An account of 1965 | Book review posted in India Today

[scorpionx]

@hussain0216:

In 1965,both the armies were close to decisive wins when inept commanders failed to achieve the immediate objectives. Both the armies made huge tactical blunders,which were sometimes laughable. But the difference is the aftermath of the 1965 battle.While we learnt from our mistakes your military commanders suffered from extra ordinary Islamic martial superiority over the Indians. You could have easily repeat 1965 six years later and prevent the forcible bifurcation,but sadly you could not.

 

[hussain0216]

71 is a totally different story,

The whole concept of a divided nation separated by over 1000 miles is flawed, with better governance, better democracy so people felt included, better communication you had half a chance but in the decades after partition none of those existed and ultimatley the people of east Pakistan wanted independence so they could govern themselves rather then have policy dicated to them from West Pakistan that didnt neccersarily reflect what was happening on the groung in east Pakistan.

All that is understandable

However even without indian involvement ultimatley Pakistan wouldnt have been able to hold onto Bangladesh is the people there didnt want to be ruled from Pakistan, it would have taken more time, been more messy but it would have occurred


There was no way Pakistan a developing nation in the early 70's could possibly done anything, India just took advantage of that, they shared a border with Bangladesh and could send in as many soldiers and resources as they wanted whilst pakistani forces could not be supplied, had no significant air or naval support and ultimatley were running low on all resources with a local population that because hostile



The only thing India did was take advantage of the situation



In 1965 or even before and after you have a much much larger India, getting nothing more then Parity with a much smaller nation, your larger, military, larger army, larger navy never being able to achieve much more then minor points for fan boys to argue over decades later


Sure both militaries made blunders they were 3rd world nations effectivley

But your failure to defeat a much smaller nation is stark

 

[Jf Thunder]

i am extremely patriotic, but when someone talks of 1971, it is shameful for me, because it was a war that we could win, just because we had a drunkard for our COAS and a stupid general who surrendered it was a SHAMEFUL loss for us, i cry when i think about it. we might as well have lost, but a surrender? it makes me sick, in short whenever Pakistan is close to wining there is a ceasefire, but whenever Pakistan is loosing they let the war go to the very end

 

[third eye]

i am extremely patriotic, but when someone talks of 1971, it is shameful for me, because it was a war that we could win, just because we had a drunkard for our COAS and a stupid general who surrendered it was a SHAMEFUL loss for us, i cry when i think about it. we might as well have lost, but a surrender? it makes me sick, in short whenever Pakistan is close to wining there is a ceasefire, but whenever Pakistan is loosing they let the war go to the very end

Keen to know how Pak could have ' won' the war in 71.

 

[Vinod2070]

1965 was the start of the downward spiral for Pakistan.

And it has been downhill ever since.

 

[Jf Thunder]

Keen to know how Pak could have ' won' the war in 71.

you will know that when you somehow magically reverse time and i go and shoot Lt Gen Niazi in the head.

1965 was the start of the downward spiral for Pakistan.

And it has been downhill ever since.

yes it was, FOR YOU ONLY, stay in your fools paradise and be happy

 

[third eye]

you will know that when you somehow magically reverse time and i go and shoot Lt Gen Niazi in the head.

Ok.. so it was only in the imagination that the war was ' winable"

 

[Jf Thunder]

Ok.. so it was only in the imagination that the war was ' winable"

so did you think that somehow i actually went back in time and won the war for us?

 

[third eye]

so did you think that somehow i actually went back in time and won the war for us?

No, I was expecting some cogent reasons.

 

[Jf Thunder]

No, I was expecting some cogent reasons.

expect the unexpected

 

[scorpionx]

you will know that when you somehow magically reverse time and i go and shoot Lt Gen Niazi in the head.

Even if you had shot Mr.Niazi in early'71 you simply could not have saved Dhaka. Because it is quite easy to blame a single person for a collective failure. Have you ever thought why Mr.Niazi was denied any chances of self defence? At the age of 86,he himself had volunteered for court martial to prove his innocence in 2001,30 years after the war.

Pakistan,anyhow had to lose Bangladesh.No offence but blaming Niazi for the defeat sounds a kind of lame excuse.

 

[Contrarian]

i am extremely patriotic, but when someone talks of 1971, it is shameful for me, because it was a war that we could win, just because we had a drunkard for our COAS and a stupid general who surrendered it was a SHAMEFUL loss for us, i cry when i think about it. we might as well have lost, but a surrender? it makes me sick, in short whenever Pakistan is close to wining there is a ceasefire, but whenever Pakistan is loosing they let the war go to the very end

Pakistan is never close to winning

 

[Jf Thunder]

Even if you had shot Mr.Niazi in early'71 you simply could not have saved Dhaka. Because it is quite easy to blame a single person for a collective failure. Have you ever thought why Mr.Niazi was denied any chances of self defence? At the age of 86,he himself had volunteered for court martial to prove his innocence in 2001,30 years after the war.

Pakistan,anyhow had to lose Bangladesh.No offence but blaming Niazi for the defeat sounds a kind of lame excuse.

well you can blame Yahya Khan, Bhutto and Niazi? no the reason is not defeat, i accept that we could loose? but surrender, it just sucks

 

[scorpionx]

well you can blame Yahya Khan, Bhutto and Niazi? no the reason is not defeat, i accept that we could loose? but surrender, it just sucks

Niazi and his troops were outnumbered. West Pakistan simply could not provided the logistical support to the East any more.So what were the options in hand other than surrender? Mr.Niazi in one of his interviews had explicitly balmaed yahya Khan for the order to surrender though he wanted to go on fighting (God knows how long) with Indians and Mukti Bahini.

 

[Jf Thunder]

Niazi and his troops were outnumbered. West Pakistan simply could not provided the logistical support to the East any more.So what were the options in hand other than surrender? Mr.Niazi in one of his interviews had explicitly balmaed yahya Khan for the order to surrender though he wanted to go on fighting (God knows how long) with Indians and Mukti Bahini.

HE SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN ALL HIS MEN KILLED, THEY SHOULD HAVE DIED FIGHTING, YAHYA KHAN WAS A DRUNKARD and THARKI, HE SHOULD HAVE IGNORED IT