Question regarding Pakistan - India wars (only serious & unbiased answers please)

[TQ89]

I have lately been reading about some wars after the world war 2 to understand as to why the conflicts arose between any two countires and who actually won war. I watched documentary about vietnam war , the korean war and the six day war in june 1967.

I came to the conclusion that a lot of what we were told about six day war by our elders(my dad,his friends & some of my high school teachers) was false. I live in an arab country and i asked some fellow arabs and even they dont have complete facts about it and narrate whatever their state controlled media told them (which is that the US helped israel whereas the arabs did not receive any help, were outgunned and left to hung dry).

You ask any pakistani elder of that time. He will also give you the same answer. Whereas the truth was that isreal was the underdog in the fight and eqypt president's nasser dodgy ambitions, military corruption in egypt( where were the air defense systems when isreal bombed their airplanes numbering in some reports as 250 to 300 !!!!) & miscommunication with other arab leaders lost them a war that they should have won.

It got me thinking about our wars with india. Whether we also have been fed lies by our state controlled media of that time or should we trust them. Because when i started reading wikipedia about it. It shows me that we have not won any of the conflicts actually. In all wars, it is specifically mentioned that pak nation was not told truth
By our media and that the reality was opposite.

Especially our surrender in 1971 war . For ten days our people were told that they are winning and then suddenly when they were informed about the surrender, they couldnt believe it and were enraged. Also lot of doubts as to how much land we captured in 1965 war as i was always told that we captured more land than indians where as wikipedia stats show me the opposite. Facts about the kargil war which we witnessed as teens also tell me the opposite.

So my question is this: How many wars were actually won by Pak in pak vs ind wars??

As i dont believe in propaganda spewed by both countries media regarding the actual results and also cannot get answers by talking about it in actual life as the few times i talked about this with friends or family, i got bashed right left and centre without any supporting facts or logic.

Hence i post this question here as there are quite knowledgable posters on this forum who have deep knowledge of indo pak history and can answer this

Point to note: This is not a political question and I dont have any interest in Pak politics whether they be parties or armed forces. So kindly don't derail the thread with political ideologies.

 

[TM Riddle]

1965 - Stalemate
1971 - Pak decimated
1999 - Depends whether you call it war as if I'm not wrong Pak never admitted publicly that mujahiddins were its own armymen.
But if you do then yes India successfully defended herself in spite of being being at disadvantage wrt terrain.

 

[LastManstanding]

65 was stalemate at its best, 71 India won. 99 wasnt a conventional war but more of a border conflict. India managed to defend and regain their lost posts and territories. There were no positives for Pakistan from the 1999 conflict.

 

[TQ89]

65 was stalemate at its best, 71 India won. 99 wasnt a conventional war but more of a border conflict. India managed to defend and regain their lost posts and territories. There were no positives for Pakistan from the 1999 conflict.

Thanks for the reply. I want to point out that this is one revelation that pisses me off & make me question the whole logic behind 1999 war because it changed the whole political landscape of Paksitan after that.

Our public still believes that we were winning the conflict and that our Pm of that time called ceasefire. This is once again sited as the reason of Musharaf's Coup. Even today people berate PM Nawaz for that war & at the same time absolving COA Musharraf of all wrongdoing and blame for withdrawal without knowing full facts

 

[TQ89]

@KB
Perhaps It would be better to ask you guys this since you know a lot about Pak's early history.

 

[Black Zero]

- Pakistan has a portion of Kashmir, which is an evidence that Pakistan won in 1948.
- stalemate in 65, captured areas swapped.
- 71 india won, BD is an evidence

 

[LastManstanding]

Thanks for the reply. I want to point out that this is one revelation that pisses me off & make me question the whole logic behind 1999 war because it changed the whole political landscape of Paksitan after that.

Our public still believes that we were winning the conflict and that our Pm of that time called ceasefire. This is once again sited as the reason of Musharaf's Coup. Even today people berate PM Nawaz for that war & at the same time absolving COA Musharraf of all wrongdoing and blame for withdrawal without knowing full facts

What choice did Sharif have? India were considering opening another front and were not averse to the idea of crossing LOC. The conflict would have blown into full fledged war.

I have also read that only four generals under Musharraf were aware of the operation in the beginning. Air Force wasn't even consulted before launching the operation.

 

[DW44]

48 - Hard to define as a victory or a defeat since Pakistan got a part of Kashmir but overall it was a failure since they failed to capture the entirety of Kashmir. Our own fault though since we sent untrained tribals to fight there and after entering Srinagar, they started loot maar instead of securing the airport, allowing India the opportunity to land troops there and retake it.

65 - Stalemate, tactical defeat for India in that they agreed to a ceasefire three days before Pakistan would have run out of ammunition, after which they could literally have walked into Pakistan unopposed.

71 - Got our rear ends handed to us. Absolutely crushed.

99 - A bit like 48 in that it started off well but once their air force got involved, things turned around and Pakistan could not respond in kind since their planes could shoot at our aircraft from several miles away while ours had to get within visual range to shoot at them.

PS. Anyone who says that the US supported Israel in 67 has no clue what they're talking about. The two formed an alliance after that war and back in 67, France was playing the role that the US would later play for Israel. US and Israel weren't even that friendly in 67.

 

[TQ89]

What choice did Sharif have? India were considering opening another front and were not averse to the idea of crossing LOC. The conflict would have blown into full fledged war.

I have also read that only four generals under Musharraf were aware of the operation in the beginning. Air Force wasn't even consulted before launching the operation.

Man think how much our elders were fooled by Musharraf and Bhutto about us winning 1999 war & 1965 war respectively. Gives me another reason not to support Anybody in our political circle

 

[Badsha]

I have lately been reading about some wars after the world war 2 to understand as to why the conflicts arose between any two countires and who actually won war. I watched documentary about vietnam war , the korean war and the six day war in june 1967.

I came to the conclusion that a lot of what we were told about six day war by our elders(my dad,his friends & some of my high school teachers) was false. I live in an arab country and i asked some fellow arabs and even they dont have complete facts about it and narrate whatever their state controlled media told them (which is that the US helped israel whereas the arabs did not receive any help, were outgunned and left to hung dry).

You ask any pakistani elder of that time. He will also give you the same answer. Whereas the truth was that isreal was the underdog in the fight and eqypt president's nasser dodgy ambitions, military corruption in egypt( where were the air defense systems when isreal bombed their airplanes numbering in some reports as 250 to 300 !!!!) & miscommunication with other arab leaders lost them a war that they should have won.

It got me thinking about our wars with india. Whether we also have been fed lies by our state controlled media of that time or should we trust them. Because when i started reading wikipedia about it. It shows me that we have not won any of the conflicts actually. In all wars, it is specifically mentioned that pak nation was not told truth
By our media and that the reality was opposite.

Especially our surrender in 1971 war . For ten days our people were told that they are winning and then suddenly when they were informed about the surrender, they couldnt believe it and were enraged. Also lot of doubts as to how much land we captured in 1965 war as i was always told that we captured more land than indians where as wikipedia stats show me the opposite. Facts about the kargil war which we witnessed as teens also tell me the opposite.

So my question is this: How many wars were actually won by Pak in pak vs ind wars??

As i dont believe in propaganda spewed by both countries media regarding the actual results and also cannot get answers by talking about it in actual life as the few times i talked about this with friends or family, i got bashed right left and centre without any supporting facts or logic.

Hence i post this question here as there are quite knowledgable posters on this forum who have deep knowledge of indo pak history and can answer this

Point to note: This is not a political question and I dont have any interest in Pak politics whether they be parties or armed forces. So kindly don't derail the thread with political ideologies.

AFAIK, Israel was the underdog and were getting a pounding until America intervened.

As for the wars, you are asking on an Indo/Pak dominated website with the average age being around 30. None of us were alive during the wars and we're going by word of mouth so anything you hear wont be accurate.

 

[TQ89]

AFAIK, Israel was the underdog and were getting a pounding until America intervened.

As for the wars, you are asking on an Indo/Pak dominated website with the average age being around 30. None of us were alive during the wars and we're going by word of mouth so anything you hear wont be accurate.

Entirely Inaccurate. I suggest you watch documentaries on the war by jazeera channel as well as few western channels to get a more balanced overall view. They are easily available on youtube

 

[Badsha]

Entirely Inaccurate. I suggest you watch documentaries on the war by jazeera channel as well as few western channels to get a more balanced overall view. They are easily available on youtube

I am not saying my view is correct but how do I know the documentaries are correct? No way of knowing.

 

[TQ89]

I am not saying my view is correct but how do I know the documentaries are correct? No way of knowing.

Still better than an uninformed opinion. Plus these documentaries are coupled with views by historians and journalist covering the actual events. So yeah no guarantee for 100% truth but some amount of truth is still better than purely fabricated stuff which is the norm of our nation

 

[Badsha]

Still better than an uninformed opinion. Plus these documentaries are coupled with views by historians and journalist covering the actual events. So yeah no guarantee for 100% truth but some amount of truth is still better than purely fabricated stuff which is the norm of our nation

How do you assume it's purely fabricated? Many of us get stories from actual army officers that fought in these wars. I'm not saying it's accurate - people are misinformed and make stuff up but to say purely fabricated is just too much.

 

[TQ89]

How do you assume it's purely fabricated? Many of us get stories from actual army officers that fought in these wars. I'm not saying it's accurate - people are misinformed and make stuff up but to say purely fabricated is just too much.

which events exactly bro

 

[MSaad1237]

Wikipedia is a highly unreliable source..

Tho, 71 was the war lost by Pakistan and geography played a huge role in that one ..

 

[Pakpak]

I am not saying my view is correct but how do I know the documentaries are correct? No way of knowing.

Israel knew all Arab armies would attack them, and they were outnumbered by the Arabs about 10-1 in men to tanks to army. Their airforce was 300 planes compared to almost a thousand for Arabs, so they threw all of them at Egypt and finished their airforce in one day then turned to Syria and Jordan. It took almost 33% of Egypt from Egypt, West Bank and Gaza from Jordan and Golan from Syria. While US did back them later on, so did the Soviets wrt to Egypt.

Pakistan should take lessons as how to properly beat a bigger enemy.

 

[PakLFC]

65 Pak, 71 Bharat and 99 draw.

 

[Thomaskutty]

Pakistan started all three and lost all three. Some people like to say 65 and 99 was a stalemate but that was because the Indian army decided not to continue despite having the advantage.

 

[Pakpak]

Pakistan started all three and lost all three. Some people like to say 65 and 99 was a stalemate but that was because the Indian army decided not to continue despite having the advantage.

It could hardly continue anything in 1999 because of nukes. From Clinton's autobiography he said Nawaz was
useless but Musharraf was telling Americans he'd use nukes especially after reports of batteries being moved near the border. 1965 was a stalemate.

 

[PakLFC]

Pakistan started all three and lost all three. Some people like to say 65 and 99 was a stalemate but that was because the Indian army decided not to continue despite having the advantage.

No they did not lose all three. Take your head out of books written by your own silly and biased authors. In Ksrgil Israel helped you otherwise we would have beaten you up even more

 

[big_gamer007]

From what I know Kargil wasn't exactly a war, Pakistan never accepted that it was their army people/ISI and not mujhahideens.. I can't be bothered to read about all the conflicts but Kargil seemed Pakistan never openly admitted to be involved??

Anyways in reality both countries lost all the wars trillions of $$ have been invested on defence which could have been used to development if both the nation would have learned to live peacefully..

 

[Thomaskutty]

It could hardly continue anything in 1999 because of nukes. From Clinton's autobiography he said Nawaz was
useless but Musharraf was telling Americans he'd use nukes especially after reports of batteries being moved near the border. 1965 was a stalemate.

No they did not lose all three. Take your head out of books written by your own silly and biased authors. In Ksrgil Israel helped you otherwise we would have beaten you up even more

It doesn't matter. You can believe what you want to if you're not interested in the truth.

 

[PakLFC]

It doesn't matter. You can believe what you want to if you're not interested in the truth.

You are right it does not matter what any biased Indian media outlet says. Don't start something if you don't want to be challenged. Yes, Israel did help you at Kargil that is a well known fact.

 

[big_gamer007]

No they did not lose all three. Take your head out of books written by your own silly and biased authors. In Ksrgil Israel helped you otherwise we would have beaten you up even more

Did Pakistan ever openly admit to being involved in Kargil?

 

[PakLFC]

Did Pakistan ever openly admit to being involved in Kargil?

Musharraf did so openly!

 

[big_gamer007]

Musharraf did so openly!

Not during the conflict though right years later? IIRC shareef on record always maintained Pakistan was not involved and it was mujhahideens and they didn't even collect their dead?

 

[Pakpak]

It doesn't matter. You can believe what you want to if you're not interested in the truth.

India asked for the ceasefire in 1965 so at worst it was a stalemate.

And in 1999 no way any Indian army would have crossed Pakistani border because of nukes. If nukes were not a deterrent then Indians would have crossed the border in 1999, in 2002, in 2008, in 2012, in 2016. Many times over.

If this is not truth for you then what you posted to me applies to you more than me.

 

[Pakpak]

Not during the conflict though right years later? IIRC shareef on record always maintained Pakistan was not involved and it was mujhahideens and they didn't even collect their dead?

I think he admitted in his book it was Pakistani troops, as far as I remember reading though I may be wrong.

 

[Pakpak]

From what I know Kargil wasn't exactly a war, Pakistan never accepted that it was their army people/ISI and not mujhahideens.. I can't be bothered to read about all the conflicts but Kargil seemed Pakistan never openly admitted to be involved??

Anyways in reality both countries lost all the wars trillions of $$ have been invested on defence which could have been used to development if both the nation would have learned to live peacefully..

I agree, sadly there is less of people like you to go around.

 

[SandyB]

I don't think Pakistan army has yet admitted a direct involvement in Kargil 1999.

Anyways, I was not alive around the other wars, so won't comment about them.

But in Kargil, we were completely in the right , and FROM THE BEGINNING India had decided that the war will only be fought to reclaim lost territory at Kargil, and we wouldn't escalate it to a full scale conflict, since both had nukes. And I'm glad that was the stance we took !!

 

[big_gamer007]

I agree, sadly there is less of people like you to go around.

ThD world is not an ideal place.. People who shout the loudest are heard the most.. They don't have to go and fight on the border themselves and are the fakest of patriots who are corrupt, don't follow rules, don't follow constitution but then shove up their opinion like they care for India and are the biggest nationalist.. Unfortunatrly such people are in majority so it's just how it is..

Over the last few years I have had a lot of discussions generally when something happens with various people like beef issue, people getting beat up, mob justice and all and I don't wanna generalise but from my experience 80% people are in favour of what happens and justify it.. It's sad but that's how it is and I have stopped giving two hoots about these topics now..

 

[PakLFC]

Not during the conflict though right years later? IIRC shareef on record always maintained Pakistan was not involved and it was mujhahideens and they didn't even collect their dead?

Better not to collect you dead if it means being shot at and killed as well. No I think Mush has always openly admitted Kargil right from the start. It was NS who was reluctant to do so for years.

 

[big_gamer007]

Better not to collect you dead if it means being shot at and killed as well. No I think Mush has always openly admitted Kargil right from the start. It was NS who was reluctant to do so for years.

Well I think Indian army offered to return the bodies to Pakistani army but they refused to accept them and said they are not Pakistani army/ISI people even though they cards and stuff was found in their wallets.. So no one would have been killed..

Ah ok I guess musharraf used Kargil as a reason to bring the coup and throw the NS out of power and rule the country... Might have been his plan all along..

 

[PakLFC]

Well I think Indian army offered to return the bodies to Pakistani army but they refused to accept them and said they are not Pakistani army/ISI people even though they cards and stuff was found in their wallets.. So no one would have been killed..

Ah ok I guess musharraf used Kargil as a reason to bring the coup and throw the NS out of power and rule the country... Might have been his plan all along..

I can't remember that far back. If Mush admitted it and the Indian army offered to return the dead then he should have accepted it. NS has always been pro Indian which is why the movement in Pak against him is the strongest ever now. Rejection often comes from India as well when your spy's are caught in Pak.

 

[big_gamer007]

I can't remember that far back. If Mush admitted it and the Indian army offered to return the dead then he should have accepted it. NS has always been pro Indian which is why the movement in Pak against him is the strongest ever now. Rejection often comes from India as well when your spy's are caught in Pak.

Well TBH I don't read much so I think the Indian army offering the bodies back part I probably must have heard on some news channel debate by some ex army guy or politician.. So it might not be true..

I only know two cases of Indians caught by Pakistan sarabhjit and kulbhusan and in both cases the government accepted they were Indians and tried their best to bring them back.. In case of kulbhushan they are fighting it out in ICJ for its citizens life.. If they were indeed spies then no country will ever accept they are spies in an enemy land but seeing the government reach ICJ for help and all I would have thought if he was indeed a spy Indian government would just disown him..

 

[Sidilicious]

I can't remember that far back. If Mush admitted it and the Indian army offered to return the dead then he should have accepted it. NS has always been pro Indian which is why the movement in Pak against him is the strongest ever now. Rejection often comes from India as well when your spy's are caught in Pak.

Mush admitted it much later, after he came to power. NS didn't want to admit it as it would put him in a pretty difficult position internationally as it would have come soon after the bus diplomacy. In fact, from what I have read NS was not even informed of Kargil conflict until mid May. No one from the Air Force was informed either.

So, NS was quite furious at Mush for having orchestrated Kargil without informing NS, while NS was involved in the bus diplomacy. Thus we wanted Mush out. When NS tried to get rid of Mush, he struck back with the coup.

 

[Sidilicious]

Well TBH I don't read much so I think the Indian army offering the bodies back part I probably must have heard on some news channel debate by some ex army guy or politician.. So it might not be true..

I only know two cases of Indians caught by Pakistan sarabhjit and kulbhusan and in both cases the government accepted they were Indians and tried their best to bring them back.. In case of kulbhushan they are fighting it out in ICJ for its citizens life.. If they were indeed spies then no country will ever accept they are spies in an enemy land but seeing the government reach ICJ for help and all I would have thought if he was indeed a spy Indian government would just disown him..

After the ceasefire, they started to accept the bodies. But Pakistan Army was not accepting the bodies till the ceasefire. IIRC most of those caught were from the Northern Light Infantry.

 

[big_gamer007]

After the ceasefire, they started to accept the bodies. But Pakistan Army was not accepting the bodies till the ceasefire. IIRC most of those caught were from the Northern Light Infantry.

Ah ok thanks for clarifying that..

 

[Third_Umpire]

There are no victors in wars. The fact that we've had 3 should count as 3 losses to each side.

Just ask the suffering families on either side who won which war..

 

[Sidilicious]

Ah ok thanks for clarifying that..

There are some handover ceremonies of the bodies on youtube. But you are also right that they refused to have such ceremonies and thus take back their bodies until the ceasefire. They were still playing the game that these are just 'Mujahideen' until the ceasefire when NS admitted it to Clinton.

 

[Sidilicious]

There are no victors in wars. The fact that we've had 3 should count as 3 losses to each side.

Just ask the suffering families on either side who won which war..

well said. But the unfortunate fact is, human history is littered with such wars. In fact, the human history is the history of wars.

 

[big_gamer007]

There are some handover ceremonies of the bodies on youtube. But you are also right that they refused to have such ceremonies and thus take back their bodies until the ceasefire. They were still playing the game that these are just 'Mujahideen' until the ceasefire when NS admitted it to Clinton.

Yea I guess it was because they didn't want to get international pressure.. Anyways I think Kargil did expose he corruption in our defence as well if I am not mistaken it was after Kargil war that bofors scam was highlighted and the first ever defence scam came into light?