For peace with Pak, India has to be strong

[Contrarian]

Most people believe that during 1965; the Rann of Kutch Indian military debacle followed by Pakistan's aimless incursions into Kashmir; originally opposed in 1964 by the Army CinC (as told to me by a reliable source who does not wish his name to be disclosed), led to a full scale war in the plains of Punjab. It included the largest tank battle which had taken place till then, this side of the WW II. The outcome of the 1965 war, consisting mainly of costly military manoeuvring by both sides, was however a stalemate. Finally, both sides heaved a sigh of relief when the UN sponsored cease-fire came through. It was a victory for neither country. On the contrary, the pride of the Indian Military leadership was badly dented by its failure to effectively utilise the massive forces available to it. Simultaneously, the myth of a mobile, hard hitting Pakistan Army was sadly tarnished when it failed to exploit a break through across the river Ravi.

Pakistan And Its Three Wars - 1: Defence Journal

 

[Contrarian]

Let General Musa describe the genesis of the surprise' Indian attack on 6th September in his own words.

The then Foreign Minister Mr Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, and the Foreign Secretary, Aziz Ahmed spurred on by Major General Akhtar Hussain Malik, who was commander of our troops in Azad Kashmir, pressed the Government to take advantage of the disturbed situation in the valley and direct the Army to send raiders into Indian held Kashmir for conducting guerrilla activities there and to help, on a long term basis, the locals in organising a movement with a view to eventually starting an uprising against the occupying power.

Continues the former C-in-C on page 6 of his book, the sponsors and supporters of the raids had at last succeeded in persuading the President to take the plunge that led to an all-out armed conflict with India' ....... To the extent that the concept of sending infiltrators in the Indian held Kashmir, code named Gibraltar' was the brain-child of the ministry of Foreign Affairs, is the simple truth and nothing but the truth. But General Musa, the C-in-C, assumed full responsibility for the development of the concept, its planning and coordination of the entire operation. This is graphically stated by him on page 35 of his book: After the Government finally decided that deep raids should be launched in Indian-held Kashmir, I directed Commander 12 Division, Major General Akhtar Hussain Malik, to prepare a draft plan for the operation, code-named Gibraltar' in consultation with GHQ and within the broad concept we had specified. GHQ approved it after making certain changes in it. With the help of sand model, he went over the final plan in Murree before it was put into effect on 7 August, 1965 under our overall control. The Supreme Commander and his Military Secretary were present. He also agreed with it. I was accompanied by the CGS (Major General Sher Bahadur) and the Directors of Military Operations and Intelligence (Brigadiers Gul Hasan and Irshad Ahmed Khan respectively). No civil official attended this briefing.

Broadly the plan envisaged, on a short-term basis, sabotage of military targets, disruptions of communications, etc. and, as a long-term measure, distribution of arms to the people of occupied Kashmir and initiation of a guerrilla movement there with a view to starting an uprising in the valley eventually. The push towards Akhnur was not part of it. However, it was considered as one of the likely operations that we might have to undertake, as we felt our activities would have an escalating effect.

1965 War Operation Gibraltar Role of SSG Para Commandos

 

[Contrarian]

Musharraf buys all copies of sensitive ‘65 war book

ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Army general headquarters has purchased all 22,000 copies of a sensitive book by a former Inter Services Intelligence(ISI) chief on the myth of the victory claimed by the Pakistan Army in the 1965 war against India.

The army felt The Myth of 1965 Victory by Lieutenant General Mahmood Ahmed would malign the armed forces’ image.

According to GHQ sources, army chief General Pervez Musharraf found the book, published by Oxford University Press, ‘too sensitive’.
DNA - World - Musharraf buys all copies of sensitive ‘65 war book - Daily News & Analysis

 

[Contrarian]

I am going to sleep now mate. I still have a lot more to post, but unfortunately, i am leaving for my hostel tomorrow which means i wont be able to continue our fruitful discussion. I might be able to get a peek at the forum before i leave, but wont be able to continue our debate. But rest assured i will respond as soon as i come back.

I hope atleast some of these sources qualify your criteria, apart from the fact that your own generals and retired officers who served at the time are the ones who are questioning what you are saying now. That is think is the most damning of my evidence. I have deliberately avoided posting from Indian sources. Oh and also do consider my first post that was from a blog.

I reiterate, i dont care who won or lost or by how much, what i do care is for you to accept that Pakistan launched the war.

 

[Neo]

Can there be peace until Pakistan renounces its deeply held objective that the Kashmir valley cannot remain an integral part of India? Can any government in Delhi purchase peace by any compromise on the legal and territorial status quo?

Why does every Kashmir debate go around what India or Pakistan want? What about what 13 million Kashmiri's want?

The only peaceful solution is the one acceptable to Kashmiri's themselves, either be part of India or Pakistan thru some pleb or become independant.
Forceful occupation by either side is the fuel to almost all conflicts between the two adversaries and both will do all possible to maintain current status quo in terms of military strenght.

Instead of dreaming to become stronger to enforce peace Imho we should consider a shift in bilateral policies and let Kashmir go independant.

 

[Malang]

Why does every Kashmir debate go around what India or Pakistan want? What about what 13 million Kashmiri's want?

The only peaceful solution is the one acceptable to Kashmiri's themselves, either be part of India or Pakistan thru some pleb or become independant.
Forceful occupation by either side is the fuel to almost all conflicts between the two adversaries and both will do all possible to maintain current status quo in terms of military strenght.

Instead of dreaming to become stronger to enforce peace Imho we should consider a shift in bilateral policies and let Kashmir go independant.

Neo,

It is said
to save a family, a member may be sacrificed..
to save a village, a house may be sacrificed..
to save a province, a village may be sacrificed..
to save a nation, a province may be sacrificed..


What a simple majority of Kashmiris want has disastrous ramifications for 1.3bn people directly. An Independent Kashmir would definetly not be a Sovereign Kashmir for starters. Both parties have to realize what is at stake, you can't progress without being insensitive to the others position.


Adding some more points..


I don't think Indians by and large would be comfortable if they are convinced that their govt or army is indulging in any kind of sponsored brutality in Kashmir. Neither the soldiers or officers posted there can be accepted to act like the vilest of men indulging in murders and rapes as some Pakistani news sources portray. I know a few people posted in Kashmir, I am sure they would rather be court-martialled than indulge in acts unbecoming a soldier of Indian Army.


I further think if Pakistanis well and truly unconditionally care for Kashmiris, they would aim for peace so that Kashmiris on either side have normal relations. Pakistan must realize wresting Kashmir out of India, is next to impossible esp by the means being employed such as by constantly poking their noses in affairs, bringing in religion, giving support to militants etc.

 

[ashfaque]

Why does every Kashmir debate go around what India or Pakistan want? What about what 13 million Kashmiri's want?

The only peaceful solution is the one acceptable to Kashmiri's themselves, either be part of India or Pakistan thru some pleb or become independant.
Forceful occupation by either side is the fuel to almost all conflicts between the two adversaries and both will do all possible to maintain current status quo in terms of military strenght.

Instead of dreaming to become stronger to enforce peace Imho we should consider a shift in bilateral policies and let Kashmir go independant.

Neo problem is, at Indian side Kashmir, people can raise voice so you listen. At Paksitani side of Kashmir people have no voice they are pushed into stone age and their land is used to horbor terror in the whole world, now they do not usnderstand meaning of rights.
So equation is this -
1) At Pakistani side kashmir people has no voice, they do not understand meaning of self determination.
2) Indian side J&K is divided like this -
A) Jammu pro India
B) Ladakh pro India
c) Valley is divided in again pro india (very less), pro pakistan (very less), pro independence (majority these days)

Now looking to above equation, pleb is not option, people can not take correct decision for them self.

Another thing I should tell you, 1) Indian valley can not get independence unless Pakistani side kashmir too, which totally goes against Pakistan's Aspiration and security concerns. 2) India will never give Kashimir to Pakistan, independent state may be an option (both side Kashmir).

 

[EagleEyes]

I dont think there was any need for copy pasting 50 articles on here to prove the point of infiltration support of the Pakistan Army. There was a huge support of course, but it no where meant to wage a war against India. Kashmir as of course has been a disputed territory for a long time. Since the 1947-48 war there has been numerous attempts to free Kashmir from India. It was not the Pakistan Army who started the full-fledge attack and therefore the 1965 war. Pakistan tried its best to keep the fight to the level of Kashmir. Pakistan in no way expected an Indian aggression of full-fledge attack. Of course Indian superiority of numbers made them believe that they would be able to triple Pakistan to her knees, but as expected more determined Pakistan Army was ready to defend its lands from the aggression of Indian Army. There was a reason why there was infiltration of mujahideens and not the Pakistan Army regulars. As far as coming out victories is concerned, i think it is every right of Pakistan Army as it defended the nation against 7 times larger enemy, and showed a full superiority in the end which led to India calling for the cease fire, which was later accepted by Pakistan as a sign of defeat. Add to that i think infiltration is nothing new.. it is being going on for a long time.

The question is did India ever try to create a full-fledge attack against Pakistan after its defeat in 1965?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What a simple majority of Kashmiris want has disastrous ramifications for 1.3bn people directly. An Independent Kashmir would definetly not be a Sovereign Kashmir for starters. Both parties have to realize what is at stake, you can't progress without being insensitive to the others position.

The same argument was made by some about the partition of the colony of British India as well, and it has not turned true. The only reason that we have not perhaps progressed as fast and as far as we should have was because the rules of partition were not implemented in the case of Kashmir, which has held the region hostage.

Now the argument of 'hurt the larger body' has been reintroduced as a justification for not following the rules in Kashmir, despite clear evidence that it failed the first time around.

 

[Awesome]

While i completely agree with you Asim, i think it is insulting by not acknowledging history as it happened, as dear webby is doing right now.

Whether a victory or not is irrelevant, but the point is that atleast it should be acknowledged that Pakistan launched the '65 war.

And how can you ignore what is smack in front of you in the present? At least one bombing per month. A top performing Economy a few years ago and today its crashing. Political instability, insanely huge power crisis.

See we don't have time for peace... and especially no time for war.

To strike some sort of peace with India you need to have time to actually put some effort into negotiations with India. Which is not happening because right now we need to get our own order right.

IF this is what you call peace then that's all you'll get from a strong India and a weak Pakistan. We'll keep things in limbo till we can find time n place to address them. All the progress that happened with India was at a time of social, economic and militaristic prosperity.

Why were there wars before when Pakistan was stronger? Seriously speaking we weren't strong. That's just some feel good stuff, people promote in India. India's armies have always been much larger.

At Kargil India gave a sweet opportunity and it was exploited. You would've done the same. You exploited your opportunity in 1971. We're total ***** when it comes to these sort of things. Peace doesn't mean to become retarded and disband your armies. That's just stupid.

But at least one should follow logic and realize that peace means removal of conflict not winning the conflict.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I think he is talking about 90,368 POWs.

The discussion between them is on the 1965 war.

Move back to the topic everyone please.

There is no restriction on starting threads in the Military history section.

 

[jaison]

I dont think there was any need for copy pasting 50 articles on here to prove the point of infiltration support of the Pakistan Army. There was a huge support of course, but it no where meant to wage a war against India. Kashmir as of course has been a disputed territory for a long time. Since the 1947-48 war there has been numerous attempts to free Kashmir from India. It was not the Pakistan Army who started the full-fledge attack and therefore the 1965 war. Pakistan tried its best to keep the fight to the level of Kashmir. Pakistan in no way expected an Indian aggression of full-fledge attack. Of course Indian superiority of numbers made them believe that they would be able to triple Pakistan to her knees, but as expected more determined Pakistan Army was ready to defend its lands from the aggression of Indian Army. There was a reason why there was infiltration of mujahideens and not the Pakistan Army regulars. As far as coming out victories is concerned, i think it is every right of Pakistan Army as it defended the nation against 7 times larger enemy, and showed a full superiority in the end which led to India calling for the cease fire, which was later accepted by Pakistan as a sign of defeat. Add to that i think infiltration is nothing new.. it is being going on for a long time.

The question is did India ever try to create a full-fledge attack against Pakistan after its defeat in 1965?

infiltrating 8000 troops is not an ordinary thing.......wat do u expect from us kill them all and keep quite........in a conflict u hav to make unexpected moves and wat india did even though lagging behind in tech is something good......and yes paf was good in the war with sofisticated training from the us...........and f-86 was the best dogfighter of its time,armed with sidewinders they proved deadly for the already obsolete hunters armed with just cannons and the availability and servicability of paf planes was much higher,thus in air warfare it is better to hav quality than quantity.but india learned and in 1971 put up a better show(please dont start an argument on this).

 

[Contrarian]

I dont think there was any need for copy pasting 50 articles on here to prove the point of infiltration support of the Pakistan Army. There was a huge support of course, but it no where meant to wage a war against India. Kashmir as of course has been a disputed territory for a long time. Since the 1947-48 war there has been numerous attempts to free Kashmir from India. It was not the Pakistan Army who started the full-fledge attack and therefore the 1965 war. Pakistan tried its best to keep the fight to the level of Kashmir.

Pakistan sent in thousands of 'irregulars' in Kashmir trained in guerrilla tactics, in sabotage of airbases and infrastructure, just like in the Bay of Pigs incident

Pakistan ALSO launched a full fledged war-Operation Grandslam after sending in the irregulars to cut the Jammu Rajouri road at Akhnur. These were not irregulars, they were the Pakistani Army who had entered Kashmir with their baggage and equipment. This constitutes war on India. As most of your own now retired generals and knowledgeable people admit.

Pakistan in no way expected an Indian aggression of full-fledge attack. Of course Indian superiority of numbers made them believe that they would be able to triple Pakistan to her knees, but as expected more determined Pakistan Army was ready to defend its lands from the aggression of Indian Army.

Yeah, you launch a full scale war in India in Kashmir, send in the Pakistani Army after the irregulars to cut off a strategic road and then you dont expect India to retaliate? You expect that India would confine itself to just Kashmir.

There was a reason why there was infiltration of mujahideens and not the Pakistan Army regulars.

Yeah, the first wave was the irregulars, the second was the Pakistani Army directly, which went to cut the Jammu-Rajouri road which had immense strategic value near Akhnoor. With the ultimate aim being to capture Akhnoor as well.

As far as coming out victories is concerned, i think it is every right of Pakistan Army as it defended the nation against 7 times larger enemy, and showed a full superiority in the end which led to India calling for the cease fire, which was later accepted by Pakistan as a sign of defeat. Add to that i think infiltration is nothing new.. it is being going on for a long time.

That infiltration is different from what Pakistan did at that time, and after the irregulars, they sent in their regular troops. Now if you start a war, and then consider being able to defend your nation as a victory, then i have absolutely no qualms.

Oh n BTW, India is just a little more than twice as big-not 7 times!

The question is did India ever try to create a full-fledge attack against Pakistan after its defeat in 1965?

Yeah-in 1971, though technically, Pakistan attacked India first there as well. Though India had basically left Pakistan no option but to attack.

 

[Contrarian]

The discussion between them is on the 1965 war.

Move back to the topic everyone please.

There is no restriction on starting threads in the Military history section.

I would request that we just end this particular discussion here and not in any other section, as we have covered quite some ground and there's a momentum so to speak.

 

[Contrarian]

And how can you ignore what is smack in front of you in the present? At least one bombing per month. A top performing Economy a few years ago and today its crashing. Political instability, insanely huge power crisis.

See we don't have time for peace... and especially no time for war.

To strike some sort of peace with India you need to have time to actually put some effort into negotiations with India. Which is not happening because right now we need to get our own order right.

IF this is what you call peace then that's all you'll get from a strong India and a weak Pakistan. We'll keep things in limbo till we can find time n place to address them. All the progress that happened with India was at a time of social, economic and militaristic prosperity.

I am personally of the opinion that Pakistan should be doing well economically, not militarily for a peace process to really move about.

Why were there wars before when Pakistan was stronger? Seriously speaking we weren't strong. That's just some feel good stuff, people promote in India. India's armies have always been much larger.

A larger army doesnt mean a better army Asim. You should know that. There's something about equipment, logistics among various other things.

At Kargil India gave a sweet opportunity and it was exploited. You would've done the same. You exploited your opportunity in 1971. We're total ***** when it comes to these sort of things. Peace doesn't mean to become retarded and disband your armies. That's just stupid.

My understanding of the article was that for peace to come about India must hold overwhelming military superiority over Pakistan. If India has a comparable military power with Pakistan, that will lead to adventures from Pakistan with a belief that it will win the wars.

It doesnt imply that Pakistan should be boiling or that Pakistan should have disbanded its military.

But at least one should follow logic and realize that peace means removal of conflict not winning the conflict.[/QUOTE]
I agree completely here.