Why was West Pakistan not attacked during the 1971 War?

[msb314]

This had me wondering..

After the fall of Dhaka - Pakistan had lost nearly a third of its army, half its navy and suffered many loses of its air force too.

After the liberation of Dhaka and creation of Bangladesh - West Pakistan was at its most vulnerable and there for the taking.

So why Indira Gandhi not attack the west? What prevented further warfare in 1971?

 

[Varun]

India is too softy-softy and the reaction of the international community figures prominently in its dealings, more so in decades past.

I wouldn't have been a fan of such a move anyway, it would have led to needless death and destruction between the two countries and nothing more.

 

[Pakpak]

This had me wondering..

After the fall of Dhaka - Pakistan had lost nearly a third of its army, half its navy and suffered many loses of its air force too.

After the liberation of Dhaka and creation of Bangladesh - West Pakistan was at its most vulnerable and there for the taking.

So why Indira Gandhi not attack the west? What prevented further warfare in 1971?

Do you ever make any good threads? Or do you always post nonsense without having read anything first?

We only had 45,000 actual serving soldiers in East Pakistan. I posted the sources in the other thread. We had virtually no airforce there either. All of our military assets were in West Pakistan. Which was the problem and reason why we were thrashed in Bangladesh.

India did attack West Pakistan. Almost right there and then after we launched an air attack. We held on comfortably and were not in any serious danger.

Again, from my other thread incase anyone thinks I'm being biased, from an Indian link:


The major Indian gains claimed in terms of area were about 3,200 square kilometres in the Ladakh region under Lt Gen Sartaj Singh and 1,200 square kilometres. under Lt Gen G G Bewoor in the Rajasthan Desert. In both regions these gains lay in farflung, desolate, uninhabited and difficult areas of negligible economic, strategic and political value which could hurt the rulers of Pakistan only in their prestige.

The major Indian gains claimed in terms of area were about 3,200 square kilometres in the Ladakh region under Lt Gen Sartaj Singh and 1,200 square kilometres. under Lt Gen G G Bewoor in the Rajasthan Desert.
On the other hand, Sartaj Singh lost the area of Chhamb, where the aftermath of the refugee problem still haunts the Jammu and Kashmir administration. The loss of the Kasowala bulge, the Hussainiwala enclave and the Fazilka agricultural belt in Punjab could not be equated with marginal gains in the Sehjra bulge and the Mamdot enclave in economic, military or political terms. The Indian occupation of the major portion of the Shakargarh bulge was somewhat embarrassing to the Bhutto government in view of the restive refugee population, but this in no way impaired the Pakistani economy or upset its military tactical balance. In short, this war failed to achieve a decision, although the Indian public was misled by articulate propaganda and impressive statistics. It is therefore imperative that the public should be educated to judge the country’s military achievement on merit.


http://www.indiandefencereview.com/s...estern-sector/

 

[Pakpak]

India is too softy-softy and the reaction of the international community figures prominently in its dealings, more so in decades past.

I wouldn't have been a fan of such a move anyway, it would have led to needless death and destruction between the two countries and nothing more.

Yes very softly. Or maybe they know they will get nukes in return. It was only nukes which stopped Indians in 2001, 2008 and 2016. Nothing to do with soft or hard

 

[msb314]

Do you ever make any good threads? Or do you always post nonsense without having read anything first?

We only had 45,000 actual serving soldiers in East Pakistan. I posted the sources in the other thread. We had virtually no airforce there either. All of our military assets were in West Pakistan. Which was the problem and reason why we were thrashed in Bangladesh.

India did attack West Pakistan. Almost right there and then after we launched an air attack. We held on comfortably and were not in any serious danger.

Again, from my other thread incase anyone thinks I'm being biased, from an Indian link:


The major Indian gains claimed in terms of area were about 3,200 square kilometres in the Ladakh region under Lt Gen Sartaj Singh and 1,200 square kilometres. under Lt Gen G G Bewoor in the Rajasthan Desert. In both regions these gains lay in farflung, desolate, uninhabited and difficult areas of negligible economic, strategic and political value which could hurt the rulers of Pakistan only in their prestige.

The major Indian gains claimed in terms of area were about 3,200 square kilometres in the Ladakh region under Lt Gen Sartaj Singh and 1,200 square kilometres. under Lt Gen G G Bewoor in the Rajasthan Desert.
On the other hand, Sartaj Singh lost the area of Chhamb, where the aftermath of the refugee problem still haunts the Jammu and Kashmir administration. The loss of the Kasowala bulge, the Hussainiwala enclave and the Fazilka agricultural belt in Punjab could not be equated with marginal gains in the Sehjra bulge and the Mamdot enclave in economic, military or political terms. The Indian occupation of the major portion of the Shakargarh bulge was somewhat embarrassing to the Bhutto government in view of the restive refugee population, but this in no way impaired the Pakistani economy or upset its military tactical balance. In short, this war failed to achieve a decision, although the Indian public was misled by articulate propaganda and impressive statistics. It is therefore imperative that the public should be educated to judge the country’s military achievement on merit.


http://www.indiandefencereview.com/s...estern-sector/

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Indo-Pakistani_Wars#Effects

Our losses in 1971 were very significant despite our military command being stationed in West Pakistan

 

[msb314]

India is too softy-softy and the reaction of the international community figures prominently in its dealings, more so in decades past.

I wouldn't have been a fan of such a move anyway, it would have led to needless death and destruction between the two countries and nothing more.

But India already intervened in East Pakistan and with Pakistan's pre-emptive airforce strike on India and the resulting declaration of war - couldn't India have struck West Pakistan too?

 

[Pakpak]

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Indo-Pakistani_Wars#Effects

Our losses in 1971 were very significant despite our military command being stationed in West Pakistan

Obviously, as we lost half our country.

But out of the 90,000 POWs only 40,000 odd were soldiers. And we had no airforce to speak off. Iposted two sources in the other thread. So unless they're lying and you're not then..

Not surprised at your thread which lacks a lot of knowledge. It's usual with your bizarre threads of the past.

 

[Pakpak]

But India already intervened in East Pakistan and with Pakistan's pre-emptive airforce strike on India and the resulting declaration of war - couldn't India have struck West Pakistan too?

India struck West Pakistan after we launched air strikes at them when they attacked East Pakistan.

All of this is common knowldge to even a ten year old Pakistani. I literally posted another link from an Indian source talking about the Western theatre two posts above, since its obvious your knowledge is severely lacking

 

[Pakpak]

What next, OP will post a thread asking why didn't India attack Pakistan after our failed Operation in Kashmir in 1965?

 

[msb314]

Obviously, as we lost half our country.

But out of the 90,000 POWs only 40,000 odd were soldiers. And we had no airforce to speak off. Iposted two sources in the other thread. So unless they're lying and you're not then..

Not surprised at your thread which lacks a lot of knowledge. It's usual with your bizarre threads of the past.

India struck West Pakistan after we launched air strikes at them when they attacked East Pakistan.

All of this is common knowldge to even a ten year old Pakistani. I literally posted another link from an Indian source talking about the Western theatre two posts above, since its obvious your knowledge is severely lacking

What next, OP will post a thread asking why didn't India attack Pakistan after our failed Operation in Kashmir in 1965?

Can you elaborate and answer the OP then by refraining from personal comments?

 

[Rishikesh]

Diverse country with diverse opinions, need to take everyone on board before planning a offensive strike.I don't think we would have attacked east pakistan if there weren't any refugee crisis and preemptive strike from pakistan.

 

[msb314]

Diverse country with diverse opinions, need to take everyone on board before planning a offensive strike.I don't think we would have attacked east pakistan if there weren't any refugee crisis and preemptive strike from pakistan.

I may be wrong but I thought India was already planning to intervene before the air force strike?

Also wasn’t India also aiding the Mukhti Bahini insurgency in the early parts of the liberation war?

 

[Rishikesh]

^ I think you know the difference between aiding and being involved directly. So many countries used to aid various separatists groups in India in the past but during that time we maintained healthy bilateral relations with those countries.

 

[Pakpak]

Can you elaborate and answer the OP then by refraining from personal comments?

The third of our army is nonsense. 40,000 was not a third of our army.

https://www.dawn.com/news/773291

Also in the A History of the Pakistan Army: Wars and Insurrections By Brian Cloughley, it states that a lot of them were para-military (around 18,000), and some which were marines or from the airforce. The rest were officers or non-combatant military personnel. This is East Pakistan I am talking about.

The navy issue is useless as well, we never really had a proper navy to begin with. Even now our navy is weak. Its loss meant nothing in terms of the war. The point of your thread was that why didn't India attack the West? They did (!!!!!!!!) but the West was a stalemate and noone made any gains worth talking about. We performed much better in the West in 1971 than we did in 1965. This is not me being biased you can read the Indian defence review analysis above that I posted.

I mean at this point what do you say, its like arguing with someone who says ''why didn't France attack Germany after they attacked them in WW2''. Maybe some other person with time to waste will educate you, I don't have that time.

I didn't mean to sound so snarky but this knowledge is so obvious and can be checked with a simple google search.

 

[Pakpak]

I may be wrong but I thought India was already planning to intervene before the air force strike?

Also wasn’t India also aiding the Mukhti Bahini insurgency in the early parts of the liberation war?

You're correct, Indians now openly admit of doing this. Hence why its hilarious they cry about Pakistan's meddling in Kashmir.

 

[Syed1]

India tried to attack West Pakistan, but failed.

 

[msb314]

The third of our army is nonsense. 40,000 was not a third of our army.

https://www.dawn.com/news/773291

Also in the A History of the Pakistan Army: Wars and Insurrections By Brian Cloughley, it states that a lot of them were para-military (around 18,000), and some which were marines or from the airforce. The rest were officers or non-combatant military personnel. This is East Pakistan I am talking about.

The navy issue is useless as well, we never really had a proper navy to begin with. Even now our navy is weak. Its loss meant nothing in terms of the war. The point of your thread was that why didn't India attack the West? They did (!!!!!!!!) but the West was a stalemate and noone made any gains worth talking about. We performed much better in the West in 1971 than we did in 1965. This is not me being biased you can read the Indian defence review analysis above that I posted.

I mean at this point what do you say, its like arguing with someone who says ''why didn't France attack Germany after they attacked them in WW2''. Maybe some other person with time to waste will educate you, I don't have that time.

I didn't mean to sound so snarky but this knowledge is so obvious and can be checked with a simple google search.

Ok thank you

 

[Varun]

Yes very softly. Or maybe they know they will get nukes in return. It was only nukes which stopped Indians in 2001, 2008 and 2016. Nothing to do with soft or hard

There were no nukes in 1971, which is what the thread is about.

 

[English August]

India tried to attack West Pakistan, but failed.

Really? Do tell us more.

To answer the OP, it wasn't anything about being soft or hard. Real reason is: attacking a sovereign nation and occupying it for long duration is prohibitively costly both from financial and human resources standpoint. Even today India is not that powerful, leave alone back in 1971. Even superpowers don't do it well. US tried it in Vietnam and got a bloody nose. USSR tried in Afghanistan and was defeated (which eventually led to collapse of the Soviet Empire). Attacking West Pakistan would have served no strategic interest, so why do it? India's real strategic interest (of breaking Pak into two) was already accomplished through the brilliant operation on the Eastern theater.