory (& it gained no territory) after international pressure on Pakistan to return them back to India. Net result: no territory was gained by either side. India had 6 times the strength of the Pakistan forces, yet they suffered a higher (losses + injuries) figure than Pakistan.

In 1948, India had 6 times the strength of the Pakistan forces, but they captured only 60% of Kashmir, whereas Pakistan captured 40% of Kashmir. According to the ratios, Pakistan should have gained only 16.66% of Kashmir (100/6), whereas India should have won 83.33% of it.

India started the war when it crossed international borders. In terms of net territory, there were little changes in the 1965 war. So the only way to determine who won the war is to look at other factors. In 1965, Pakistan had a better (troops strength/troops lost) ratio than India. In terms of aircrafts, Pakistan shot 75 Indian aircrafts down, whereas India shot 20 Pakistani aircrafts down.

 

[Bhairava]

In 1999, India recaptured all of its lost territory (& it gained no territory) after international pressure on Pakistan to return them back to India. Net result: no territory was gained by either side. India had 6 times the strength of the Pakistan forces, yet they suffered a higher (losses + injuries) figure than Pakistan.

In 1948, India had 6 times the strength of the Pakistan forces, but they captured only 60% of Kashmir, whereas Pakistan captured 40% of Kashmir. According to the ratios, Pakistan should have gained only 16.66% of Kashmir (100/6), whereas India should have won 83.33% of it.

India started the war when it crossed international borders. In terms of net territory, there were little changes in the 1965 war. So the only way to determine who won the war is to look at other factors. In 1965, Pakistan had a better (troops strength/troops lost) ratio than India. In terms of aircrafts, Pakistan shot 75 Indian aircrafts down, whereas India shot 20 Pakistani aircrafts down.

I see you are just clinging to a rather naive interpretation of the events.

Regarding the 'net loss of territory' metric, then USA was not defeated in 'Nam nor was the Soviet Union defeated in Afghanistan because 'Nam or Afg was neither theirs to start with.

In short Pakistan achieved NONE of its objectives in any of the wars it started with India.

1948 - Objective - Capture completely the Independent state of Kashmir which it failed after India intevened.

1965 - Objective - Liberate Indian Kashmir in which again failed and India ending up with more hostile territory than Pakistan

1971- Enuff said.

1984 - Tactical and Strategic Indian victory in Siachen

1999 -Objective - Liberation of kashmir - Re-capture of all Indian territory by India and hence again a failure in its objective. Also anyone with an iota of mil knowledge will know that offenseive forces generally suffer larger casualties than defensive forces - which by no means defines who is victor or loser.

How can a nation that did not achieve a single objective called a victor ?

 

[53fd]

I see you are just clinging to a rather naive interpretation of the events.

Pakistan's wars with India are different from USA's war of Vietnam, or Soviet Union's war in Afghanistan. Neither fought over the disputed territory of Kashmir like Pakistan & India did.

 

[Kalyugi Mirza]

bhai g jang jazbon se lari jati na k weapons se....................... janab e wala aur tareekh gawah ha k ham hamesha jazbon se lary hain na k hathyaron se

Teach this thing to your soldier and people to fight against corruption , terrorist because the your true enemy is hidden inside your country..

 

[Shabz Nist]

I see you are just clinging to a rather naive interpretation of the events.

Bilal's strategy for pdf-

When in doubt, deflect...roll around in the mud....hope people will change topic....out of sheer boredom.

 

[alimukhtar]

Teach this thing to your soldier and people to fight against corruption , terrorist because the your true enemy is hidden inside your country..

Corruption is everywhere in world, do you claim dat India is corruption free? and terrorism is also an International Issue, in your country dere is much violence, terrorism & extremism dan any country...... regards... & our soldiers know well wat to do and wat not to.

 

[Ambitious449]

In 1999, India recaptured all of its lost territory (& it gained no territory) after international pressure on Pakistan to return them back to India. Net result: no territory was gained by either side. India had 6 times the strength of the Pakistan forces, yet they suffered a higher (losses + injuries) figure than Pakistan.

In 1948, India had 6 times the strength of the Pakistan forces, but they captured only 60% of Kashmir, whereas Pakistan captured 40% of Kashmir. According to the ratios, Pakistan should have gained only 16.66% of Kashmir (100/6), whereas India should have won 83.33% of it.

India started the war when it crossed international borders. In terms of net territory, there were little changes in the 1965 war. So the only way to determine who won the war is to look at other factors. In 1965, Pakistan had a better (troops strength/troops lost) ratio than India. In terms of aircrafts, Pakistan shot 75 Indian aircrafts down, whereas India shot 20 Pakistani aircrafts down.

Why we wanted to captured your territory.It was never India's objective. India's clear objective is to regain territory which was held by Pakistani Intruders. We did it. Atalbihari Vajpayee announced that India won't cross LOC while the Kargil war . SO clearly India don't want to enter into Pakistan occupied territory. Diplomacy is also part of modern warfare and India used it effectively in Kargil where Pakistan failed miserably. Personally i feel today's anarchy seeds were sawn in Kargil conflict. After Kargil Mushy became dictator and rest is history.

In 1965 it was stalemate but objective of Pakistani Army to freed Kashmir was failed so no tactical gain for Pakistan.

In 1948 you won some encounters with half trained Harising Army. Against Indian army your performance was not that lucrative.
In 1971- No need to describe. Everybody knows what happened.

 

[OrionHunter]

shastri died of a heart attack in tashkent...lol

Trolling as usual? What has Shastri's death got to do with the 1965 Indo-Pak war?

The war began following Pakistan's Operation Gibraltar, which was designed to infiltrate forces into Jammu and Kashmir to precipitate an insurgency against rule by India. The five-week war caused thousands of casualties on both sides. It ended in a United Nations (UN) mandated ceasefire.

Pakistan failed in its attempt to annex Kashmir by force (Operation Gibraltar), the Raison d'être for the 1965 war, also known as the second Kashmir war. In that sense, it can be said that Pakistan failed as it lost the war. If it had won, then probably Kashmir would have been a part of Pakistan today!