Outcome of Indo-Pak 1965 warfare – CIA reveals that India suffered more casualties and losses

[Lonewarrior]

1. Casualties: Killed, Captured, Missing, Wounded in Action.

Pakistan: 3000-5000 out of 189,000 strength.
India: 4000-6000 out of 942,000 strength.

2. Armor Losses:

Pakistan: 250 Tanks out of 900
India: 300 Out of 1500

3. Aircraft Losses:

Pakistan: PAF lost 19 aircrafts
India: IAF lost more than 75 aircrafts

Report concludes that Pakistan outperformed Indian Air Force.


4. Territorial Gains:

Pakistan: 210^2km of Indian territory, mostly strategically important, including key Military areas.

India: 320^2km of Pakistani non strategic territory, as its blitzkrieg in Sialkot and Lahore failed.


Conclusion:

India had an "inconsequential" advantage due to the size of its military. Pakistan succeeded in bringing International intervention on Kashmir issue.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79T00472A000600020013-0.pdf

 

[Bigboii]

Before 1965 they were saying that we would run over India in case of a war between the two nation (they sold us those weapons and indian weapons were mostly soviet and british)

So according to their predictions we under achieved but we all know that size difference matters

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

CIA what have you done?

Our media will reverse these figures now and keep showing it again and again.

 

[Technics 1210]

Time to update Wiki!

 

[JaDed]

CIA what have you done?

Our media will reverse these figures now and keep showing it again and again.

No they will blame Congress for lying..

 

[Bigboii]

PAF especially at that time was a great fighting machine because our planes were top class (we were a "close" US ally second only to Israel so our weapons were top class American weapons of the time)

This close alliance also showed up in our economic success of the decade (60s) because if you're a "close" American ally they make sure you're at a certain first world like economic status (like they did with Europe after WW2 (unlike what happened in eastern europe) Korea, turkey and many other allies)

But this Economic success comes at a price of being an American lapdog

So this war stopped that success because US wanted Pakistan to not get involved in the war but pakistan did

In response American establishment believed that Pakistan cannot be relied upon and they don't "listen" to us so that close "alliance" in the coming decades would decline to where we are right know (along with our economy)

 

[JaDed]

Can you paste points 4 and 5 here [MENTION=140488]Lonewarrior[/MENTION].

Actually paste all the points here for people to see in Casualty and Gains.

 

[Bigboii]

PAF especially at that time was a great fighting machine because our planes were top class (we were a "close" US ally second only to Israel so our weapons were top class American weapons of the time)

This close alliance also showed up in our economic success of the decade (60s) because if you're a "close" American ally they make sure you're at a certain first world like economic status (like they did with Europe after WW2 (unlike what happened in eastern europe) Korea, turkey and many other allies)

But this Economic success comes at a price of being an American lapdog

So this war stopped that success because US wanted Pakistan to not get involved in the war but pakistan did

In response American establishment believed that Pakistan cannot be relied upon and they don't "listen" to us so that close "alliance" in the coming decades would decline to where we are right know (along with our economy)

So I think in order to be successful economically a country "must" be in the good books of the US and if you're not they bully you into obsecurity (Russia with it's natural resources is severely underachieving economically, USSR was the second biggest economy in the world for a long time) libya and countless other examples

 

[Bigboii]

PAF especially at that time was a great fighting machine because our planes were top class (we were a "close" US ally second only to Israel so our weapons were top class American weapons of the time)

This close alliance also showed up in our economic success of the decade (60s) because if you're a "close" American ally they make sure you're at a certain first world like economic status (like they did with Europe after WW2 (unlike what happened in eastern europe) Korea, turkey and many other allies)

But this Economic success comes at a price of being an American lapdog

So this war stopped that success because US wanted Pakistan to not get involved in the war but pakistan did

In response American establishment believed that Pakistan cannot be relied upon and they don't "listen" to us so that close "alliance" in the coming decades would decline to where we are right know (along with our economy)

I was wrong in saying second only (because western europe was a closer ally) but we were a very close Ally (kinda like Korea or turkey 20 years ago (pre Erdogan))

 

[Mesozoic]

Pakistan succeeded in bringing International intervention on Kashmir issue.

And here we are after five and a half decades with the Indian flag still flying high in Srinagar, Kargil and Jammu.

 

[JaDed]

Posters need to read the report than the title of the thread.

 

[Mesozoic]

CIA what have you done?

Our media will reverse these figures now and keep showing it again and again.

There's no need to do that. Really.

Wars are never decided on casualty count. Ofcourse with a huge army, death count will be quite high. Quite like how the Soviets suffered heavy casualties during ww2 but ended up in Berlin annihilating the Germans.

I'm pretty sure we had more tank and aircraft losses in 1971 too but we know how that ended.....

 

[msaaim89]

And here we are after five and a half decades with the Indian flag still flying high in Srinagar, Kargil and Jammu.

Some people really need to grow up.

Pakistan could say despite India being 5x bigger, they still don't have Azad Kashmir?

 

[msaaim89]

There's no need to do that. Really.

Wars are never decided on casualty count. Ofcourse with a huge army, death count will be quite high. Quite like how the Soviets suffered heavy casualties during ww2 but ended up in Berlin annihilating the Germans.

I'm pretty sure we had more tank and aircraft losses in 1971 too but we know how that ended.....

No they aren't, however numbers do play a massive role. Unless you're tech is superior, you aren't going to win a 5-1 ratio.

 

[OldWarHorse]

Posters need to read the report than the title of the thread.

Yeah the OP has picked and chosen his points to paint a narrative, but clearly as both the summary and conclusion suggest, India achieved the greater territorial victories and that my guess is why the war was fought for, not for counting who lost fewer men at the end of it.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Regardless of who suffered more casualties, Pakistan lost the war. Why? Because Pakistan started a war to liberate Kashmir, and Kashmir was still part of India after the war.

Bhutto told Ayub to attack India in 1962 during the Indo-Sino war. Pakistan would have had a much better chance to win had they attacked in 1962 instead of 1965.

 

[Bigboii]

Regardless of who suffered more casualties, Pakistan lost the war. Why? Because Pakistan started a war to liberate Kashmir, and Kashmir was still part of India after the war.

Bhutto told Ayub to attack India in 1962 during the Indo-Sino war. Pakistan would have had a much better chance to win had they attacked in 1962 instead of 1965.

Adding to that we lost our close alliance with US and because of that our economic boom of the 60s stopped

I think this was the bigger lost because during the same time period many devaloping countries turned into first world countries in just one generation and "we were in the same if not better situation(imo we were in a better position) than them"

 

[BreadPakoda]

Congrats.

 

[Lonewarrior]

Posters need to read the report than the title of the thread.

Can you paste points 4 and 5 here [MENTION=140488]Lonewarrior[/MENTION].

Actually paste all the points here for people to see in Casualty and Gains.

in which part of the world, 5000 is bigger thn 6000 ? or 250 is bigger thn 300 ? etc etc ?

 

[JaDed]

in which part of the world, 5000 is bigger thn 6000 ? or 250 is bigger thn 300 ? etc etc ?

Paste the entire report and let everyone decide, also this sets a precedent as to whether CIA reports will be considered as a fact from now on.

 

[Lonewarrior]

Paste the entire report and let everyone decide, also this sets a precedent as to whether CIA reports will be considered as a fact from now on.

i have shared the link, anyone can see it. if you have problem with title thread thn i will request mods to change the title of the thread .....
[MENTION=133760]Abdullah719[/MENTION]

plz change the title and Op of the thread .... thanks

 

[Mesozoic]

Conclusion:

India had an "inconsequential" advantage due to the size of its military. Pakistan succeeded in bringing International intervention on Kashmir issue.

Now that I read the report, that's literally not the conclusion that is mentioned in the report.

Overall then, India seems at this point to have emerged from the recent conflict in the better position.

What an own goal by OP.

 

[JAI- a Cricket fan]

Everyone please read the report completely. It's an own goal by OP

 

[Pakpak]

Not surprised, it was the same in Kargil. Sadly places like Wikipedia need to be updated but are run by Indians Mods. Even last Feb's skirmish I put in numerous complaints for them to even include the 27th strikes, the Indians kept shutting it out.

Masters of propaganda. On places like reddit a few days ago it was leaked that the Balochistan section wasn't run by Balochis but Indians

 

[Mesozoic]

Some people really need to grow up.

Pakistan could say despite India being 5x bigger, they still don't have Azad Kashmir?

Oh really ? What's so immature in my comment? What good did that "international intervention" do to Pakistan to consider it a success ? Please tell me I'm all ears.

And the latter part, yes. You could say that. But do we care ? A big fat no. 99.99% of Indians won't give two hoots about the so called Azad Kashmir. And the government knows it too. Most Indians want the LOC to be made an international border so that this nautanki will end once and for all.

 

[Pakpak]

Not sure why people are bashing the OP.

I will quote the summary:

'''In finite military terms India won but the territory it took was inconsequential and its actual military losses were greater than Pakistan and its objectives of Lahore and Sialkot were not completed''''

 

[JaDed]

Adding to that we lost our close alliance with US and because of that our economic boom of the 60s stopped

I think this was the bigger lost because during the same time period many devaloping countries turned into first world countries in just one generation and "we were in the same if not better situation(imo we were in a better position) than them"

There is an old Indian movie Gharam Hawa, it starts after Partition, how many Indian Muslims after the partition migrate to Pakistan, different reasons,no jobs no business etc...

In one scene few graduate youth are sitting having tea , unable to secure jobs, the Sikh and Hindu guy say to the Muslim hero(Farooq Sheikh) if you don't get it you can go off to Pakistan- almost implying how well Pak was doing at that time.(in that movie his elder brother had already migrated to Pakistan and had gotten well to do, but the father,mother and son stayed back.)

 

[Bhaijaan]

Congratulations to all Pakistanis from my side for this new revelation about 1965 war.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

There is an old Indian movie Gharam Hawa, it starts after Partition, how many Indian Muslims after the partition migrate to Pakistan, different reasons,no jobs no business etc...

In one scene few graduate youth are sitting having tea , unable to secure jobs, the Sikh and Hindu guy say to the Muslim hero(Farooq Sheikh) if you don't get it you can go off to Pakistan- almost implying how well Pak was doing at that time.(in that movie his elder brother had already migrated to Pakistan and had gotten well to do, but the father,mother and son stayed back.)

That mostly reflects the experience of Middle Class and above Urdu Speaking Muslims. As in having some relatives stay in India and some stay in Pakistan. And as they were better educated they were able to dominate the government jobs in Pakistan, until the quota system took place.

However even now Urdu Speaking people are the richest group in Pakistan. And Karachi is the most liberal city in Pakistan because Urdu Speaking people are the majority there.

 

[Swashbuckler]

I remember [MENTION=253]the Great Khan[/MENTION] made a great post summarizing the Indo-Pak wars. That man is knowledgeable about military matters and it was a great read, well deserved POTW
http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?270568-POTW-(Time-Pass-amp-Sports)-the-Great-Khan&p=9666915

Anyway coming to the subject at hand I don't think we have winners in these kind of situations, only suffering. If 5000 of my country's soldiers die, should I celebrate that 6000 Pakistani soldiers died or feel sad that the number was 4000 on the other side. For an event that took place more than half a century ago when my mother wasn't born!!!! Is there any situation where I come out on top? Or does it affect my day to day life?

A tragedy that while rest of the world has marched ahead, even the former colonies who got independence in 1940s and 50s, India and Pakistan continue to behave like petulant egomaniacs. Instead of lifting our citizens from poverty or focusing on sanitation, education we make arms manufacturers from other countries happy. Pakistan had its problems with civilian-military balance of power and now in India we have a party which is keen to politicize Indian armed forces, use soldiers as vote catchers. Sad state of affairs.

India is second most populous country in the world, Pakistan at number 5, together with close to 20% of world population. What is our positive contribution since 1947? Anything we have achieved that other countries would want to emulate? Any incentive that would force bright minds from Germany, USA and NZ to migrate to India/Pakistan? Instead of setting high standards in development indices and social justice we'd rather ponder upon how many enemy tanks we destroyed or how many POWs we captured x years ago. Govts, hawks, media, nationalists(pseudo) all are responsible for this. Why not have friendly competition in matters like teacher/student ratio in classrooms or per capita number of free hospital beds for the 'below poverty line' citizens and push each other to be better versions of ourselves?

 

[CricketCartoons]

Anyway coming to the subject at hand I don't think we have winners in these kind of situations, only suffering. If 5000 of my country's soldiers die, should I celebrate that 6000 Pakistani soldiers died or feel sad that the number was 4000 on the other side. For an event that took place more than half a century ago when my mother wasn't born!!!! Is there any situation where I come out on top? Or does it affect my day to day life?

You are too soft. Win and loss is decided by the objective of the war, no matter what the price is to be paid. even a pyrrhic victory is still a victory.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Hope 1971 was the last full fledged war between the two countries. Hope Kargil was the last conflict.

 

[Star_Coffee]

Hope 1971 was the last full fledged war between the two countries. Hope Kargil was the last conflict.

Wishful thinking.

I believe India will continue to be involved in more conflicts (directly and indirectly) not just with Pakistan but also with China.

India will become new lapdog of US in SE Asia.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

I remember [MENTION=253]the Great Khan[/MENTION] made a great post summarizing the Indo-Pak wars. That man is knowledgeable about military matters and it was a great read, well deserved POTW
http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?270568-POTW-(Time-Pass-amp-Sports)-the-Great-Khan&p=9666915

Anyway coming to the subject at hand I don't think we have winners in these kind of situations, only suffering. If 5000 of my country's soldiers die, should I celebrate that 6000 Pakistani soldiers died or feel sad that the number was 4000 on the other side. For an event that took place more than half a century ago when my mother wasn't born!!!! Is there any situation where I come out on top? Or does it affect my day to day life?

A tragedy that while rest of the world has marched ahead, even the former colonies who got independence in 1940s and 50s, India and Pakistan continue to behave like petulant egomaniacs. Instead of lifting our citizens from poverty or focusing on sanitation, education we make arms manufacturers from other countries happy. Pakistan had its problems with civilian-military balance of power and now in India we have a party which is keen to politicize Indian armed forces, use soldiers as vote catchers. Sad state of affairs.

India is second most populous country in the world, Pakistan at number 5, together with close to 20% of world population. What is our positive contribution since 1947? Anything we have achieved that other countries would want to emulate? Any incentive that would force bright minds from Germany, USA and NZ to migrate to India/Pakistan? Instead of setting high standards in development indices and social justice we'd rather ponder upon how many enemy tanks we destroyed or how many POWs we captured x years ago. Govts, hawks, media, nationalists(pseudo) all are responsible for this. Why not have friendly competition in matters like teacher/student ratio in classrooms or per capita number of free hospital beds for the 'below poverty line' citizens and push each other to be better versions of ourselves?

Thats exactly what should happen. I would also suggest sports as a good place to have competition.

 

[Bigboii]

India will become new lapdog of US in SE Asia.

which will be great for India and its citizens...

 

[Mesozoic]

I remember [MENTION=253]the Great Khan[/MENTION] made a great post summarizing the Indo-Pak wars. That man is knowledgeable about military matters and it was a great read, well deserved POTW
http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?270568-POTW-(Time-Pass-amp-Sports)-the-Great-Khan&p=9666915

Off topic but that's the best post I've ever read on PP.
[MENTION=253]the Great Khan[/MENTION]

 

[Napa]

1. Casualties: Killed, Captured, Missing, Wounded in Action.

This CIA "report" is dated Oct 1, 1965. The war ended on Sep 23, 1965. There is no way the CIA could have made an accurate assessment of casualties within a week of the war ending!

2. Armor Losses:

Pakistan: 250 Tanks out of 900
India: 300 Out of 1500

Neutral sources like Tucker and Leonard say Pakistan lost more tanks. Also the CIA report says Pakistan as lost <b>at least</b> 250 tanks, while India has lost <b>up to</b>300 tanks.

3. Aircraft Losses:

Pakistan: PAF lost 19 aircrafts
India: IAF lost more than 75 aircrafts

These numbers have been "added" by you, they are not there in the report.

4. Territorial Gains:

Pakistan: 210^2km of Indian territory, mostly strategically important, including key Military areas.

India: 320^2km of Pakistani non strategic territory, as its blitzkrieg in Sialkot and Lahore failed.

The words "strategically important" and "non strategic" have been "added" by you, they are not there in the report.

Conclusion:

India had an "inconsequential" advantage due to the size of its military. Pakistan succeeded in bringing International intervention on Kashmir issue.

Again, that "Conclusion" is stuff you made up. The actual "Conclusion" in the report begins by saying "Over-all India at this point seems to have emerged from the recent conflict in the better position".

Also, the report says the following about the "disillusionment in the [Pakistani] Army".



Overall, you have done a pretty good job of creating fake news

 

[Mesozoic]

Wishful thinking.

I believe India will continue to be involved in more conflicts (directly and indirectly) not just with Pakistan but also with China.

India will become new lapdog of US in SE Asia.

Don't know about China, but India are not going to have any conflict with Pakistan for a long long time.

And once again that "India becoming US lapdog" comment will only make you look really silly and desperate.

 

[Pakpak]

I remember [MENTION=253]the Great Khan[/MENTION] made a great post summarizing the Indo-Pak wars. That man is knowledgeable about military matters and it was a great read, well deserved POTW
http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?270568-POTW-(Time-Pass-amp-Sports)-the-Great-Khan&p=9666915

Anyway coming to the subject at hand I don't think we have winners in these kind of situations, only suffering. If 5000 of my country's soldiers die, should I celebrate that 6000 Pakistani soldiers died or feel sad that the number was 4000 on the other side. For an event that took place more than half a century ago when my mother wasn't born!!!! Is there any situation where I come out on top? Or does it affect my day to day life?

A tragedy that while rest of the world has marched ahead, even the former colonies who got independence in 1940s and 50s, India and Pakistan continue to behave like petulant egomaniacs. Instead of lifting our citizens from poverty or focusing on sanitation, education we make arms manufacturers from other countries happy. Pakistan had its problems with civilian-military balance of power and now in India we have a party which is keen to politicize Indian armed forces, use soldiers as vote catchers. Sad state of affairs.

India is second most populous country in the world, Pakistan at number 5, together with close to 20% of world population. What is our positive contribution since 1947? Anything we have achieved that other countries would want to emulate? Any incentive that would force bright minds from Germany, USA and NZ to migrate to India/Pakistan? Instead of setting high standards in development indices and social justice we'd rather ponder upon how many enemy tanks we destroyed or how many POWs we captured x years ago. Govts, hawks, media, nationalists(pseudo) all are responsible for this. Why not have friendly competition in matters like teacher/student ratio in classrooms or per capita number of free hospital beds for the 'below poverty line' citizens and push each other to be better versions of ourselves?

I like this post, I am sure all sane people feel like this but all the good wishes do nothing and mean nothing. How do you propose to settle the Kashmir issue?

It is the ONLY issue between two nations, without it every other squabble would go away.

 

[Pakpak]

Wishful thinking.

I believe India will continue to be involved in more conflicts (directly and indirectly) not just with Pakistan but also with China.

India will become new lapdog of US in SE Asia.

This is true and its becoming painfully obvious to everyone except the Indians. Pakistan is not in the US camp anymore. The only way for US to mess with China is through India.

 

[Star_Coffee]

Don't know about China, but India are not going to have any conflict with Pakistan for a long long time.

And once again that "India becoming US lapdog" comment will only make you look really silly and desperate.

You might want to wait until the next general Indian elections.

Will be good for domestic consumption but an embarrassment on the international level.

Desperate are those who believe Indian pilot shot down F16 and killed 300+ people in Pakistani territory.

 

[Mesozoic]

You might want to wait until the next general Indian elections.

Will be good for domestic consumption but an embarrassment on the international level.

Desperate are those who believe Indian pilot shot down F16 and killed 300+ people in Pakistani territory.

Dude you're making no sense. What domestic consumption? What international embarrassment? What general elections ?

Yes. Desperate are those who live in a country where it's PM openly says "our future depends on this country" and sweats all over when asked about the world known persecution of his co-religious population in the aforementioned country despite his followers hyping him to be Messiah of the said religion and those still have the knack to call others lapdogs for defending their territory from encroachments.

I mean that's the superlative of desperation if you ask me

 

[Star_Coffee]

Dude you're making no sense. What domestic consumption? What international embarrassment? What general elections ?

Yes. Desperate are those who live in a country where it's PM openly says "our future depends on this country" and sweats all over when asked about the world known persecution of his co-religious population in the aforementioned country despite his followers hyping him to be Messiah of the said religion and those still have the knack to call others lapdogs for defending their territory from encroachments.

I mean that's the superlative of desperation if you ask me

The word used was "Linked" as the most economies of the world are linked.

I won't get into the embarrassment that India suffered because of the foolishness of the PM of India as it has already been discussed plenty of times and every sane person is aware of the facts.

 

[Swashbuckler]

I like this post, I am sure all sane people feel like this but all the good wishes do nothing and mean nothing. How do you propose to settle the Kashmir issue?

It is the ONLY issue between two nations, without it every other squabble would go away.

Can't speak for all Indians but I am in favor of self-determination. You are right Kashmir is the main thorn in bilateral relations and as an extension the reason for turmoil in this region. We should have done it earlier, post independence when it would have been easier but can't change the past. I am a fan of that Congress party and Nehru is a man I admire a lot. But Kashmir was a failure on their part, difficult to admit but true, the great Nehru botched it.

Kashmir has become an ego battle for many now and sadly Kashmiri civilians have no say in what they want, what their choice is. All sides have made big mistakes in the process, including top Kashmiri leaders. Additional complication is that many Indians in positions of power feel that easing the leash on Kashmir will add fire to other potential insurgencies in India. Sure the process of self determination will be bumpy, compromises will have to be made but there is no other solution.

History is witness that you can't force people to be part of your empire/state/country if they resent it. Ultimately such an arrangement isn't feasible in the long run, even a superpower like Great Britain had to make concessions with far weaker colonies. No empire or federation in history has been able to force itself upon an unwilling population for eternity, be it the Greeks, Persians, Mongols, Mughals, European colonizers, USSR, they all used brute force to subjugate the population and for a time it may have appeared that they had succeeded. It is possible to hold on to such places for centuries even but ultimately the day of reckoning always comes.

I think Kashmir is a similar issue, we already waste too much of our resources there and even after 75 years majority Kashmiri Muslims don't want to be part of India. Indian democracy has also failed them especially in recent times. Forget other pillars which have always been fallible, look at our judiciary which is working like an arm of the government now. I think most Indian PPers will agree with my rather harsh observations but their pride or misplaced notion of patriotism will prevent them from accepting the same. As a former colony that takes pride in its freedom struggle, the fact that Indian state and its people haven't been able to understand the pov of ordinary Kashmiris after 7 decades is quite sad.

Even if self-determination is difficult now I think there must be some gradual easing. I am not a supporter of 370 abrogation because JK isn't like other states. Still I would like to see a govt which values Kashmiris and not just the land. Moving troops away from towns and cities, ensuring justice in human rights violations cases, shunning Hindutva rhetoric, these should be basic starters. Hope Pakistan too clamps down on elements that want violence, that is never a solution. In the short term I do think more people to people contact across the LoC especially between the 2 Kashmirs, more trade, maybe even an open border like arrangement (with necessary precautions) can go a long way. Long term I think the rights/wishes/choices of Kashmiris must be respected and a process has to be initiated to give form to that. If that form is self-determination so be it.

 

[Mesozoic]

The word used was "Linked" as the most economies of the world are linked.

I won't get into the embarrassment that India suffered because of the foolishness of the PM of India as it has already been discussed plenty of times and every sane person is aware of the facts.

Ofcourse you wouldn't.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Thats exactly what should happen. I would also suggest sports as a good place to have competition.

Agree. This ban on bilateral sports is stupid, immature and petty IMO. Also support cultural exchanges whether in the form of lit fests, musicians performing cross-border or Pakistani actors in our movies (and vice versa).

 

[Napa]

Instead of setting high standards in development indices and social justice we'd rather ponder upon how many enemy tanks we destroyed or how many POWs we captured x years ago. Govts, hawks, media, nationalists(pseudo) all are responsible for this. Why not have friendly competition in matters like teacher/student ratio in classrooms or per capita number of free hospital beds for the 'below poverty line' citizens and push each other to be better versions of ourselves?

You come across as either naive or willfully ignorant of the situation when you ask such questions without considering the facts on the ground.

Pakistan is a country that is run for the benefit of its generals. It is a country where a Brigadier takes away from a poor peasant 3 kanals of land that he tills for his livelihood, to make up a total of 396 kanals received upon retirement from the Army.

Lacking modern industries the Pakistani generals are reverting to appropriating the thing of greatest value in the country, that is land.

https://newslinemagazine.com/magazine/the-new-land-barons/

There will be no peace between India and Pakistan as long as the Pakistani Army determines foreign policy. The Pakistani Army needs India as the external enemy to justify its domestic power, and continuing being able to take away land for the poor farmers.

An Indian Brigadier on retirement leads a comfortable but not extravagant life. They are not given any land grants. Their pension buys them enough for a nice 3 bed room apartment in Poona, golf twice a week and good meals. Nothing more. If you have a brain, you will be able to make out why the foreign policies of the two countries are radically different.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

You come across as either naive or willfully ignorant of the situation when you ask such questions without considering the facts on the ground.

Pakistan is a country that is run for the benefit of its generals. It is a country where a Brigadier takes away from a poor peasant 3 kanals of land that he tills for his livelihood, to make up a total of 396 kanals received upon retirement from the Army.

Lacking modern industries the Pakistani generals are reverting to appropriating the thing of greatest value in the country, that is land.

https://newslinemagazine.com/magazine/the-new-land-barons/

There will be no peace between India and Pakistan as long as the Pakistani Army determines foreign policy. The Pakistani Army needs India as the external enemy to justify its domestic power, and continuing being able to take away land for the poor farmers.

An Indian Brigadier on retirement leads a comfortable but not extravagant life. They are not given any land grants. Their pension buys them enough for a nice 3 bed room apartment in Poona, golf twice a week and good meals. Nothing more. If you have a brain, you will be able to make out why the foreign policies of the two countries are radically different.

There has no been no coup in Pakistan on the basis of foreign policy. They have done all coups on economic reasons, or based on stability.

Second land grabbing is not restricted to Army generals. Generals are a reflection of Pakistani society. They are not different than other Pakistani elite.

Here is an article on university lands being stolen by civilians

https://www.dawn.com/news/1304068

Bahria Town has also looted land

https://www.dawn.com/news/1503689

Some PTI politicians involved

https://www.dawn.com/news/1436120/sc-summons-two-pti-legislators-in-land-grabbing-case


This idea that Army generals are all thieves and rest of elite is Doodh ka dhula is not true. As a person whose family has land looted in Pakistan i know how much of a problem this.

In a ideal situation there would be across the board accountability, but my high hopes are not that high.

 

[Napa]

There has no been no coup in Pakistan on the basis of foreign policy. They have done all coups on economic reasons, or based on stability.

The Kargil War was started by the Pakistani Army as it did not like the rapprochement between Pakistan and India under NS and Vajpayee which led to the Lahore Declaration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahore_Declaration

Soon after Kargil, the Army staged a coup.

Second land grabbing is not restricted to Army generals. Generals are a reflection of Pakistani society. They are not different than other Pakistani elite.

Here is an article on university lands being stolen by civilians

https://www.dawn.com/news/1304068

Bahria Town has also looted land

https://www.dawn.com/news/1503689

Some PTI politicians involved

https://www.dawn.com/news/1436120/sc-summons-two-pti-legislators-in-land-grabbing-case


This idea that Army generals are all thieves and rest of elite is Doodh ka dhula is not true. As a person whose family has land looted in Pakistan i know how much of a problem this.

In a ideal situation there would be across the board accountability, but my high hopes are not that high.

Yes, it is true that the Pakistani Army is not the only land grabber, and other powerful elements also grab land. However, for the Army to have its domestic power it must have an external enemy that it can point to to distract the people's attention from its domestic actions.

Sorry that your family lost its land illegally.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

The Kargil War was started by the Pakistani Army as it did not like the rapprochement between Pakistan and India under NS and Vajpayee which led to the Lahore Declaration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahore_Declaration

Soon after Kargil, the Army staged a coup.

After Kargil, Nawaz Sharif tried to sack Musharraf, and then the Army did his coup. As he had already got rid of Jahangir Karamat they army had a plan in case something happened to Musharraf, and that is the reason for the coup. And India was never cited as the reason Musharraf took over.

Yes, it is true that the Pakistani Army is not the only land grabber, and other powerful elements also grab land. However, for the Army to have its domestic power it must have an external enemy that it can point to to distract the people's attention from its domestic actions.

Sorry that your family lost its land illegally.

They dont need an external enemy. If tomorrow India gives the entire Jammu Kashmir to Pakistan, the Army elites will still take the land. Why? Because they come from the society of looters as the rest of the elite.


And its not like the public is in love with the generals. Musharraf party got one seat in the 2013 election. They got zero in 2018.

So why does the army have power to do coups? Because a segment of the population is willing to welcome the coup for short term benefits, to settle scores with political rivals, and impatience with the progress of the country.

 

[Napa]

After Kargil, Nawaz Sharif tried to sack Musharraf, and then the Army did his coup. As he had already got rid of Jahangir Karamat they army had a plan in case something happened to Musharraf, and that is the reason for the coup. And India was never cited as the reason Musharraf took over.



They dont need an external enemy. If tomorrow India gives the entire Jammu Kashmir to Pakistan, the Army elites will still take the land. Why? Because they come from the society of looters as the rest of the elite.


And its not like the public is in love with the generals. Musharraf party got one seat in the 2013 election. They got zero in 2018.

So why does the army have power to do coups? Because a segment of the population is willing to welcome the coup for short term benefits, to settle scores with political rivals, and impatience with the progress of the country.

I think our differences in opinion are more of appearances than substance. Wishing you and your country the best and hope the poor farmers do not lose any more land.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

I think our differences in opinion are more of appearances than substance. Wishing you and your country the best and hope the poor farmers do not lose any more land.

Thanks. Im an optimist, and i think by 2050 Pakistan and India can have good relations. Like Canada and US.

 

[Pakpak]

After Kargil, Nawaz Sharif tried to sack Musharraf, and then the Army did his coup. As he had already got rid of Jahangir Karamat they army had a plan in case something happened to Musharraf, and that is the reason for the coup. And India was never cited as the reason Musharraf took over.



They dont need an external enemy. If tomorrow India gives the entire Jammu Kashmir to Pakistan, the Army elites will still take the land. Why? Because they come from the society of looters as the rest of the elite.


And its not like the public is in love with the generals. Musharraf party got one seat in the 2013 election. They got zero in 2018.

So why does the army have power to do coups? Because a segment of the population is willing to welcome the coup for short term benefits, to settle scores with political rivals, and impatience with the progress of the country.

Good post. Coups have had zero to do with India. It's been political in Pakistan. Musharraf came as Nawaz sacked him and the army refused to accept his replacement. Coups before as well had nothing to do with India.

Indians think our politics and elections are like theirs, being obsessed with us. It's not how Pakistani politics is run. India is barely mentioned in any coup or any election.

 

[Pakpak]

Can't speak for all Indians but I am in favor of self-determination. You are right Kashmir is the main thorn in bilateral relations and as an extension the reason for turmoil in this region. We should have done it earlier, post independence when it would have been easier but can't change the past. I am a fan of that Congress party and Nehru is a man I admire a lot. But Kashmir was a failure on their part, difficult to admit but true, the great Nehru botched it.

Kashmir has become an ego battle for many now and sadly Kashmiri civilians have no say in what they want, what their choice is. All sides have made big mistakes in the process, including top Kashmiri leaders. Additional complication is that many Indians in positions of power feel that easing the leash on Kashmir will add fire to other potential insurgencies in India. Sure the process of self determination will be bumpy, compromises will have to be made but there is no other solution.

History is witness that you can't force people to be part of your empire/state/country if they resent it. Ultimately such an arrangement isn't feasible in the long run, even a superpower like Great Britain had to make concessions with far weaker colonies. No empire or federation in history has been able to force itself upon an unwilling population for eternity, be it the Greeks, Persians, Mongols, Mughals, European colonizers, USSR, they all used brute force to subjugate the population and for a time it may have appeared that they had succeeded. It is possible to hold on to such places for centuries even but ultimately the day of reckoning always comes.

I think Kashmir is a similar issue, we already waste too much of our resources there and even after 75 years majority Kashmiri Muslims don't want to be part of India. Indian democracy has also failed them especially in recent times. Forget other pillars which have always been fallible, look at our judiciary which is working like an arm of the government now. I think most Indian PPers will agree with my rather harsh observations but their pride or misplaced notion of patriotism will prevent them from accepting the same. As a former colony that takes pride in its freedom struggle, the fact that Indian state and its people haven't been able to understand the pov of ordinary Kashmiris after 7 decades is quite sad.

Even if self-determination is difficult now I think there must be some gradual easing. I am not a supporter of 370 abrogation because JK isn't like other states. Still I would like to see a govt which values Kashmiris and not just the land. Moving troops away from towns and cities, ensuring justice in human rights violations cases, shunning Hindutva rhetoric, these should be basic starters. Hope Pakistan too clamps down on elements that want violence, that is never a solution. In the short term I do think more people to people contact across the LoC especially between the 2 Kashmirs, more trade, maybe even an open border like arrangement (with necessary precautions) can go a long way. Long term I think the rights/wishes/choices of Kashmiris must be respected and a process has to be initiated to give form to that. If that form is self-determination so be it.

[MENTION=93712]MenInG[/MENTION] POTW

My solution is similar to what Musharraf proposed. let Kashmir be open to Kashmiris and some level of autonomy and both nations should reduce their armies.

 

[Thomaskutty]

The Kargil War was started by the Pakistani Army as it did not like the rapprochement between Pakistan and India under NS and Vajpayee which led to the Lahore Declaration.

1999 coup is one example, as you mentioned. Another one is the lawyer's movement in 2007. Corps commanders in Pakistan allowed it to grow to stop their army chief Musharraf and the potential kashmir peace plan he was discussing with Manhoman Singh.

Quite simply, the self serving pakistan army is the sole reason for the indo-pak hostility of the last 70 years.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

1999 coup is one example, as you mentioned. Another one is the lawyer's movement in 2007. Corps commanders in Pakistan allowed it to grow to stop their army chief Musharraf and the potential kashmir peace plan he was discussing with Manhoman Singh.

Quite simply, the self serving pakistan army is the sole reason for the indo-pak hostility of the last 70 years.

Army Chief does not operate in a individual capacity. Any deal on Kashmir that Musharraf was going to make had the complete backing of his corp commanders.

That kind of deal can still happen. Giving Kashmir Valley a South Tyrol, or Aaland islands solution can work. Or you can extend that to include AJK, and Jammu as well, with India annexing Ladakh and Pakistan annexing Gilgit Baltistan.

Also Musharraf had very low popularity in Pakistan in 2007. The same way people in Pakistan got rid of Ayub, they also got rid of Musharraf. Pakistan has a history of dictatorships, however Pakistan also has a history of civilians getting rid of dictatorships.

 

[Napa]

1999 coup is one example, as you mentioned. Another one is the lawyer's movement in 2007. Corps commanders in Pakistan allowed it to grow to stop their army chief Musharraf and the potential kashmir peace plan he was discussing with Manhoman Singh.

Quite simply, the self serving pakistan army is the sole reason for the indo-pak hostility of the last 70 years.

I agree. Even if India gave Kashmir to Pakistan, the Pakistani Army would find some other reason to continue the low-level war with India that it is currently engaged in.

Gharib is right when he wrote "Pakistan has a history of dictatorships, however Pakistan also has a history of civilians getting rid of dictatorships." Pakistan does have an active civilian resistance to military influence in domestic affairs, and dissenting articles are not suppressed the way they are, for example in China against the Chinese CP. However, the projection of India as the enemy does help the Pakistani Army fend off its domestic critics (not always successfully).

 

[Local.Dada]

This is like some report that says in 1965 USSR got the better of USA during the Cold War because what matters in the end was what happened in 1990-1991. Don’t misunderstand my post, I am not talking about Pakistan in the present day context but pre 65 and post 71 Pakistan

 

[miandadrules]

7000-11,000 dead.

All those families affected.

So, people can thump their chest online.

 

[Star_Coffee]

The new narrative from Indian intellect on this forum is, "if India army give up on killing and raping Kashmiri then Pakistani army would find another reason to start a conflict".

Pakistani army will try to get Delhi or Mumbai?

 

[Rohan]

No one wins in war, no matter how you see it. Ask the mother who lost her son and you will get the reply.

 

[Syed1]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">For those trying to rewrite history of what happened in the 1965 war <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DefenceDay?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#DefenceDay</a> <a href="https://t.co/nx8ItPSBUH">pic.twitter.com/nx8ItPSBUH</a></p>— Asad Umar (@Asad_Umar) <a href="https://twitter.com/Asad_Umar/status/1302576315665707008?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 6, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[CRIC_FANtastic]

in which part of the world, 5000 is bigger thn 6000 ? or 250 is bigger thn 300 ? etc etc ?

Amm, actually in every part of the world when you consider (5000 out of 190K vs 6000 out of 950K). Let's look at this differently -

1. Casualties: Killed, Captured, Missing, Wounded in Action.

Pakistan: 2.6% of the force
India: 0.6% of the force
2. Armor Losses:

Pakistan: 28%
India: 20%

Now, not hard to imagine which side was running out of resources faster. Indeed, this is confirmed by CIA Report in point 4 (Pakistani air and ground forces were suffering severe shortage of Fuel, ammunition and spare parts)

 

[Mesozoic]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">For those trying to rewrite history of what happened in the 1965 war <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DefenceDay?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#DefenceDay</a> <a href="https://t.co/nx8ItPSBUH">pic.twitter.com/nx8ItPSBUH</a></p>— Asad Umar (@Asad_Umar) <a href="https://twitter.com/Asad_Umar/status/1302576315665707008?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 6, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

That "victory" is of a tank battle not the war. It's like saying 'we won the post lunch session on Day 2 in the third Test so we won the series' despite not actually winning it.

Besides, if we go by newspaper clippings Pakistan were supposed to win the '71 war too. But you know.....

 

[Syed1]

That “victory” is of a tank battle not the war. It’s like saying ‘we won the post lunch session on Day 2 in the third Test so we won the series’ despite not actually winning it.

Besides, if we go by newspaper clippings Pakistan were supposed to win the ’71 war too. But you know.....

You came to occupy Lahore but got beaten black and blue and had to retreat. But you still won?


Quite typical of hindutvas to bring in 71 whenever the discussion is India Pakistan because that is the only time you won


Remember Pakistan still holds the tops we occupied in Kargil, and still holds half of Kashmir which is your territory. Even in 2019 we showed you your auqaat. Obviously all of these times you claimed victory. Thank God we had social media and internet in 2019 otherwise you lot would have spread the false word to the world of how a F-16 was shot down and people might even have believed you )

 

[Romali_rotti]

Can't speak for all Indians but I am in favor of self-determination. You are right Kashmir is the main thorn in bilateral relations and as an extension the reason for turmoil in this region. We should have done it earlier, post independence when it would have been easier but can't change the past. I am a fan of that Congress party and Nehru is a man I admire a lot. But Kashmir was a failure on their part, difficult to admit but true, the great Nehru botched it.

Kashmir has become an ego battle for many now and sadly Kashmiri civilians have no say in what they want, what their choice is. All sides have made big mistakes in the process, including top Kashmiri leaders. Additional complication is that many Indians in positions of power feel that easing the leash on Kashmir will add fire to other potential insurgencies in India. Sure the process of self determination will be bumpy, compromises will have to be made but there is no other solution.

History is witness that you can't force people to be part of your empire/state/country if they resent it. Ultimately such an arrangement isn't feasible in the long run, even a superpower like Great Britain had to make concessions with far weaker colonies. No empire or federation in history has been able to force itself upon an unwilling population for eternity, be it the Greeks, Persians, Mongols, Mughals, European colonizers, USSR, they all used brute force to subjugate the population and for a time it may have appeared that they had succeeded. It is possible to hold on to such places for centuries even but ultimately the day of reckoning always comes.

I think Kashmir is a similar issue, we already waste too much of our resources there and even after 75 years majority Kashmiri Muslims don't want to be part of India. Indian democracy has also failed them especially in recent times. Forget other pillars which have always been fallible, look at our judiciary which is working like an arm of the government now. I think most Indian PPers will agree with my rather harsh observations but their pride or misplaced notion of patriotism will prevent them from accepting the same. As a former colony that takes pride in its freedom struggle, the fact that Indian state and its people haven't been able to understand the pov of ordinary Kashmiris after 7 decades is quite sad.

Even if self-determination is difficult now I think there must be some gradual easing. I am not a supporter of 370 abrogation because JK isn't like other states. Still I would like to see a govt which values Kashmiris and not just the land. Moving troops away from towns and cities, ensuring justice in human rights violations cases, shunning Hindutva rhetoric, these should be basic starters. Hope Pakistan too clamps down on elements that want violence, that is never a solution. In the short term I do think more people to people contact across the LoC especially between the 2 Kashmirs, more trade, maybe even an open border like arrangement (with necessary precautions) can go a long way. Long term I think the rights/wishes/choices of Kashmiris must be respected and a process has to be initiated to give form to that. If that form is self-determination so be it.

Awww such a cute post, I have to give credit where it is due.

Ok here:

I am all for Kashmiri Resolution, per the UN guidelines, first step and main step:

Pakistan must withdraw all of its troops from the entire region of J&K, while India gets to keep a minimum military presence to defend itself against any unexpected Pakistani aggression so Kashmiris can vote can take place

Second step:

China must also vacate from the Kashmiri land which they traded as an underhanded deal

Sounds fair ?

 

[gani999]

India will become new lapdog of US in SE Asia.

Lapdog hmm?

Maybe China and Pakistan consider themselves as the pillars of the world then?

So India should do to them what a dog does to a pillar!

 

[Mesozoic]

You came to occupy Lahore but got beaten black and blue and had to retreat. But you still won?

Kid, let me get the timeline straight for you.

Pakistan invades Kashmir to annex it under operation Gibraltar. India reacts by opening another front through the international border. Pakistan is "surprised" and had to run back to defend Lahore and Sialkot (which they did quite well credit where due). But loses almost twice the territory than it gains whilst exhausting more lives and arms (proportionately) than India. But ends up celebrating victory even though they couldn't get an inch of Kashmir (the whole objective behind the attack).

Quite typical of hindutvas to bring in 71 whenever the discussion is India Pakistan because that is the only time you won

Atleast we have that to do bhangra about. Some poor ones have nothing but surrenders and humiliations.

Remember Pakistan still holds the tops we occupied in Kargil, and still holds half of Kashmir which is your territory.

Yeah the point 5353 which is on your side of the LOC and was never actually under Indian control. Congratulations on that!

I can smell the desperation from here.

Even in 2019 we showed you your auqaat.

Meh. You deserve these choti choti khushiaan after all those embarrassments. No hard feelings.

 

[Thomaskutty]

The same way people in Pakistan got rid of Ayub, they also got rid of Musharraf. Pakistan has a history of dictatorships, however Pakistan also has a history of civilians getting rid of dictatorships.

Not true. The corps commanders thought Mush was going soft in his final years and had him removed through civil agitation, just like Nawaz Sharif later on. They could've easily nipped the 2007 lawyer's movement in the bud but they didn't.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Nothing we didn't know already, most Pakistanis have maintained this was the case even before the CIA confirmed it. But we are talking about India, it is the land of Bollywood fantasy, so they have been wilfully living in ignorance for half a century, and will probably continue to do so for the next one.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Not true. The corps commanders thought Mush was going soft in his final years and had him removed through civil agitation, just like Nawaz Sharif later on. They could've easily nipped the 2007 lawyer's movement in the bud but they didn't.

I heard Musharaff and Vajpayee were close to a deal on Kashmir, then Mursharaff mysteriously lost power......

Who knowss...

But hey atleast the Kashmiris still believe Pakistanis are on their side

 

[Romali_rotti]

Nothing we didn't know already, most Pakistanis have maintained this was the case even before the CIA confirmed it. But we are talking about India, it is the land of Bollywood fantasy, so they have been wilfully living in ignorance for half a century, and will probably continue to do so for the next one.

This is true, I agree. American intelligence have also stated that China lost more soldiers during the scuffle against India which most Pakistanis deny, so I guess they can now rest easy since Americans are valid source of reference for both Indian and Pakistanis... I hope you agree Cap..

 

[Poseidon]

Lol. Indians got triggered with just one thread on 6 september and this CIA report and bashing the Op. ) ) )

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

This is true, I agree. American intelligence have also stated that China lost more soldiers during the scuffle against India which most Pakistanis deny, so I guess they can now rest easy since Americans are valid source of reference for both Indian and Pakistanis... I hope you agree Cap..

Well it's quite simple, if Americans are telling the truth about Indo-China conflict, we will see India reclaiming lost territory regardless of who claims what. To date Indian military doesn't have much of a reputation so you can understand why it is hard to take their claims seriously.

 

[Mesozoic]

Nothing we didn't know already, most Pakistanis have maintained this was the case even before the CIA confirmed it. But we are talking about India, it is the land of Bollywood fantasy, so they have been wilfully living in ignorance for half a century, and will probably continue to do so for the next one.

Read the whole report cap. As a proud British citizen , you will be very pleased by the thoroughness and detail in that.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Read the whole report cap. As a proud British citizen , you will be very pleased by the thoroughness and detail in that.

I don't need to read the report to understand Pakistan was never going to win a fight with a much larger and better equipped enemy, but what shocked the world was that they fought India to a standstill regardless.

For a correct analogy, India would be like a gang of 30 thugs surrounding a young man and saying " now we got you, time to teach you the final lesson!"

A Pakistani would simply put up his fists and set his jaw, saying " no problem, I can take all of you with even one hand tied behind my back."

This is what Lala Afridi meant when he said Pakistanis have big hearts.

 

[gani999]

I don't need to read the report to understand Pakistan was never going to win a fight with a much larger and better equipped enemy, but what shocked the world was that they fought India to a standstill regardless.

For a correct analogy, India would be like a gang of 30 thugs surrounding a young man and saying " now we got you, time to teach you the final lesson!"

A Pakistani would simply put up his fists and set his jaw, saying " no problem, I can take all of you with even one hand tied behind my back."

This is what Lala Afridi meant when he said Pakistanis have big hearts.

In case you didn't know, Pakistan's forces were much better equipped than India's in 1965. Pakistan had just aligned itself with the USA and had all their latest toys, while the Indians was still fighting with WWII and late 1940s era weapons left behind by the British.

The point is that despite this imbalance and all the losses on the Indian side, Pakistan achieved absolutely nothing by way of military objectives in 1965. Zilch.

 

[OldWarHorse]

Likelihood is that he was killed a few years before that in some remote cave at the edge of a mountain in Afghanistan.

If that was the case, it would have come out by now, just like the WMD debacle. It would be up their with the greatest deceits that an American leader has inflicted upon the populace.

 

[Loralai]

One of the most embarrasing episodes in our history. We started the war and then had to retreat and ended up having to defend our own territory. We have our Army to thank for episodes like this which not only embarrassed us internationally but did nothing positive for Kashmir dispute.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

In case you didn't know, Pakistan's forces were much better equipped than India's in 1965. Pakistan had just aligned itself with the USA and had all their latest toys, while the Indians was still fighting with WWII and late 1940s era weapons left behind by the British.

The point is that despite this imbalance and all the losses on the Indian side, Pakistan achieved absolutely nothing by way of military objectives in 1965. Zilch.

Oh my lord. Only an Indian would talk of fighting Pakistan as an underdog and try to make themselves out to be David against Goliath.