What's new

When India Invaded Pakistan

Exactly.

Indian started the war , not Pakistan. So please tell this to your poor brainwashed masses.... Pakistan was just creating a low-level insurgency in Kashmir (Not even mainland India) ... We also think that India is creating insurgency in Balochistan...but we don't invade Indian international borders...

Indian invasion of Lahore is what formally started 1965 war ... which ended in Pakistan's military victory as Pakistan defeated Indian attack on Lahore city and forced indians to retreat , captured strategically important Indian towns like Khem Kharan , captured strategically important Indian supply-lines like Muna Bao railway station , PAF just badly battered five times larger IAF , and all this eventually forced India to face the humiliation of signing an agreement of stalemate with SEVEN TIMES smaller nation-that was badly outgunned and outnumbered during the war... Your OWN media back then called it as "giving a walkover to Pakistan." :agree:

So we have no problem with your 'reply' ...but just don't brainwashed your masses that Pakistan started the war. It was aggressor India who invaded the West Pakistan.:)


No it was not a stalemate, you won it. Happy now? :lol:

Just sit for a moment in peace and ask yourself what have you gained after 4 wars with India.

What you lost? Half of your country. :lol:
 
.
Exactly.

Indian started the war , not Pakistan. So please tell this to your poor brainwashed masses.... Pakistan was just creating a low-level insurgency in Kashmir (Not even mainland India) ... We also think that India is creating insurgency in Balochistan...but we don't invade Indian international borders...

Indian invasion of Lahore is what formally started 1965 war ... which ended in Pakistan's military victory as Pakistan defeated Indian attack on Lahore city and forced indians to retreat , captured strategically important Indian towns like Khem Kharan , captured strategically important Indian supply-lines like Muna Bao railway station , PAF just badly battered five times larger IAF , and all this eventually forced India to face the humiliation of signing an agreement of stalemate with SEVEN TIMES smaller nation-that was badly outgunned and outnumbered during the war... Your OWN media back then called it as "giving a walkover to Pakistan." :agree:

So we have no problem with your 'reply' ...but just don't brainwashed your masses that Pakistan started the war. It was aggressor India who invaded the West Pakistan.:)

This is funny.
Going by this explanation, Pak was creating a low level insurgency by infiltrating the SSG into J&K and expected India not to react. !

.. and if at all India reacted it should be within the confines of the Pak game plan i.e. keeping it confined to J&K only.

To Indians , this analogy seems like India attacking Pak in Sind and expecting pak to retaliate in Sind only. Anything outside this is ' not fair'.

After decades, pak tried the same in Kargil in 99 too .

I am c&P excerpts of a book entitled ' HISTORY OF 1965 WAR-LIEUTENANT GENERAL MAHMUD -2006-". This book was so truthful that the PA bought out all 22000 copies for fear of exploding the myth that Pak won the war - not that it matters anymore after so many years. My view is that both lost.

PAKISTAN OBSERVER: HISTORY OF 1965 WAR-LIEUTENANT GENERAL MAHMUD

1.On page 139 he states that Pakistani High Command regarded the international border with India as “inviolable”.This clears the myth that that it was ZAB alone who duped the naieve Pakistani generals into launching an offensive in Kashmir.

2.On page 530 Mahmud debunks the much circulated theory of Pakistan being at a disdvantage in 1965 , thus he states “ The critical question is whether the Pakistan Army had the resources in 1965 to undertake the gigantic double envelopment pre-emptive offensive ? The answer is yes” ........but then Mahmuds goes on to elaborate Pakistans military strategic failure at the highest level when he states “ Had the military objective been perceived correctly and had the necessary planning been done thoroughly for such an offensive operation”.

3.On page 532 he places the blame squarely on the higher level commanders when he states “ Pakistan Army’s conduct of operations in 1965 war was gravely marred by incorrect assessment of Indian strength,intentions and capabilities”.

4. On page 363 and 364 Mahmud confirms the greatest intelligence failure of the war when the capture of Indian despatch riders mail confirming presence of Indian 1st Armoured Division was not taken seriously by both 15 Division Headquarters and GHQ.
Major General Naseerullah Babar who I had interviewed in March 2001 had stated in the interview that the then DG Military Intelligence Brigadier Irshad had dismissed this as an Indian deception plan.
 
. .
Indo-Pakistan War of 1965

Indo-Pakistan War of 1965

The second Indo-Pakistani conflict (1965) was also fought over Kashmir and started without a formal declaration of war. The war began in August 5, 1965 and was ended Sept 22, 1965.

The war was initiated by Pakistan who since the defeat of India by China in 1962 had come to believe that Indian military would be unable or unwilling to defend against a quick military campaign in Kashmir, and because the Pakistani government was becoming increasingly alarmed by Indian efforts to integrate Kashmir within India. There was also a perception that there was widespread popular support within for Pakistani rule and that the Kashmiri people were disatisfied with Indian rule.

After Pakistan was successful in the Rann of Kutch earlier in 1965, Ayub Khan (by nature a cautious person) was pressured by the hawks in his cabinet (led by Z.A. Bhutto) and the army to infiltrate the ceasefire line in Kashmir. The action was based on the incorrect premise that indigenous resistance could be ignited by a few saboteurs. Ayub resisted the idea as he foresaw India crossing the international frontier in retaliation at a point of its choosing. The Bhutto faction, which included some prominent generals, put out the canard that Ayub's cowardice stemmed from his desire to protect his newly acquired wealth. It was boasted at the time that one Pakistani soldier was equal to four Indian soldiers and so on.

On August 5, 1965 between 26,000 and 33,000 Pakistani soldiers crossed the Line of Control dressed as Kashmiri locals headed for various areas within Kashmir. Indian forces, tipped off by the local populace, crossed the cease fire line on August 15.

The initial battles between India and Pakistan were contained within Kashmir involving both infantry and armor units with each country's air force playing major roles. It was not until early Sept. when Pakistani forces attacked Ackhnur that the Indians escalated the conflict by attacking targets within Pakistan itself, forcing the Pakistani forces to disengage from Ackhnur to counter Indian attacks.

The largest engagement of the war occurred in the Sialkot region where some 400 to 600 tanks squared off. Unfortunately the battle was indecisive.

By Sept 22 both sides had agreed to a UN mandated cease-fire ending the war that had by that point reached a stalemate.

Overall, the war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavy--on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government.

Pakistan was rudely shocked by the reaction of the United States to the war. Judging the matter to be largely Pakistan s fault, the United States not only refused to come to Pakistan s aid under the terms of the Agreement of Cooperation, but issued a statement declaring its neutrality while also cutting off military supplies.

The Pakistanis were embittered at what they considered a friend's betrayal, and the experience taught them to avoid relying on any single source of support. For its part, the United States was disillusioned by a war in which both sides used United States-supplied equipment. The war brought other repercussions for the security relationship as well. The United States withdrew its military assistance advisory group in July 1967. In response to these events, Pakistan declined to renew the lease on the Peshawar military facility, which ended in 1969. Eventually, United States-Pakistan relations grew measurably weaker as the United States became more deeply involved in Vietnam and as its broader interest in the security of South Asia waned.

Iran, Indonesia, and especially China gave political support to Pakistan during the war, thus suggesting new directions in Pakistan that might translate into support for its security concerns. Most striking was the attitude of the Soviet Union. Its post-Khrushchev leadership, rather than rallying reflexively to India's side, adopted a neutral position and ultimately provided the good offices at Tashkent, which led to the January 1966 Tashkent Declaration that restored the status quo ante.

The aftermath of the 1965 war saw a dramatic shift in Pakistan's security environment. Instead of a single alignment with the United States against China and the Soviet Union, Pakistan found itself cut off from United States military support, on increasingly warm terms with China, and treated equitably by the Soviet Union. Unchanged was the enmity with which India and Pakistan regarded each other over Kashmir. The result was the elaboration of a new security approach, called by Ayub Khan the "triangular tightrope"--a tricky endeavor to maintain good ties with the United States while cultivating China and the Soviet Union. Support from other developing nations was also welcome. None of the new relationships carried the weight of previous ties with the United States, but, taken together, they at least provided Pakistan with a political counterbalance to India.
 
.
The guy above me gives "globalsecurity.org" as a "source" ? :lol:

Whats next? India TV?

And third eye...I'm not talking about reaction etc...but the fact that India started the war and not Pakistan.

Simple
 
.

Najam sethi can help you understand your History
don't tell we he is CIA or RAW agent :)

[video]http://youtube.com/watch?v=exAlTqrfRa4[/video]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
do you have any links which are not pakistani which say we started the war? even the one of the bbc mentioned in the article will do:)

ok.



1965: Indian Army invades W Pakistan​


Indian troops have invaded West Pakistan, crossing the border at three points in an attack which appears to be aimed mainly at the city of Lahore.

Authorities in Delhi say their action was intended to prevent a direct attack by Pakistani forces against India.

On 25 August, Pakistani soldiers launched a covert operation across the ceasefire line, established in 1949 after the first Indo-Pakistani war, into Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir.

Since then there have been a number of clashes along the ceasefire line, but this is the first time Indian troops have crossed into West Pakistan in what is being seen as an act of war.

Air attacks

Since the first Indo-Pakistan war, both countries have continued to lay claim to the entire state of Kashmir. Currently Pakistan controls the smaller, northern sector of Azad Kashmir and the remaining area of Jammu and Kashmir, known commonly as Kashmir, is held by India.

Details of today's invasion are sketchy. There have been reports of the Indian Air Force in action, striking against military targets, including an oil tanker train, a group of military vehicles, a goods train carrying supplies, an army camp and some gun positions.

A spokesman for the Indian government said: "Our policy is that when Pakistan has bases from which it is mounting attacks on our territory we have to destroy those bases."

The Defence Minister Yashwantrao Chavan blamed recent attacks by Pakistani forces for the invasion.

Although there have been a number of air attacks against Indian installations in Punjab, these seem to have been mostly by single aircraft.

But Mr Chavan said: "It was quite apparent Pakistan's next move was to attack Punjab across the international frontier."

Reports from the Pakistani city of Karachi say forces have beaten back the Indian Army from Lahore.

They said advances at the border towns of Jasar, Wagah and Bedian had all been "fully stopped".

Pakistani officials say the number of Indian dead in the Lahore sector is 800, their own casualties are reported to be "very light".

The Pakistani President Ayub Khan has made an emergency broadcast to the nation saying, "We are at war".

He said the Indian attack was proof of the evil intentions which India had always harboured against Pakistan.

Reports from Delhi say Pakistani paratroopers have landed in the Punjab. Small groups have dropped in three places, Pathankot, Patiala and Ambala in an apparent attempt to damage military installations.

BBC ON THIS DAY | 6 | 1965: Indian Army invades W Pakistan
 
.
The guy above me gives "globalsecurity.org" as a "source" ? :lol:

Whats next? India TV?

And third eye...I'm not talking about reaction etc...but the fact that India started the war and not Pakistan.

Simple

You invaded Kashmir (Indian territorry). We invaded Lahore in response (Pakistani territorry). WHats so hard to understand here?
 
.
No it was not a stalemate, you won it. Happy now? :lol:

I know. Pakistan won the war....but it was a strategic stalemate....

Just sit for a moment in peace and ask yourself what have you gained after 4 wars with India.


What you lost? Half of your country. :lol:

Awww thats what makes you feel better , after 1000s of years of humiliation and slavery?

We didn't lost 'half' of our country... The East Pakistan was already thousands of miles away from West Pakistan...

West Pakistan remains as it was...East Pakistan remains as it was...Just changed named and became free.

Secondly , 1971 was a political defeat of Pakistan....It wasn't a military war.... When your own nation is against you...there can NOT be any 'military war' with enemy.

BTW , who got the last laugh? :lol: E.Pakistan remained a Muslim nation...India couldn't get its 'lost' territory...Bengalis started illegal immigration to India...causing demographics to change in favor of Muslims...your political structure became paralyzed due to increased Islamic demographics...bunch of sms caused administrative HAVOC in India :lol:

We remain what we were.... A united West Pakistan containing 1200 milion indians in gigantic plains ...lol...

You invaded Kashmir (Indian territorry). We invaded Lahore in response (Pakistani territorry). WHats so hard to understand here?

We did not.

War started after formal invasion of Lahore by India...

Learn the difference between 'formal invasion' and 'creating insurgency'
 
.
ok.



1965: Indian Army invades W Pakistan​


Indian troops have invaded West Pakistan, crossing the border at three points in an attack which appears to be aimed mainly at the city of Lahore.

Authorities in Delhi say their action was intended to prevent a direct attack by Pakistani forces against India.

On 25 August, Pakistani soldiers launched a covert operation across the ceasefire line, established in 1949 after the first Indo-Pakistani war, into Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir.




You fail at failing.


I know. Pakistan won the war....but it was a strategic stalemate....



Awww thats what makes you feel better , after 1000s of years of humiliation and slavery?

We didn't lost 'half' of our country... The East Pakistan was already thousands of miles away from West Pakistan...

West Pakistan remains as it was...East Pakistan remains as it was...Just changed named and became free.

Secondly , 1971 was a political defeat of Pakistan....It wasn't a military war.... When your own nation is against you...there can NOT be any 'military war' with enemy.

BTW , who got the last laugh? :lol: E.Pakistan remained a Muslim nation...India couldn't get its 'lost' territory...Bengalis started illegal immigration to India...causing demographics to change in favor of Muslims...your political structure became paralyzed due to increased Islamic demographics...bunch of sms caused administrative HAVOC in India :lol:

We remain what we were.... A united West Pakistan containing 1200 milion indians in gigantic plains ...lol...

Look at my signature, whine, and post you delusional BS. Then repeat it. I love when white fumes come out of your rectum. :lol:
 
. . .
Article 370 clearly states Kashmri as being an "integral" part of India

Stop repeating the old story, Kashmir was never "Integral" part of India. The agreement states clearly that as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir, State's accession should be settled by a reference to the people.
 
. .
Stop repeating the old story, Kashmir was never "Integral" part of India. The agreement states clearly that as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir, State's accession should be settled by a reference to the people.

Yes it was, and will always be Indian :bounce:
 
.
Back
Top Bottom