1965 War - The complete story

[qsaark]

Agno and Kasrkin,

I will come back later to your allegation that I am biased. First, show me where did I say Pakistan lost? I will appreciate if you quote from my posts.

 

[rubyjackass]

I have given you the sources before (they are posted in this forum), since I have had this exact discussion with you before. You obviously have no interest in actually reading them.

Whether anybody complains or not does not change the fact that India intervened in East Pakistan before the refugee crises, and therefore the refugee crises cannot be used as justification.

Only the jingoists living in la la land, who wish to somehow maintain this myth of Indian 'moral superiority' over Pakistan in terms of the dirty covert games the two countries played, continue to cling to the fairy tale that India was sitting around doing nothing until the flood of refugees poured into India.

P.S: Just read Ratus Ratus's posts - so this discussion can be continued on the East Pakistan threads, which if you bother to read through them, have the sources posted already.

Sir,
I have gone through all of them. But you clearly seem to ignore the most powerful reason behind Bengali unrest, which is not Indian involvement, as is accepted today. Hence refugee crisis is not a direct result of Indian involvement if there was any and the condition was only getting worse. Indian government was initially against freedom of Bangladesh at least publicly and China was for it.
Given the situation, I think India took a moral high ground which is not disputed by many people today. I can understand that you will not be able to concur with me on this anymore.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-history/23930-south-asia-crisis-1971-a.html


Wrt 1948 war, the objective of both sides was complete occupation of J&K which did not happen.

 

[paritosh]

BTW the Indians invaded Pakistani territory not only to ‘open up a new front’ (which they achieved, duh!) but to batter the Pakistan Army into submission and cease vital territory including Lahore. They failed in this and a ceasefire was declared with both sides holding territory belonging to the other. Now contrast this with the crushing defeat of the Arabs when Israel took whatever land it wanted in 1967 and kept it. Ask yourself if you’re being a bit biased when so readily proclaiming defeat for us based on these very particular standards (straight from an Indian propaganda book); standards which you also don’t seem to bother applying to other wars.

well...your point that kashmir was disputed and that 'operation Gibraltar' was within the 'disputed' area and violated no international border...is fine but the choice of settling the 'disputed' land by force and not through discussions was also of your own choosing...so in doing so you initiated the war.the '65 war was like any other territorial war.

 

[Kasrkin]

I will come back later to your allegation that I am biased.

Not necessarily biased, perhaps a little naive in regards to this particular issue.

First, show me where did I say Pakistan lost? I will appreciate if you quote from my posts.

I am pretty certain that was what you implied when you posted the following.

We have to look at the main objectives.

Pakistan's objective: To capture Kashmir
Result: Objective was not achieved.

India's objective: To open up more than one fronts along the international borders to relieve pressure from the Kashmir front.
Result: Objective achieved.

I'm afraid I don't understand how I was supposed to take it in any other way. You're weclome to enlighten me if I'm mistaken.

 

[Kasrkin]

well...your point that kashmir was disputed and that 'operation Gibraltar' was within the 'disputed' area and violated no international border...is fine but the choice of settling the 'disputed' land by force and not through discussions was also of your own choosing...so in doing so you initiated the war.the '65 war was like any other territorial war.

Actually one of the direct reasons Pakistan went for a military option was India's blatant disregard for its previous commitments and a unilateral annexation of the territory as part of India. It is you who negated UNSC resolutions and prior pledges so don't even try that 'Pakistan's violence forced India to disregard previous understandings' BS.

 

[qsaark]

Not necessarily biased, perhaps a little naive in regards to this particular issue.

Naive! OK, that is a nice way of rejecting ones opinion and putting his knowledge and understanding to question. So if I say Pakistan won, than it will be all right? Than I will not be called biased but educated.

I am pretty certain that was what you implied when you posted the following.

I'm afraid I don't understand how I was supposed to take it in any other way. You're welcome to enlighten me if I'm mistaken.

You are assuming too much. Just because I don’t say Pakistan won in 1965 (which indeed it did not, irrespective of what our school text books tell us), I can not be blamed for assuming I said it lost. However, there are no two opinions that Pakistan did not achieve for what it infiltrated in Kashmir. Now if you want to call this bias and naivety, you have all the right.

 

[qsaark]

Actually one of the direct reasons Pakistan went for a military option was India's . It is you who negated UNSC resolutions and prior pledges so don't even try that 'Pakistan's violence forced India to disregard previous understandings' BS.

In fact one of the reason of India's blatant disregard for its previous commitments and a unilateral annexation of the territory as part of India was because Pakistan failed to comply with the UN resolution of August 13, 1948.

Part II A(2): The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.

Part II A(3): Pending a final solution, the territory evacuated by the Pakistani troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the commission.

Now in the light of the above, we really don’t hold high moral grounds.

 

[Zob]

Yes it has some interesting issue from a military perspective.

I suspect the Google Earth coordinates I gave are correct as the fort shadow on the ground relates to this picture:

Protector Needs Protection... Kishangarh Fort on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Now from a terrain perspective the fort is actually in a break in the ridge lines, sort of pass, hence the road at that point.
This also comes back to what type of patrols did the Indians have if any. because not to have forward patrols would mean the enemy could get close without detection.

Also if a battalion size was in place there with its support weapons how were they dispersed if at all. In many ways this should have lasted longer than 2 days.
Details lead to questions and possibly incompetence of a commander.

Now throw in the fact that the Pakistan 'Desert Force' was made up of Pakistani military and para-military forces, which included the Hurs, and they had already been conducting raids and captured/attacked villages, leaves many questions why this place fell so easily.
next issue being Indian relief or counter attack if any attempted. Something I doubt happened.

ok ratus between all the jumble up of 65 that usually leads to either a discussion by the indians into GUILT TRIPPING PAKISTANIS into discussing 71 or 48 let us continue with something more relevant to 65 & interesting!!

now at kishangarh fort supposedly the indians had the following concentration of troops....

Maratha Regiment
Rajasthan Armed Constabulary (RAC)
30 Indian Infantry
3 Guards (a mixed unit)
1 Garhwal
4 Maratha Light Inf.: 85 Indian Inf. Bde
17 madras
13 Grenadiers (a mixed unit - Camel borne)


vs a PAKISTANI assault party of

51 Infantry Brigade(2 Infantry battalions)
Hurs
West Pakistan Rangers


now from the looks of it...and i may say i am not an ARMY man the PAKISTANIS were out numbered and were mostly using irregular HUR tribesmen to fight off a proper well trained indian army....of grenadiers & infantry men.

the question then arises what type of patrol setup indians had....and were the indians in a defensive posture or were planning an attack of their own......

if the indians were defensive then overcoming an enemy that has fortified positions & can repulse attacks is & will be harder than fighting off an enemy that is gearing up to attack and you catch them by surprise....


defending a fort in between a pass well should be easier because the enemy( pakistan in this case) has a narrow corridor to throw in its troops.....

ratus will be glad if you can just express your opinon on this issue you being well versed in the army tactics maneuvers & point defense planning....

 

[paritosh]

Actually one of the direct reasons Pakistan went for a military option was India's blatant disregard for its previous commitments and a unilateral annexation of the territory as part of India. It is you who negated UNSC resolutions and prior pledges so don't even try that 'Pakistan's violence forced India to disregard previous understandings' BS.

well the Runn of Kutch dispute was tabled the same year and was solved with the aid of British intervention.yet somehow Kashmir couldn't wait.
IMO your case was strong prior to '65.A diplomatic solution would definitely had gone in your favor...'65 was a calculated yet a stupid move.It was the only time Pakistan had came close to achieving it's objectives.Had we not opened the Punjab front...our forces in Kashmir would have been totally destroyed...but your 'cause' lost much of it's favor.

 

[Kasrkin]

well the Runn of Kutch dispute was tabled the same year and was solved with the aid of British intervention.yet somehow Kashmir couldn't wait.

Yes the Rann of Kutch dispute was solved through mediation because India was soundly beaten, the contested territory was in Pakistan's possession and Pakistan allowed for 90% of that territory to be returned to India in accordance with the findings of the third party. Now contrast that with India’s behavior in Kashmir when she, despite Pakistan’s concessions in the Rann of Kutch, tried to unilaterally incorporate J&K into India without so much as a nod from anyone else. Kashmir couldn't wait because there was no Kashmir issue as far as the Indians were concerned. The only way to get through to you was to do what we did in Kutch.

Naive! OK, that is a nice way of rejecting ones opinion and putting his knowledge and understanding to question. So if I say Pakistan won, than it will be all right? Than I will not be called biased but educated.

Stop being so touchy and confrontational, I like to think we are beyond that.

Just because I don’t say Pakistan won in 1965 (which indeed it did not, irrespective of what our school text books tell us), I can not be blamed for assuming I said it lost.

Well I didn't presume that you feel Pakistan lost just because you failed to say Pakistan won. I was simply reacting to your posts and if you tell me right now that you feel Pakistan did indeed not lose then I believe you.

However, there are no two opinions that Pakistan did not achieve for what it infiltrated in Kashmir.

This is something I've acknowledged in my previous posts. Therefore clearly this was not my position.

In fact one of the reason of India's blatant disregard for its previous commitments and a unilateral annexation of the territory as part of India was because Pakistan failed to comply with the UN resolution of August 13, 1948.

Actually, if you think Pakistan failed in this regard then so did India. You think that these conditions were given to the Pakistanis alone? The Indians were cementing their military muscle in the valley and given this situation Pakistanis felt obliged to stay. Pakistan has always been hopeful of and has lobbied for a mediated solution in line with UNSC resolutions. Had the inclination existed on the other side then I'm sure things would've moved towards a plebiscite and these issues… these technicalities would've been addressed. This is just a technicality through which some Indians have tried to suggest that it was Pakistan that somehow refused to take the resolutions seriously and the Indians were forced to disregard it as well. But the fact of the matter is that it was India, and not Pakistan, that formally tried to annex J&K and disregard its Disputed Territory status. There is absolutely NO credible argument suggesting that Indians were pushing for a mutual withdrawal or that it was even considered; quite to the contrary, Indians were digging in for the long haul, Pakistanis knew and feared this. The very nature of these resolutions meant that the decreed developments had to take place on both sides otherwise the whole thing was pointless, like a plebiscite only in Azad Kashmir would've been useless in solving the larger dispute even if conducted by the UN. If you're trying to tell us or imply to us that Pakistanis lost the 'moral high ground' because we're the ones responsible for stalling and negating the process then you need to get your facts straight and broaden your context. Because Indian-sourced ‘analysis’ will only get you this far…

Better Pakistan get thrashed by this baseless argument of not having taken the resolutions seriously than having what is now Azad Kashmir and more fall to India’s illegal ‘annexations’.

 

[paritosh]

Yes the Rann of Kutch dispute was solved through mediation because India was soundly beaten, the contested territory was in Pakistan's possession and Pakistan allowed for 90% of that territory to be returned to India in accordance with the findings of the third party. Now contrast that with India’s behavior in Kashmir when she, despite Pakistan’s concessions in the Rann of Kutch, tried to unilaterally incorporate J&K into India without so much as a nod from anyone else. Kashmir couldn't wait because there was no Kashmir issue as far as the Indians were concerned. The only way to get through to you was to do what we did in Kutch.

So Pakistan already possessed the Runn of Kutch which was disputed...you justify that by saying that it was to gain a diplomatic upper hand...and with Kashmir...it was with India and you did not think that the 'diplomatic upperhand' would be yours in the Kashmir issue's case so you thought it right to 'posses' Kashmir so that you get a favorable decision.is that right?

 

[Kasrkin]

Nope, the Rann of Kutch Dispute showed our willingness to partake in a mediated solution to the extent that we just gave back 90% of the Kutch territory we had won. India was willing to accept and use a mediated solution when it suited them but in Kashmir’s case it was the same old ‘my way or highway’. In light of this hypocrisy from your side, many in Pakistan must’ve decided that a military endeavor might serve to encourage Indian acceptance of a mediated solution in Kashmir too. Your accusations of Pakistan taking undue advantage through military strength don’t apply because we just handed back 90% of the territory we had just secured without anything in return. It was India who occupied and annexed Disputed Territory on the basis of military assertion alone.

 

[paritosh]

Nope, the Rann of Kutch Dispute showed our willingness to partake in a mediated solution to the extent that we just gave back 90% of the Kutch territory we had won. India was willing to accept and use a mediated solution when it suited them but in Kashmir’s case it was the same old ‘my way or highway’. In light of this hypocrisy from your side, many in Pakistan must’ve decided that a military endeavor might serve to encourage Indian acceptance of a mediated solution in Kashmir too. Your accusations of Pakistan taking undue advantage through military strength don’t apply because we just handed back 90% of the territory we had just secured without anything in return. It was India who occupied and annexed Disputed Territory on the basis of military assertion alone.

can I have a link that states that it was YOU who handed over the territory to us?because I have been made to believe otherwise.
anyway...what happened in '65 was that you sent trained guerrillas to Kashmir to instigate a popular rebellion there...assuming that the Kashmiris were supportive of such a move.The UN resolution stated that Pakistan was also to move out of it's capture territories since the '47-48 status quo.you did not implement them...I expect you to point our the Karachi agreement.but we both know that it was a sham.the northern areas do not have a universal adult franchise...and all issues of the azad kashmir except for it's internal administration are handled by pakistan.so it wasn't disputed...it was already taken.

 

[third eye]

ok ratus between all the jumble up of 65 that usually leads to either a discussion by the indians into GUILT TRIPPING PAKISTANIS into discussing 71 or 48 let us continue with something more relevant to 65 & interesting!!

now at kishangarh fort supposedly the indians had the following concentration of troops....

Maratha Regiment
Rajasthan Armed Constabulary (RAC)
30 Indian Infantry
3 Guards (a mixed unit)
1 Garhwal
4 Maratha Light Inf.: 85 Indian Inf. Bde
17 madras
13 Grenadiers (a mixed unit - Camel borne)


vs a PAKISTANI assault party of

51 Infantry Brigade(2 Infantry battalions)
Hurs
West Pakistan Rangers


now from the looks of it...and i may say i am not an ARMY man the PAKISTANIS were out numbered and were mostly using irregular HUR tribesmen to fight off a proper well trained indian army....of grenadiers & infantry men.

the question then arises what type of patrol setup indians had....and were the indians in a defensive posture or were planning an attack of their own......

if the indians were defensive then overcoming an enemy that has fortified positions & can repulse attacks is & will be harder than fighting off an enemy that is gearing up to attack and you catch them by surprise....


defending a fort in between a pass well should be easier because the enemy( pakistan in this case) has a narrow corridor to throw in its troops.....

ratus will be glad if you can just express your opinon on this issue you being well versed in the army tactics maneuvers & point defense planning....

Can we have a link to the Indian deployment shown above.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Sir,
I have gone through all of them. But you clearly seem to ignore the most powerful reason behind Bengali unrest, which is not Indian involvement, as is accepted today.

The political causes behind Bengali estrangement are irrelevant to my point. My point is that Indian support for insurgents and therefore Indian support for the destabilization of Pakistan occurred before any refugee crises.

If India had no interest in breaking apart Pakistan, why would it support the insurgents and separatists? Destabilizing EP before the refugee crises clearly debunks the argument that Indian intervention was some sort of last resort - the goal was always to damage Pakistan through destabilizing EP, and the argument of 'India took the moral ground' is nothing but a bed time story fed to brainwash Indian minds.

In any case, this can be continued on the EP thread.

Wrt 1948 war, the objective of both sides was complete occupation of J&K which did not happen.

That one liner is not an appropriate response to some detailed arguments made by kasrkin and I indicating that the Pakistani political leadership

a. Very reluctantly authorize the PA to go into Kashmir, after the repercussions of India occupying all of J&K and linking up with the NWFP were clarified.

b. Refused to authorize offensive operations and primarily ordered holding operations to prevent any further Indian territorial gain while the dispute was addressed in the UN.

Furthermore, it was in response to Qsaark's post that India achieved its objectives in 1965, while Pakistan did not, and if achievement of objectives is to be the standard for 'victory', then 1948 by that standard was a 'victory' for Pakistan.

Now if all the talk about 'victory' pipes down, I have no interest in pursuing this line of discussion - it was merely in response to Qssark's post, which he appears to have subsequently clarified.