1965 WAR- The Inside Story by R.D. Pradhan

[RiazHaq]

Haq's Musings: Inside Story: Pakistan Army at the Gates of Delhi in 1965 War?

"...a major battle the west of the Beas would end in the destruction of the Indian Army and thereafter allow the enemy (Pakistani) forces to push to the gates of Delhi without much resistance." 1965 WAR-The Inside Story by R.D. Pradhan

As Pakistanis honor the memory of their 1965 war heroes on Defense of Pakistan Day today, let us review some snippets of how the war looked from the other side. R.D. Pradhan and Harbakhsh Singh were both insiders who participated in the 1965 India-Pakistan war. While Pradhan was a civilian working for Indian Defense Minister Y.B. Chavan, General Harbakhash Singh was commanding Indian troops on the front-lines. Both have written books drawing upon their first-hand knowledge of how the war started, unfolded and ended in September, 1965.

In Chapter 8 titled "Of Cowardice and Panic" of his book "1965 War-The Inside Story", R.D. Pradhan describes the cowardice of Maj. Gen. Niranjan Prasad, the Indian general commanding officer in Lahore sector. When Pakistan Defense Forces counter-attacked the intruding Indian military and the general was fired upon on Sept 6, 1965, he "ran away". Here's an excerpt:


"On learning that, Lt. Gen. Harbakash Singh and the corps commander drove in a Jonga (Nissan P60 Jeep) to the battlefront. Army commander found that the enemy (PAF) air attack had created a havoc on G.T. Road. (Indian) Vehicles were burning and several vehicles of 15 Division abandoned on the road, the drivers having run away, leaving some of the engines still running. Maj. Gen. Niranjan Prasad was hiding in a recently irrigated sugar cane field. As described by Harabakash Singh: "He (Prasad) came out to receive us, with his boots covered with wet mud. He had no head cover, nor was he wearing any badges of his rank. He had stubble on his face, not having shaved." Seeing him in such a stage, Harbakhash Singh asked him: "Whether he was the General Officer commanding a division or a coolie? Why had he removed badges of rank and not shaved? Niranjan Prasad had no answer."

Chapter 12 of Pradhan's book is titled "Retreat to Beas" in which there is detailed discussion of Indian COAS's proposal for the Indian Army to retreat behind Beas in the face of Pakistan's fierce counter-attacks after India's attempted incursion in Lahore. Pradhan argues in this chapter that during the 1965 war with Pakistan, Indian COAS General Chaudhuri feared that "a major battle the west of the Beas would end in the destruction of the Indian Army and thereafter allow the enemy (Pakistani) forces to push to the gates of Delhi without much resistance".

Pradhan's book contains many different entries by Indian Defense Minister Y.B. Chavan. A Sept 9, 1965 entry reads:

'Had a very hard day on all fronts. Very fierce counter-attacks mounted and we are required to withdraw in Kasur area. COAS was somewhat uncertain of himself. I suggested to him that he should go in forward areas so that he will be in touch of realities. He said he would go next day.'


In Line of Duty: 'A Soldier Remembers, according to Shekhar Gupta, the editor of Indian Express, Lt Gen Harbakhsh Singh reveals that not only "did Gen Chowdhury play a very small role in the entire campaign, he was so nervous as to be on the verge of losing half of Punjab to Pakistan, including the city of Amritsar. Harbakhsh describes, in clinical detail, how our own offensive in the Lahore sector had come unhinged. The general commanding the division on Ichchogil canal fled in panic, leaving his jeep, its wireless running and the briefcase containing sensitive documents that were then routinely read on Radio Pakistan during the war. Singh wanted to court martial him, Chowdhury let him get away with resignation".

According to Shekhar Gupta, Harbkhash Singh recounts that a bigger disaster struck a bit to the south where the other division cracked up in assault, just as it encountered a bit of resistance. Several infantry battalions, short on battle inoculation, deserted and Singh gives a hair-raising account – and confirmation of a long-debated rumor – that Chowdhury panicked so badly he ordered him to withdraw to a new defensive line behind the Beas, thereby conceding half of Punjab to Pakistan. Singh describes the conversation with Chowdhury at Ambala where he refused to carry out the order, asking his chief to either put it down in writing or visit the front and take charge of the battle.'

Beyond the Indian insiders quoted above, here is how several non-Pakistani journalists have covered the war:


The London Daily Mirror reported in 1965:

"There is a smell of death in the burning Pakistan sun. For it was here that India's attacking forces came to a dead stop.

"During the night they threw in every reinforcement they could find. But wave after wave of attacks were repulsed by the Pakistanis"

"India", said the London Daily Times, "is being soundly beaten by a nation which is outnumbered by four and a half to one in population and three to one in size of armed forces."

In Times reporter Louis Karrar wrote:

"Who can defeat a nation which knows how to play hide and seek with death".

USA - Aviation week - December 1968 issue:

"For the PAF, the 1965 war was as climatic as the Israeli victory over the Arabs in 1967. A further similarity was that Indian air power had an approximately 5:1 numerical superiority at the start of the conflict. Unlike the Middle East conflict, the Pakistani air victory was achieved to a large degree by air-to-air combat rather than on ground. But it was as absolute as that attained by Israel."

India was the first to accept UN sponsored ceasefire (page 100 of RD Pradhan's book) followed by Pakistan which brought the 1965 war to an end on Sept 22, 1965. As the ceasefire took effect, Indian Defense Y.B. Chavan wrote in his diary as follows:

"The ball is now in the political court again--where it should be--and not in the military one. I hope we have the vision and courage to (our) political leadership."

Alas, the core issue of Kashmir still remains unresolved 48 years since Mr. Chavan wrote his words of wisdom.

Haq's Musings: Inside Story: Pakistan Army at the Gates of Delhi in 1965 War?

 

[Kompromat]

Regardless how how much the Indians hate this fact. PAF had attained full air dominance over the battlefield [Pakistani airspace] within first 100 hours of the war. The war in general was inconclusive like most wars in history, but from Pakistani perspective it was a show of defiance and strength to a bully that otherwise would never stop bullying.

Rest in Peace our brothers - we don't have words to thank you for your sacrifice.

 

[Iggy]

"On learning that, Lt. Gen. Harbakash Singh and the corps commander drove in a Jonga (Nissan P60 Jeep) to the battlefront. Army commander found that the enemy (PAF) air attack had created a havoc on G.T. Road. (Indian) Vehicles were burning and several vehicles of 15 Division abandoned on the road, the drivers having run away, leaving some of the engines still running. Maj. Gen. Niranjan Prasad was hiding in a recently irrigated sugar cane field. As described by Harabakash Singh: "He (Prasad) came out to receive us, with his boots covered with wet mud. He had no head cover, nor was he wearing any badges of his rank. He had stubble on his face, not having shaved." Seeing him in such a stage, Harbakhash Singh asked him: "Whether he was the General Officer commanding a division or a coolie? Why had he removed badges of rank and not shaved? Niranjan Prasad had no answer."

Just a doubt, how the author think the soldiers will wear badges to show his rank in the battlefront? Isnt it make easier for a sniper to select the correct target?

 

[Panther 57]

"Who can defeat a nation which knows how to play hide and seek with death".

We forgot them and were lost in Bollywood, but it is a pleasure to see (after a long time) full coverage of the day, by a number of TV channels.

 

[Kompromat]

Just a doubt, how the author think the soldiers will wear badges to show his rank in the battlefront? Isnt it make easier for a sniper to select the correct target?

.....and he becomes indistinguishable to his own soldiers too. If you get caught in Pakistan during the war, the chances of you surviving are zero.

 

[Iggy]

.....and he becomes indistinguishable to his own soldiers too. If you get caught in Pakistan during the war, the chances of you surviving are zero.

Mate, isnt it mandatory to soldiers not to even salute at superiors in the battlefront? Correct me if I am wrong. I mean there was an argument back in this forum about how Pakistani officer looks like an ordinary soldier during a flag meeting.. It was said that officers usually wear dress like that in border areas..

 

[Kompromat]

Mate, isnt it mandatory to soldiers not to even salute at superiors in the battlefront? Correct me if I am wrong. I mean there was an argument back in this forum about how Pakistani officer looks like an ordinary soldier during a flag meeting.. It was said that officers usually wear dress like that in border areas..

They wear camouflage but ranks are displayed.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Pakistan has much better equipment in 1965. They fought very well in the Chamb sector. But elsewhere - not so good.
Pakistan in the end lost 1840sqkm while India lost 540sqkm. Thank God acc to the Tashkent decl. both were returned.

PAF performed very well during the war. But they failed to achieve tactical/strategic air superiority.

"The PAF lost some 25 aircraft (11 in air combat), while the Indians lost 60 (25 in air combat). This was an impressive result, but it was simply not good enough. Pakistan ended the war having depleted 17 percent of its front line strength, while India's losses amounted to less than 10 percent. Moreover, the loss rate had begun to even out, and it has been estimated that another three week's fighting would have seen the Pakistani losses rising to 33 percent and India's losses totalling 15 percent. Air superiority was not achieved, and were unable to prevent IAF fighter bombers and reconnaissance Canberras from flying daylight missions over Pakistan. Thus 1965 was a stalemate in terms of the air war with neither side able to achieve complete air superiority" - The Encyclopedia of 20th Century Air Warfare Edited by Chris Bishop (amber publishing 1997, republished 2004 pages 384-387 ISBN 1-904687-26-1)

Besides India was not all that powerful in Air power, as the bulk remained on guard against China.

Sometimes - officers don't wear their rank on their sleeve, especially in places that are 'partisan dominated'. Or if there is a great sniper menace. Happened often in World War II.

They wear camouflage but ranks are displayed.

 

[Kompromat]

Pakistan has much better equipment in 1965. They fought very well in the Chamb sector. But elsewhere - not so good.
Pakistan in the end lost 1840sqkm while India lost 540sqkm. Thank God acc to the Tashkent decl. both were returned.

PAF performed very well during the war. But they failed to achieve tactical/strategic air superiority.

"The PAF lost some 25 aircraft (11 in air combat), while the Indians lost 60 (25 in air combat). This was an impressive result, but it was simply not good enough. Pakistan ended the war having depleted 17 percent of its front line strength, while India's losses amounted to less than 10 percent. Moreover, the loss rate had begun to even out, and it has been estimated that another three week's fighting would have seen the Pakistani losses rising to 33 percent and India's losses totalling 15 percent. Air superiority was not achieved, and were unable to prevent IAF fighter bombers and reconnaissance Canberras from flying daylight missions over Pakistan. Thus 1965 was a stalemate in terms of the air war with neither side able to achieve complete air superiority" - The Encyclopedia of 20th Century Air Warfare Edited by Chris Bishop (amber publishing 1997, republished 2004 pages 384-387 ISBN 1-904687-26-1)

Besides India was not all that powerful in Air power, as the bulk remained on guard against China.

Sometimes - officers don't wear their rank on their sleeve, especially in places that are 'partisan dominated'. Or if there is a great sniper menace. Happened often in World War II.

Little correction | 'Territory gained' is NOT the same as 'Territory Held'.


If we go by the other definition than the German army had captured 30% of Russia all the way to Stalingrad.

 

[RPK]

In India historian always criticize the failure part of the war unlike others

 

[RPK]

Nothing big..

indians have been humiliated, slaughtered, and defeated by smaller Muslim forces throughout last 1200 years of history...

War of 1965 was no different, where smaller Pakistani military slapped indian military right in the face and left several times larger indian military in utter shame and humiliation.

indians can only taste "victory" when these poor, weak souls stab our back during a "civil war" where Pakistanis fight Pakistanis..(71 for example)..

If war was held on equal footing, i.e Pakistan and india had same size, number of forces, population, land etc, Pakistan would have crushed india by now...Kinda like what China (an equal (ball-park) of india in land, resources, population etc) did to indians....

Pakistan Zindabad!

This shows Quality of you post rest all rant.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Little correction | 'Territory gained' is NOT the same as 'Territory Held'.
If we go by the other definition than the German army had captured 30% of Russia all the way to Stalingrad.

It is Territory that was returned after Tashkent. It means Territory held.

Let me quote references about the end result.

1. "The Indian army suffered 3,000 battlefield deaths, while Pakistan suffered 3,800. The Indian army was in possession of 710 miles² (1,800 km²) of Pakistani territory and the Pakistan army held 210 mile² (550 km²) of Indian territory. The territory occupied by India was mainly in the fertile Sialkot, Lahore and Kashmir sectors" - The Story of My Struggle By Tajammal Hussain Malik 1991, Jang Publishers, p. 78

2. "while Pakistani land gains were primarily south in deserts opposite to Sindh and in Chumb sector near Kashmir in north." - Khaki Shadows by General K.M. Arif, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-579396-X, 2001

3. "The war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavy—on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government." - "Pakistan :: The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965". Library of Congress Country Studies, United States of America. April 1994. Retrieved 2 October 2010.

4. TIME magazine reported that India held 690 mi2 of Pakistan territory while Pakistan held 250 mi2 of Indian territory in Kashmir and Rajasthan. Additionally, Pakistan had lost almost half its armour temporarily. "Severely mauled by the larger Indian armed forces, Pakistan could continue the fight only by teaming up with Red China and turning its back on the U.N." - Silent Guns, Wary Combatants, October 1, 1965, TIME Magazine

5. "The invading Indian forces outfought their Pakistani counterparts and halted their attack on the outskirts of Lahore, Pakistan's second-largest city. By the time United Nations intervened on September 22, Pakistan had suffered a clear defeat." - Hagerty, Devin. South Asia in world politics. Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. ISBN 0-7425-2587-2.

6. "The superior Indian forces, however, won a decisive victory and the army could have even marched on into Pakistani territory had external pressure not forced both combatants to cease their war efforts." - Dijkink, Gertjan. National identity and geopolitical visions: maps of pride and pain. Routledge, 1996. ISBN 0-415-13934-1.

7. "In three weeks the second Indo-Pak War ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on U.S. ammunition and replacements for both armies forced cessation of conflict before either side won a clear victory. India, however, was in a position to inflict grave damage to, if not capture, Pakistan's capital of the Punjab when the cease-fire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to Ayub's chagrin." - India by Stanley Wolpert. Published: University of California Press, 1990

8. "India won the war. It gained 1,840 km2 (710 sq mi) of Pakistani territory: 640 km2 (250 sq mi) in Azad Kashmir, Pakistan's portion of the state; 460 km2 (180 sq mi) of the Sailkot sector; 380 km2 (150 sq mi) far to the south of Sindh; and most critical, 360 km2 (140 sq mi) on the Lahore front. Pakistan took 540 km2 (210 sq mi) of Indian territory: 490 km2 (190 sq mi) in the Chhamb sector and 50 km2 (19 sq mi) around Khem Karan." - Praagh, David. The greater game: India's race with destiny and China. McGill-Queen's Press – MQUP, 2003. ISBN 0-7735-2639-0.

9. "Although both sides lost heavily in men and material, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the better of the war. New Delhi achieved its basic goal of thwarting Pakistan's attempt to seize Kashmir by force. Pakistan gained nothing from a conflict which it had instigated." - "India and the United States estranged democracies", 1941–1991, ISBN 1-4289-8189-6, DIANE Publishing, Pg 238

10. "The defeat in the 1965 war led to the army's invincibility being challenged by an increasingly vocal opposition. This became a surge after his protege, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, deserted him and established the Pakistan People's Party." - Ali, Mahmud. (2003-12-24) South Asia | The rise of Pakistan's army. BBC News. Retrieved on 2011-04-14.

11. "India's strategic aims were modest – it aimed to deny Pakistani Army victory, although it ended up in possession of 720 square miles (1,900 km2) of Pakistani territory for the loss of just 220 square miles (570 km2) of its own." - Johnson, Robert. A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947. Reaktion Books, 2005. ISBN 1-86189-257-8.

12. "A brief but furious 1965 war with India began with a covert Pakistani thrust across the Kashmiri cease-fire line and ended up with the city of Lahore threatened with encirclement by Indian Army. Another UN-sponsored cease-fire left borders unchanged, but Pakistan's vulnerability had again been exposed." - William M. Carpenter, David G. Wiencek. Asian security handbook: terrorism and the new security environment. M.E. Sharpe, 2005. ISBN 0-7656-1553-3.

13. "The 1965 Indo-Pak war lasted barely a month. Pakistan made gains in the Rajasthan desert but its main push against India's Jammu-Srinagar road link was repulsed and Indian tanks advanced to within a sight of Lahore. Both sides claimed victory but India had most to celebrate." - John Keay. India: A History. Grove Press, 2001. ISBN 0-275-97779-X.

14. "Again India appeared, logistically at least, to be in a superior position but neither side was able to mobilize enough strength to gain a decisive victory." - Uk Heo, Shale Asher Horowitz. Conflict in Asia: Korea, China-Taiwan, and India-Pakistan. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003. ISBN 0-8021-3797-0.

Also of note are these -
1. Musharraf buys all copies of sensitive '65 war book - World - DNA
2. The Myth of 1965 Victory by Lieutenant General Mahmood Ahmed

 

[Kompromat]

@SarthakGanguly

You just conveniently ignored what i wrote above didn't you?

 

[SarthakGanguly]

No Sir. Diplomatically it was a stalemate as territory was returned to both sides as per Tashkent.

So how do you celebrate today btw?
You got a longer weekend - right ?

@SarthakGanguly

You just conveniently ignored what i wrote above didn't you?

Leave him alone. Let's not bring faith and all that. Have a nice day everyone.

And the weaker souls converted to islam and later demanded a separate state.

 

[Srinivas]

@RiazHaq another typical twisted fact. Defending forces will always have advantage, The reality is "India never wanted any Pakistani Land".

The general waited there since Indians favoured a status quo nothing else.

You should remember that after almost 2 weeks Pakistanis are short of Oil and other things which are needed for continuation of war.