A loss in Gilgit by Pakistan army in 1971 no one talks about

[Olympus81]

This is news to me.

Any link? Map?

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

It started the 1965 war, 1971 war and 1999 war and lost each of them. My family knows martyrs from the Kargil war whose bodies were never recovered because the Pakistani kutte harami generals refused to acknowledge them. Indian muslim soldiers had to bury them.

How many in your family fought any of those wars or even the FATA wot?

Let me guess none, a disgruntled and frustrated youthia.

 

[hembo]

This is news to me.

Any link? Map?

Battle of Turtuk​

 

[Abid123]

How many in your family fought any of those wars or even the FATA wot?

Let me guess none, a disgruntled and frustrated youthia.

Watch your language you faujeet. My family relatives have fought in all major expect 1971. Does the truth hurt faujeet? You started and lost all those wars.

 

[Sliver]

This is news to me.

Any link? Map?

the fact that this is news, should be a kind of eye opener of the kind of mis information and hiding of facts that has happened so far.
saying anything more may result in unwanted outcomes (as overseas citizens are also being targeted - their families especially)

 

[JX-1]

Before anyone calls me an ISPR bot, I first learnt the following from an Indian author.

In Kahsmir, Pakistan lost Turtuk, India lost Chamb (which is a strategically important town used as a launching pad for offensives into Akhnoor/Jammu region)

On the international (India-Pak) border in 1971 there is a more interesting story.

India captured much more territory than Pakistan. However, it was almost exclusively barren desert in Sindh which had little to no economic or political significance.

On the other hand, this was offset by the Pakistan Army capturing smaller quantities but far more economically important areas in Punjab.

Although the large quantity of territory India captured was a great talking point for domestic propaganda and jibes at the Pakistan Army, both countries' leaders were well aware of the ground realities.

Both countries tried to retake lost territory post ceasefire. Indians recaptured a sand dune occupied by Pakistan and lost tens of Para SF soldiers.

Pakistan would also launch multiple post ceasefire offensives of varying magnitudes to capture tracts of lost territory in Kashmir, including in Turtuk, inflicting heavy losses on retreating Indian forces. Otherwise they would silently salami slice tracts of Indian held territory.

Hence, at Simla, India returned thousands of square miles of Pakistani territory in exchange for around a hundred square miles of Indian territory. India would also give up Chamb while retaining Turtuk and the ground positions at the time of the Simla agreement would become the LoC. Siachen was left unmarked.

 

[Sliver]

@JX-1
while we know fully well what India lost, or might be losing or is at risk of losing
do we know the same details in terms of Pakistan?

the information that 4 villages were lost during 1971 - not 65.
what was the info we know about 71? that Bangladesh
and that also because "bangladesh is difficult to defend with the territory being so far away" - (its a discussion for another day as to how that is an excuse)

how come even mainland pakistan areas were lost? there were no supply chain issues similar to BD
this discussion never happened - because "this is news to me" - even after 50 years of the incident.

 

[Hulk]

They have a better life in India.

 

[surmabhopali]

The only wars Pakistan army wins are against it's own people. It always wages war against Pakistan's most popular leader and most popular political party.

It seems we will lose the rest of the area knowing how fragile our national security is right now. The generals are corrupt to the core and army has lost so much respect. And then our international political capital is in negative with 0 economy.

India should request pakistan to take kashmir and few more areas from punjab to complete the partition of 1947 . if pakistan agrees to take all muslims from India and few liberal secular hindus who are living in false world of belief that muslims can live peacefully with non muslims .

 

[imadul]

The only wars Pakistan army wins are against it's own people. It always wages war against Pakistan's most popular leader and most popular political party.

It seems we will lose the rest of the area knowing how fragile our national security is right now. The generals are corrupt to the core and army has lost so much respect. And then our international political capital is in negative with 0 economy.

لیکن کسی کو نشان حیدر تو ملا ہوگا؟
دو کو کو ہلال جرات۔
آدھے درجن ستارہ جرأت بھی دئے ہوں گے۔
دو درجن کو جرأتوں کی نشانی کے طور پر تمغہ
جرأت دیے گئے ہوں گے۔

تمغئہ بصالت تو ریوڑیوں کی طرح بانٹے گئے ہوں گے۔

اور پھر طور گائوں کھونے کی یاد میں پاکستان کے طول و عرض میں ان جری سپاہیوں کو ہاؤسنگ سوسائٹیاں بانٹ دی گئیں۔

 

[JX-1]

@JX-1
while we know fully well what India lost, or might be losing or is at risk of losing
do we know the same details in terms of Pakistan?

the information that 4 villages were lost during 1971 - not 65.
what was the info we know about 71? that Bangladesh
and that also because "bangladesh is difficult to defend with the territory being so far away" - (its a discussion for another day as to how that is an excuse)

All territorial changes, including those that were undone during Simla, are listed above. Mainland India also lost territory in Punjab, and this territory was far more valuable than the mostly empty desert the Indians captured.

I'll reiterate - the only lasting territorial changes were at the CFL of 1949 which was converted into the LoC of 1972 after Simla. Even after the war ended Pakistan recovered some tracts of land which it had lost in Kashmir and the LoC was drawn accordingly.

Turtok and some negligible tracts of forest/snow went to the Indians (some recovered in ceasefire violations), while Chamb, arguagbly the most strategically important of them all, went to Pakistan. Territorial loss in the Chamb sector was completely unacceptable for both sides but it was the Indians who lost it.

how come even mainland pakistan areas were lost? there were no supply chain issues similar to BD

Most territory was lost in the barren, (and therefore) mostly undefended deserts of Sindh. After the Indians attacked Sindh, it was reinforced by diverting troops from a planned offensive to push deep into Indian Punjab anyway. The Indian offensive halted after this.

All mainland territory was returned by both sides like 1965 as it was a stalemate. Keep in mind PA was still outnumbered so this is a bit of a miracle. The Indians had committed 200k of their around 800k troops to the East, which left about 600k for operations elsewhere.

That is still about double the size of the entire Pakistan military on both fronts combined (360k). Let's not even begin on the 1:3 arty disadvantage. Half the country was embroiled in civil war. With these odds you'd expect the Indians to steamroll through the Indus Valley (which they planned to)

The Indian objective in Sindh was to go to Chachro and establish rail infra to supply troops for a push to Umerkot and the Green belt.

The Indian attack on Umerkot was repulsed and India was left with barren desert and a financial burden from building all the water and transport infra to supply its troops there. It created an embarrassing situation post-ceasefire to have wasted all that money for nothing.

The mainland Pakistan areas which were lost were of little strategic and economic value, and were returned to Pakistan in the end because Indian territory lost in Punjab more valuable despite being far lesser in quantity. Thus, the losses in mainland Pakistan were acceptable as they were balanced by gains in mainland India.

Do you think India would give up 90,000 PoWs and thousands of square miles of territory to a completely militarily defeated nation? If Pakistan was badly defeated by India we would be forced to make major concessions like giving up Kashmir.

That doesn't excuse the fact that 1971 was a total strategic disaster, losing half the country because of the greed of politicians.

But please everyone, let's stick to the ground realities instead of changing our opinion on the Pak Army's performance based on whether our favourite political party is in power or not.

this discussion never happened - because "this is news to me" - even after 50 years of the incident.

Well that's because most Indians and Pakistanis don't bother to read actual history books, and prefer to get their information from social media for emotional jibes. That's how rubbish rumours like 45,000 PA soldiers doubling in number and Indians searching civilians becoming the "Pakistan army pants removing ceremony" emerge.

 

[SQ8]

How many in your family fought any of those wars or even the FATA wot?

Let me guess none, a disgruntled and frustrated youthia.

Mine did
65(Navigational planning for Op Dwarka) and first bomb ever dropped on India, 71(Chittagong) , Kargil(Evac of wounded to the extent the chopper’s floor became red) and then FATA I had a friend whose head was a football for the Terrorists. None of them take away from the fact that there is serious institutional malaise and a rotten system.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Watch your language you faujeet. My family relatives have fought in all major expect 1971. Does the truth hurt faujeet? You started and lost all those wars.

Start by shaming those in your family. Be a loyal imrandu.

Mine did
65(Navigational planning for Op Dwarka) and first bomb ever dropped on India, 71(Chittagong) , Kargil(Evac of wounded to the extent the chopper’s floor became red) and then FATA I had a friend whose head was a football for the Terrorists. None of them take away from the fact that there is serious institutional malaise and a rotten system.

On this forum we have youthias literally mocking shaheeds, ask them how they feel.

All territorial changes, including those that were undone during Simla, are listed above. Mainland India also lost territory in Punjab, and this territory was far more valuable than the mostly empty desert the Indians captured.

I'll reiterate - the only lasting territorial changes were at the CFL of 1949 which was converted into the LoC of 1972 after Simla. Even after the war ended Pakistan recovered some tracts of land which it had lost in Kashmir and the LoC was drawn accordingly.

Turtok and some negligible tracts of forest/snow went to the Indians (some recovered in ceasefire violations), while Chamb, arguagbly the most strategically important of them all, went to Pakistan. Territorial loss in the Chamb sector was completely unacceptable for both sides but it was the Indians who lost it.


Most territory was lost in the barren, (and therefore) mostly undefended deserts of Sindh. After the Indians attacked Sindh, it was reinforced by diverting troops from a planned offensive to push deep into Indian Punjab anyway. The Indian offensive halted after this.

All mainland territory was returned by both sides like 1965 as it was a stalemate. Keep in mind PA was still outnumbered so this is a bit of a miracle. The Indians had committed 200k of their around 800k troops to the East, which left about 600k for operations elsewhere.

That is still about double the size of the entire Pakistan military on both fronts combined (360k). Let's not even begin on the 1:3 arty disadvantage. Half the country was embroiled in civil war. With these odds you'd expect the Indians to steamroll through the Indus Valley (which they planned to)

The Indian objective in Sindh was to go to Chachro and establish rail infra to supply troops for a push to Umerkot and the Green belt.

The Indian attack on Umerkot was repulsed and India was left with barren desert and a financial burden from building all the water and transport infra to supply its troops there. It created an embarrassing situation post-ceasefire to have wasted all that money for nothing.

The mainland Pakistan areas which were lost were of little strategic and economic value, and were returned to Pakistan in the end because Indian territory lost in Punjab more valuable despite being far lesser in quantity. Thus, the losses in mainland Pakistan were acceptable as they were balanced by gains in mainland India.

Do you think India would give up 90,000 PoWs and thousands of square miles of territory to a completely militarily defeated nation? If Pakistan was badly defeated by India we would be forced to make major concessions like giving up Kashmir.

That doesn't excuse the fact that 1971 was a total strategic disaster, losing half the country because of the greed of politicians.

But please everyone, let's stick to the ground realities instead of changing our opinion on the Pak Army's performance based on whether our favourite political party is in power or not.

Well that's because most Indians and Pakistanis don't bother to read actual history books, and prefer to get their information from social media for emotional jibes. That's how rubbish rumours like 45,000 PA soldiers doubling in number and Indians searching civilians becoming the "Pakistan army pants removing ceremony" emerge.

The threat of losing eastern Punjab made them change their diapers constantly. It's acknowledged even by indian gens on the Punjab front. But Paks strategic fukups, specially the change of Comd during akhnoor cost us that victory.

 

[ali_raza]

All territorial changes, including those that were undone during Simla, are listed above. Mainland India also lost territory in Punjab, and this territory was far more valuable than the mostly empty desert the Indians captured.

I'll reiterate - the only lasting territorial changes were at the CFL of 1949 which was converted into the LoC of 1972 after Simla. Even after the war ended Pakistan recovered some tracts of land which it had lost in Kashmir and the LoC was drawn accordingly.

Turtok and some negligible tracts of forest/snow went to the Indians (some recovered in ceasefire violations), while Chamb, arguagbly the most strategically important of them all, went to Pakistan. Territorial loss in the Chamb sector was completely unacceptable for both sides but it was the Indians who lost it.


Most territory was lost in the barren, (and therefore) mostly undefended deserts of Sindh. After the Indians attacked Sindh, it was reinforced by diverting troops from a planned offensive to push deep into Indian Punjab anyway. The Indian offensive halted after this.

All mainland territory was returned by both sides like 1965 as it was a stalemate. Keep in mind PA was still outnumbered so this is a bit of a miracle. The Indians had committed 200k of their around 800k troops to the East, which left about 600k for operations elsewhere.

That is still about double the size of the entire Pakistan military on both fronts combined (360k). Let's not even begin on the 1:3 arty disadvantage. Half the country was embroiled in civil war. With these odds you'd expect the Indians to steamroll through the Indus Valley (which they planned to)

The Indian objective in Sindh was to go to Chachro and establish rail infra to supply troops for a push to Umerkot and the Green belt.

The Indian attack on Umerkot was repulsed and India was left with barren desert and a financial burden from building all the water and transport infra to supply its troops there. It created an embarrassing situation post-ceasefire to have wasted all that money for nothing.

The mainland Pakistan areas which were lost were of little strategic and economic value, and were returned to Pakistan in the end because Indian territory lost in Punjab more valuable despite being far lesser in quantity. Thus, the losses in mainland Pakistan were acceptable as they were balanced by gains in mainland India.

Do you think India would give up 90,000 PoWs and thousands of square miles of territory to a completely militarily defeated nation? If Pakistan was badly defeated by India we would be forced to make major concessions like giving up Kashmir.

That doesn't excuse the fact that 1971 was a total strategic disaster, losing half the country because of the greed of politicians.

But please everyone, let's stick to the ground realities instead of changing our opinion on the Pak Army's performance based on whether our favourite political party is in power or not.

Well that's because most Indians and Pakistanis don't bother to read actual history books, and prefer to get their information from social media for emotional jibes. That's how rubbish rumours like 45,000 PA soldiers doubling in number and Indians searching civilians becoming the "Pakistan army pants removing ceremony" emerge.

what i don’t understand is after loosing turtuk and kargil
wasnt it obvious that the next target would be siachin although barren or whtever is or was part of our country which now is soo painful to watch seeing how cpec is being planned accordingly and major hydropower projects are being planned in the area
but i do agree on chamb value which is no doubt immense but so is the value of nagar parker
but we never capitalize on our position as india did
i mean why couldn’t we just walk in and grabbed zojila pass when we were taking drass kargil batalik while all of it was empty
i can give u many examples but i guess its all coming down to lack of foresight

 

[GumNaam]

there were dha schemes in gilgit, why bother defending?