1965 war by international & Indian observers.

[Bang Galore]

Actually India had lot of reserves left. J.N Chaudhri had grossly miscalculated.

Regardless, holding heavily populated cities would have been a massive drain.

 

[nForce]

Regardless, holding heavily populated cities would have been a massive drain.

No question about that. If Lahore was captured, India had to return it nonetheless.

 

[AnnoyingOrange]

So Pakistan unlike India acted like a peace full country and didn't spread the war?

Pakistan would have spread the war if your Gernails would have imagined the Indian response to Operation Gibraltar and Operation Grandslam... your Military leadership was too shortsighted so they could not foresee so they could not react.

 

[Bang Galore]

So Pakistan unlike India acted like a peace full country and didn't spread the war?

Very peacefully....... Also since you didn't hold Siachen at any point of time, there was a little less to complain than you trying to take Kashmir from India in 1965.

 

[hussain0216]

God knows what do they teach in their text books. I would very much like to see a few sample of their history books.


Tell me, how did Timur reach Delhi ? Pole vaulting over the Himalayas ? He captured Multan, crossed the Indus river, ransacking all the way. It seems you are very proud of your forefathers being in the receiving end.

Many of the people of modern day Pakistan like the Baluch, Pathans, Northern Pakistanis, even Sindh and Punjab had a long connection to the people west of the Sub Continent

Bin Qasim had originally come hundreds of years previous

The flower of islam was already flourishing in the land

The revolution amongst many against idol worship, caste system and hinduism as a whole was self completing

After that for any muslim army it was a clear run towards what was left of hindu india Intially going through friendly muslim lands

 

[nForce]

Many of the people of modern day Pakistan like the Baluch, Pathans, Northern Pakistanis, even Sindh and Punjab had a long connection to the people west of the Sub Continent

Bin Qasim had originally come hundreds of years previous

The flower of islam was already flourishing in the land

The revolution amongst many against idol worship, caste system and hinduism as a whole was self completing

After that for any muslim army it was a clear run towards what was left of hindu india Intially going through friendly muslim lands

Go and claim invasion of Spain infront of the Arabs. See what do they tell you.

See, that's your problem, you pretend to be more Arab than the Arabs themselves, more Afghans than the Afghans themselves, more Kashmiri than the Kashmiri themselves, and try to find glory for yourself in others' history, while you yourself don't have much to talk about.

 

[Bang Galore]

Pakistan's goal in 1965 - Take Kashmir
Pakistani strategy - Operation Gibraltar + Operation Grand Slam

Indian Goal in 1965 - prevent Pakistan from taking Kashmir
Indian strategy - Attack along the IB & force Pakistan to divert its forces while degrading its fighting machine



Pretty clear how it all stacks up.

 

[Foxtrot-Bravo]

THE BOTTOM LINE

Pakistan started the 1965 war by launching Operation GIBRALTAR for the specific aim of capturing Kashmir.

It FAILED.

Therefore it comes about that if one side fails in its objectives the other side is deemed to have won!

Summary

Pakistan lost the 1965 war as it failed in its objective to capture Kashmir.

WTH That was a covert operation. India opened three sided confrontation in response to that operation and ended up loosing its own territory. Get A Life Indians.

 

[hussain0216]

Go and claim invasion of Spain infront of the Arabs. See what do they tell you.

See, that's your problem, you pretend to be more Arab than the Arabs themselves, more Afghans than the Afghans themselves, more Kashmiri than the Kashmiri themselves, and try to find glory for yourself in others' history, while you yourself don't have much to talk about.

Arabs???????

We are Kashmiris, We are Punjabi, We are balauch and Sindhi, Pathans

The subcontinent was never a homogeneous nation that we should give a toss about the darker miscreants to the east

It was only under muslim rule fid the subcontinent really become one

 

[nForce]

Arabs???????

We are Kashmiris, We are Punjabi, We are balauch and Sindhi, Pathans

The subcontinent was never a homogeneous nation that we should give a toss about the darker miscreants to the east

It was only under muslim rule fid the subcontinent really become one

and....there goes bin Qasim....

 

[third eye]

Does the same definition of 'act of war' also applies to 1971 War and 1984 Siachen Conflict?

Not to Siachen by a long shot.

EP..no comments

 

[Mabs]

Be-akal insaan. I am amazed at the amount of brainwashing your school books have done on you. I wont argue with you.

Just go and read all news sources about who started 1965 war. I am not gonna spoonfeed you. I CHALLANGE you to show me a neutral source which states that India started 1965 war!!

If you can't then STFU!

The cables shared by your countryman here state that India crossed the IB first. Pak used infiltrators but its regular forces didn't cross the IB.

 

[Soulspeek]

Ask your Generals...

why Pakistan didn't attack Kashmir in 1962 when Chinese were raping Indians both on North Western and North eastern borders...........?

Age old tactics of Pakistan....
To infiltrate their SSG commandos under the garb of infiltrators....and claim innocence.

Been there.. Seen all

The cables shared by your countryman here state that India crossed the IB first. Pak used infiltrators but its regular forces didn't cross the IB.

 

[Areesh]

Except that if the initiator does not get his chosen outcome, he lost in his objectives.

Both lost in their objectives. That's why I call it a stalemate.

No one was going to take any of your cities, that would have been militarily suicidal. Especially when India had no reserves left except the Presidential bodyguards. Hugely populated cities would have been a military nightmare to hold.

Well this is what you think. Your leadership in 65 war don't agree with you.

You are confusing tactical aims of India against goals & strategy employed by Pakistan which failed.

I am not confusing anything. If is you who is trying to create confusion just because you have a "victory" to defend.

The push towards Lahore was a tactical aim to benefit the strategy of relieving Pakistani pressure on Kashmir. India had no goal of taking Lahore,

Well after failure of Lahore operations that is the best you can say. It was not over objective. You are not coming up with something new. Same explanations were given by your army chief 50 years ago after the war.

You started your military action to get Kashmir, in the end you got nothing of Kashmir & had to scramble to save Lahore.

Yeah. Because you attacked no only Lahore but Sialkot, Kasur and many other sectors. And in the end we not only defended Lahore and Sialkot, we had enough land to use as a bargain to force India to take back whatever we lost not only in Lahore sector but also in Kashmir sector too.

As I have said earlier, if one makes an attempt to snatch someone's jacket, he cannot then end up claiming victory because he managed to save his shorts when retaliation came his way.

you are saying nothing new. Just an old spin to convert a stalemate into a victory. Have seen dumb foolery a lot of time by Indians on 65 war.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Well this is what you think. Your leadership in 65 war don't agree with you.

Wrong. The forces in the Lahore sector had no significant river crossing equipment. Hence they stopped at the canal. In the final settlement India returned almost 4 times the amount of land Pakistan took. We had to sign the ceasefire because of a Chinese veild ultimatum and signs from the Soviet Union that they would not have our back for longer.