A collection of neutral assessments on the 1965 war

[Trev]

Neutral assessments
There have been several neutral assessments of the losses incurred by both India and Pakistan during the war. Most of these assessments agree that India had the upper hand over Pakistan when ceasefire was declared. Some of the neutral assessments are mentioned below —

• According to the Library of Congress Country Studies conducted by the Federal Research Division of the United States[73]–

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.

• 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.[74] The article further elaborates,

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.

• Devin T. Hagerty wrote in his book "South Asia in world politics"[75] –

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.

• In his book "National identity and geopolitical visions",[76] Gertjan Dijkink writes –

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.

• An excerpt from Stanley Wolpert's India,[77] summarizing the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965,

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.

• In his book titled The greater game: India's race with destiny and China, David Van Praagh wrote[7] –

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.

• Dennis Kux's "India and the United States estranged democracies" also provides a summary of the war,[78]

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.

• BBC reported that the war served game changer in Pakistani politics,[79]

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.

• "A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947" by Robert Johnson mentions[8] –

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.

• An excerpt from William M. Carpenter and David G. Wiencek's "Asian security handbook: terrorism and the new security environment"[80] –

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.

• English historian John Keay's "India: A History" provides a summary of the 1965 war[81] –

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.

• Uk Heo and Shale Asher Horowitz write in their book "Conflict in Asia: Korea, China-Taiwan, and India-Pakistan"[82] –

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.

• Newsweek magazine, however, praised the Pakistani military's ability to hold off the much larger Indian Army.[83]

By just the end of the week, in fact, it was clear that the Pakistanis were more than holding their own.

 

[AUz]

copy-paste wikipedia childish rants...

"assessment" ...

1965 was a strategic-draw that ended in agreement of ceasefire.

Now, Pakistan---being seven times smaller---utterly humiliated india by forcing it into a draw and made it sign the agreement of ceasefire with much, much smaller enemy.

When was the last time seven times larger nation signed agreement of ceasefire with seven times smaller enemy and 'felt happy'?

While when india faced its equals (chinese)..indian army literally got r@ped.

It shows how weak, and pathetic indians are when it comes to war-fighting ability. Well, that explains the utterly humiliation and slavery indians (hindus) faced against superior Islamic powers.

 

[genmirajborgza786]

copy-paste wikipedia childish rants...

"assessment" ...

1965 was a strategic-draw that ended in agreement of ceasefire.

Now, Pakistan---being seven times smaller---utterly humiliated india by forcing it into a draw and made it sign the agreement of ceasefire with much, much smaller enemy.

When was the last time seven times larger nation signed agreement of ceasefire with seven times smaller enemy and 'felt happy'?

While when india faced its equals (chinese)..indian army literally got r@ped.

It shows how weak, and pathetic indians are when it comes to war-fighting ability. Well, that explains the utterly humiliation and slavery indians (hindus) faced against superior Islamic powers.

dude your geography sucks

Pakistan even after loosing East Pak & siachin is today just 3.6 times smaller then India , which means forget 7 India is not even 4 times larger but 3.6 times larger then Pakistan & @ that times Pakistan had east pak & siachin means that Pakistan at that time was just 3 times smaller then India & not 7 times
secondly learn to respect other peoples religion , living in the U.S & having such extreme views like Hindus or people of any faith being slave or inferior is not very healthy

 

[Judge]

secondly learn to respect other peoples religion , living in the U.S & having such extreme views like Hindus or people of any faith being slave or inferior is not very healthy

Probably one of those that FBI keeps tabs on.

 

[Jf Thunder]

congrats (Y)

 

[xyxmt]

Probably one of those that FBI keeps tabs on.

FBI has a huge dept to investigate threats to Indian security

 

[Shinigami]

OP seems to be a bit young for this

 

[Trawllu]

this is 2014 now lets think where we should be in 2016 and spend 2015 aceivning that goal

forget 1965

 

[RKO]

Another history lesson!!! That too from a male teacher!!!! im not intrested!

 

[Jaat Rock]

Dumb a** India has 7 times more population. Ofcourse they are only 3.5 times bigger in terms of area because of breeding like rats. Indians should rightly feel humiliated how Pakistan **** them.

Now i think you should also check fertility rate of both countries and then you will find out who are breeding like rats and do some calculation also..

 

[AUz]

dude your geography sucks

Pakistan even after loosing East Pak & siachin is today just 3.6 times smaller then India , which means forget 7 India is not even 4 times larger but 3.6 times larger then Pakistan & @ that times Pakistan had east pak & siachin means that Pakistan at that time was just 3 times smaller then India & not 7 times
secondly learn to respect other peoples religion , living in the U.S & having such extreme views like Hindus or people of any faith being slave or inferior is not very healthy

Dumbo, look at the population (manpower available--CRITICAL for war) of both nations.

Anyways, Pakistan forced indians to sign agreement of ceasefire...and indian media itself called a defeat for india.

 

[Shinigami]

i think a pakistani analyst sums it nicely

Till 1965 Pakistan Army keeping in view its equipment and training was relatively superior to the Indian Army.India under Nehru was a peaceful country but the Sino-Indian Conflict of 1962 transformed the whole scenario.Thus while Indian Army had by and large registered no major expansion since 1947 after 1962 the Indians embarked on a highly ambitious expansion programme.It was Pakistan’s good luck that in 1965 this process was at a very rudimentary stage, however by 1971 the whole strategic scenario had changed

 

[Sage]

Neutral assessments
There have been several neutral assessments of the losses incurred by both India and Pakistan during the war. Most of these assessments agree that India had the upper hand over Pakistan when ceasefire was declared. Some of the neutral assessments are mentioned below —

• According to the Library of Congress Country Studies conducted by the Federal Research Division of the United States[73]–

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.

• 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.[74] The article further elaborates,

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.

• Devin T. Hagerty wrote in his book "South Asia in world politics"[75] –

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.

• In his book "National identity and geopolitical visions",[76] Gertjan Dijkink writes –

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.

• An excerpt from Stanley Wolpert's India,[77] summarizing the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965,

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.

• In his book titled The greater game: India's race with destiny and China, David Van Praagh wrote[7] –

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.

• Dennis Kux's "India and the United States estranged democracies" also provides a summary of the war,[78]

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.

• BBC reported that the war served game changer in Pakistani politics,[79]

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.

• "A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947" by Robert Johnson mentions[8] –

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.

• An excerpt from William M. Carpenter and David G. Wiencek's "Asian security handbook: terrorism and the new security environment"[80] –

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.

• English historian John Keay's "India: A History" provides a summary of the 1965 war[81] –

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.

• Uk Heo and Shale Asher Horowitz write in their book "Conflict in Asia: Korea, China-Taiwan, and India-Pakistan"[82] –

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.

• Newsweek magazine, however, praised the Pakistani military's ability to hold off the much larger Indian Army.[83]

By just the end of the week, in fact, it was clear that the Pakistanis were more than holding their own.

You don't have to blare about your 'victory' ...If you were victorious over us in 1965 ...there would be Indian currency running and Indian flag fluttering all over Pakistan ...Since it is not so ...try as you may ...you just can't bag the victory of 1965 ...Pakistan defeated you in every nook and corner ...this you know very well ...but your hindu mentality is not ready to accept this fact ...!

 

[Hell Raiser]

and that is why we need nukes.

 

[SipahSalar]

Props to Pakistan for starting a war of aggression against an enemy 7 times their size and fighting them to a stalemate. No other country could do this. And the fact that India was close to Lahore is really stupid. Have you seen Lahore on a map? Its right next to the border. India will be in sight of Lahore even if we arent at war.

I am certain of one thing, if India could take Lahore in1965, they would have. External pressure wouldnt have meant anything, because it gives you a very strong position at the negotiating table. Truth is that they came close to Lahore but were unable to breakthrough because they lacked the capacity.