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

[Gharib Aadmi]

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.

People in Pakistan hated Musharraf in 2007. The Army cant retain power in Pakistan without public support, so they refused to back him once his popularity was gone. By backing an unpopular dictator, the hatred towards Musharraf would have became hatred towards the Army. Even for a few years after Musharraf left, Army officers could not go into public with their uniform, so much was the hatred towards Musharraf.


And you dont understand how the Army works. Before a chief can engage in discussions with India regarding Kashmir, he would have to take the entire officer corp in to confidence. he does not act in his individual capacity. The power of the chief in not unlimited.

 

[Mamoon]

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.

Well said.

We celebrate “Defense Day” after launching an ill-planned, reckless offense that backfired in spectacular fashion.

It really goes to show how strong military propaganda has been and how it has shaped the public narrative through emotional blackmailing.

 

[Mamoon]

Pakistan is the only country in the world that has surrendered half of its territory and yet still celebrates and glorifies its military every year by spending millions of rupees on useless exhibitions.

 

[Hermoine Green]

Bizzare discussion to be honest, people lost their lives, families suffered, and here we are people who want to have an ONLINE victory over an other.

 

[sweep_shot]

I think countries generally hide actual figures whenever a war takes place. It is to avoid embarrassment. So, not surprised at this.

 

[Sidilicious]

[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.

+1

 

[wajid]

Well I consider myself to be a very vocal critic of army and all of their misadventures but I really don’t get the Indian version of history here..

1. Pak didn’t start the “war”. Yes they launched an ill-planned gorilla type operation in J&K but it was just that. An operation across LoC in disputed area and not a declaration of war. People also conveniently forget that we had another small skirmish in Run if Kutch ( disputed territory)before war. It never escalated into war. I think our biggest failure was that of intelligence where generals were clueless about Indian policy and strategy and thus were surprised when India upped the ante.

2. It was not only Musharraf who was ready for a deal on Kashmir. Vajpayee was ready as well. But all the reporting that I have read suggests that vajpayee refused the deal only after serious protest of Indian bureaucracy and military.

Etc etc

 

[cricketjoshila]

Well I consider myself to be a very vocal critic of army and all of their misadventures but I really don’t get the Indian version of history here..

1. Pak didn’t start the “war”. Yes they launched an ill-planned gorilla type operation in J&K but it was just that. An operation across LoC in disputed area and not a declaration of war. People also conveniently forget that we had another small skirmish in Run if Kutch ( disputed territory)before war. It never escalated into war. I think our biggest failure was that of intelligence where generals were clueless about Indian policy and strategy and thus were surprised when India upped the ante.

2. It was not only Musharraf who was ready for a deal on Kashmir. Vajpayee was ready as well. But all the reporting that I have read suggests that vajpayee refused the deal only after serious protest of Indian bureaucracy and military.

Etc etc

1. There was a ceasefire agreement in Kashmir and Pakistan violated it. Thousands of pakistani troops came into jammu and Kashmir. It was an invasion. Once Pakistan broke the ceasefire, the retaliation was in Indian hands and pakistan cannot dictate that. So yes, by breaking the ceasefire and trying to capture Kashmir, Pakistan started the war.

2. Indian military and bureaucracy has seen Pakistan not adhering to any of the previous agreements so it was only prudent to not get into another one.

 

[mazkhan]

Operation Gibraltar was pakistan army first major war

1947 was mainly pathan tribals and azad kashmiri militias who fought it had nothing to do with pak army


1965 was a massive miscalculation because pakistan army expected the valley kashmiris to support them and rise up they didn't they stayed indoors like women , and then india retaliated and captured valuable areas around sialkot and attacked lahore which saw the pak army scurrying to protect it but still lost valuable fertile villages farmlands.

It was a blunder and pakistan has been on a downward spiral since by these military goons and their interference.

We are lucky we have nukes because I'm telling you if we didn't india would have broke the back of our military by now , we saw what they did in kargil absolutely slaughtered our troops by airstrikes and guided artillery

 

[NishanKonar]

As Clausewitx famously said - result of a war depends on ur original motives not the final outcome

What was Paksitan's motive in 1965. It was to occupy Kashmr by sending thousands of infiltrators

What was the end result - Pakistan gallantly defending Lahore & Sialkot. In military terms successful defense of Lahore & Sialkot was commendable but that was not how the war was supposed to be like

The original goal was conquest / liberation of Kashmir but ended up defending your own territory . In Clausewitzian terms this was a clear defeat or rather a military misadventure gone wrong.Its what u say in Hindi / Urdu as " lene ka dena pad gaya "

In strategic terms the war was disaster for Pakistan. The excess military spending played a role in 1971 divide between East & West Pakistan. Also India grossly increased military expenditure post 1965 & added large number of armoured units. All this sowed seeds of 1971

Had the Pak army generals not gone ahead with 1965 - high chance 1971 wyud not have happened

 

[NishanKonar]

Well I consider myself to be a very vocal critic of army and all of their misadventures but I really don’t get the Indian version of history here..

1. Pak didn’t start the “war”. Yes they launched an ill-planned gorilla type operation in J&K but it was just that. An operation across LoC in disputed area and not a declaration of war. People also conveniently forget that we had another small skirmish in Run if Kutch ( disputed territory)before war. It never escalated into war. I think our biggest failure was that of intelligence where generals were clueless about Indian policy and strategy and thus were surprised when India upped the ante.

2. It was not only Musharraf who was ready for a deal on Kashmir. Vajpayee was ready as well. But all the reporting that I have read suggests that vajpayee refused the deal only after serious protest of Indian bureaucracy and military.

Etc etc

Regarding 1965 - Pakistan did not just send infiltrators in Kashmir. The Pakistan army launched full scale armoured attack on Akhnoor which almost cut off Kashmir from the rest of India

India invaded Lahore sector only to relieve Akhnoor & force Pakistan troops to divert from Kashmir sector. In a way India was successful. Pakitan had too rush their troops towards Lahore from Akhnoor - preventing the fall of Akhnoor. The fall of Aakhnoor wud have almost certainly led to fall of Kashmir ( which was Pakistan's plan )

So this " Pakistan did not start the war " is flawed.

Also the comparison with Rann of Kutch affair is wrong . Kutch is basically a salt desert & wasteland with almost no population - unlike Kashmir . which is why India did not escalate after the Rann of Kutch skirmishes that year

 

[cricketjoshila]

Regarding 1965 - Pakistan did not just send infiltrators in Kashmir. The Pakistan army launched full scale armoured attack on Akhnoor which almost cut off Kashmir from the rest of India

India invaded Lahore sector only to relieve Akhnoor & force Pakistan troops to divert from Kashmir sector. In a way India was successful. Pakitan had too rush their troops towards Lahore from Akhnoor - preventing the fall of Akhnoor. The fall of Aakhnoor wud have almost certainly led to fall of Kashmir ( which was Pakistan's plan )

So this " Pakistan did not start the war " is flawed.

Also the comparison with Rann of Kutch affair is wrong . Kutch is basically a salt desert & wasteland with almost no population - unlike Kashmir . which is why India did not escalate after the Rann of Kutch skirmishes that year

Pakistan believed that India will give up easily. This was based on India not escalating in Rann skirmishes and 1962 war.

 

[Bhaijaan]

These two poor communities still arguing over war casualties that occured half a century ago.

No wonder the subcontinent remains one of the most underdeveloped and unlivable regions in the world.

Nothing can be done about these people.

 

[wajid]

Regarding 1965 - Pakistan did not just send infiltrators in Kashmir. The Pakistan army launched full scale armoured attack on Akhnoor which almost cut off Kashmir from the rest of India

India invaded Lahore sector only to relieve Akhnoor & force Pakistan troops to divert from Kashmir sector. In a way India was successful. Pakitan had too rush their troops towards Lahore from Akhnoor - preventing the fall of Akhnoor. The fall of Aakhnoor wud have almost certainly led to fall of Kashmir ( which was Pakistan's plan )

So this " Pakistan did not start the war " is flawed.

Also the comparison with Rann of Kutch affair is wrong . Kutch is basically a salt desert & wasteland with almost no population - unlike Kashmir . which is why India did not escalate after the Rann of Kutch skirmishes that year

Well to a degree yes. The fact remains that Pakistan was moving across disputed territory. By all international conventions, India herself acknowledged disputed and special status of LoC and Kashmir.

But again this poor planning and half hearted measures by pak brass to insert commandos and don’t acknowledge them and support them with air/ artillery/ armoured cover shows their understanding of the war theater was different and lacking in terms of Indian perspectives, and hence a big intelligence failure.

But we know from their lack of preparedness on Lahore and mainland international border that in their view Gibraltar was not a war. It wan an infiltration. We can call them incompetent and delusional to assume that India won’t escalate it but it was India that expanded a conflict in a disputed area to a war across international border. Also, this issue has history. In Pakistan there is still that sentiment that India aggressively dealt us a blow by annexing Hyderabad, jodhpurs and Kashmir with force. So it was not morally wrong to make an attempt on Kashmir.

A side note that if I remember correctly it was India that unilaterally moved into and captured disputed area in rann of kutch in 1950s.

 

[NishanKonar]

Well to a degree yes. The fact remains that Pakistan was moving across disputed territory. By all international conventions, India herself acknowledged disputed and special status of LoC and Kashmir.

But again this poor planning and half hearted measures by pak brass to insert commandos and don’t acknowledge them and support them with air/ artillery/ armoured cover shows their understanding of the war theater was different and lacking in terms of Indian perspectives, and hence a big intelligence failure.

But we know from their lack of preparedness on Lahore and mainland international border that in their view Gibraltar was not a war. It wan an infiltration. We can call them incompetent and delusional to assume that India won’t escalate it but it was India that expanded a conflict in a disputed area to a war across international border. Also, this issue has history. In Pakistan there is still that sentiment that India aggressively dealt us a blow by annexing Hyderabad, jodhpurs and Kashmir with force. So it was not morally wrong to make an attempt on Kashmir.

A side note that if I remember correctly it was India that unilaterally moved into and captured disputed area in rann of kutch in 1950s.

Technically u are correct. Pakistan moved into disputed territory & even they thought the war wud remain in Kashmir

Problem was militarily that disputed territory was impossible for India to defend in 1965 bcoz there is only one road connecting Kashmir with rest of India .This road passed thru Akhnoor. Pakistan attack on Akhnoor forced India's attack on Lahore sector to relieve pressure on Akhnoor & save Kashmir from being lost

Had India not attacked Lahore - then most likely Akhnoor & Kashmir wud have been lost & 1965 wud have become a 1971 like disaster for India. & become a matter of shame & infamy for Indian army for future generations

In other words - India had no other military choice in 1965 except to attack Lahore to save the situation in Kashmir

Its ok that Pakistan celebrates 1965 was a Defence Day. In reality that defense cost Pakistan the progress made in Akhnoor & possible chance to annex Kashmir militarily. Post 1965 - India beefed up its military & logistics in Kashmir to avoid any future military setback like Akhnoor & need to escalate war across the international border

 

[PetroDollars]

Technically u are correct. Pakistan moved into disputed territory & even they thought the war wud remain in Kashmir

Problem was militarily that disputed territory was impossible for India to defend in 1965 bcoz there is only one road connecting Kashmir with rest of India .This road passed thru Akhnoor. Pakistan attack on Akhnoor forced India's attack on Lahore sector to relieve pressure on Akhnoor & save Kashmir from being lost

Had India not attacked Lahore - then most likely Akhnoor & Kashmir wud have been lost & 1965 wud have become a 1971 like disaster for India. & become a matter of shame & infamy for Indian army for future generations

In other words - India had no other military choice in 1965 except to attack Lahore to save the situation in Kashmir

Its ok that Pakistan celebrates 1965 was a Defence Day. In reality that defense cost Pakistan the progress made in Akhnoor & possible chance to annex Kashmir militarily. Post 1965 - India beefed up its military & logistics in Kashmir to avoid any future military setback like Akhnoor & need to escalate war across the international border

The 1965 war started when India attacked Lahore, and it ended when pakistan defended Lahore and sent India packing.

Wars are fought across international borders, not in disputed territories, these skirmishes happen all the time.

 

[Napa]

The 1965 war started when India attacked Lahore, and it ended when pakistan defended Lahore and sent India packing.

Wars are fought across international borders, not in disputed territories, these skirmishes happen all the time.

Actually the Indian Army stopped its advance on Lahore only after India accepted a ceasefire which was demanded by a unanimous resolution passed by the UN Security Council on Sep 20, 1965.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965#Ceasefire

Pakistani territory captured by the Indian Army and vice versa were returned by the Tashkent Declaration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tashkent_Declaration#Declaration

 

[PetroDollars]

Actually the Indian Army stopped its advance on Lahore only after India accepted a ceasefire which was demanded by a unanimous resolution passed by the UN Security Council on Sep 20, 1965.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965#Ceasefire

Pakistani territory captured by the Indian Army and vice versa were returned by the Tashkent Declaration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tashkent_Declaration#Declaration

International borders dont change in this modern world, so that territory was always going back to us, if your trying to credit india, then you might as well credit sadam hussein for not taking over kuwait.

 

[cricketjoshila]

International borders dont change in this modern world, so that territory was always going back to us, if your trying to credit india, then you might as well credit sadam hussein for not taking over kuwait.

1971 Bangladesh war, crimean war, Yugislav balkan wars etc say international boundaries can change. All depends on the country holding the territory.

 

[PakLFC]

General Bakshi once said that "Pakistan had the better of the 1965 war". His comments only matter to his people when he talks up the Indian military's supposed accomplishments. Everything else is ignored as being to close to the bone.