How Indian Insiders Saw 1965 War?

[Ticker]

Here we go again! The identity crisis

Not highlighting my identity - just stating facts.

Who are you by the way?

What is your identity.

Please don't show me your student ID.

 

[pk_baloch]

Not highlighting my identity - just stating facts.

Who are you by the way?

What is your identity.

Please don't show me your student ID.

ticcker do u know what is difference between religion and politics.?..i know but just what to know ur point of view ?? ok leave it i donot want to derail this thread!!!!

 

[Joe Shearer]

SUNDAY TIMES, London, September 19, 1965.

"Pakistan has been able to gain complete command of the air by literally knocking the Indian planes out of the skies if they had not already run away.
Indian pilots are inferior to Pakistan's pilots and Indian officer's leadership has been generally deplorable. India is being soundly beaten by a nation which is outnumbered by a four and half to one in population and three to one in size of armed forces".

Peter Preston, The Guardian, London.
September 24, 1965.

"One thing I am convinced of is that Pakistan morally and even physically won the air battle against immense odds.
Although the Air Force gladly gives most credit to the Army, this is perhaps over-generous. India with roughly five times greater air power, expected an easy air superiority. Her total failure to attain it may be seen retrospectively as a vital, possibly the most vital, factor of the whole conflict.
Nur Khan is an alert, incisive man of 41, who seems even less. For six years until July he was on secondment and responsible for running Pakistan civil airline, which in a country, where now means sometime and sometime means never, is a model of efficiency. He talks without the jargon of a press relations officer. He does not quibble about figures, immediately one has confidence in what he says. His estimates proffered diffidently, but with as much photographic evidence as possible, speak for themselves. Indian and Pakistani losses, he thinks are in something like the ratio of ten to one.
"The Indians had no sense of purpose, the Pakistanis were defending their country and willingly taking greater risks. The average bomber crew flew 15 to 20 sorties. My difficulty was restraining them, not pushing them on".
" This is more than nationalistic pride. Talk to the pilots themselves, and you get the same intense story".

Patrick Seale, The Observer, London.
September 12, 1965.

"Pakistan's success in the air means that she had been able to deploy her relatively small army___ professionally among the best in Asia___ with impunity, plugging gaps in the long front in the face of each Indian thrust.
By all accounts the courage displayed by the PAF pilots is reminiscent of the bravery of the few young and dedicated pilots who saved this country from Nazi invaders in the critical Battle of Britain during the last war".

Roy Meloni, Correspondent of ABC,
September 15, 1965.

"I have been a journalist now for 20 years and want to go on record that i have never seen a more confident and victorious groups of soldiers than those fighting for Pakistan right now.
"India is claiming all out victory, i have not been able to find any trace of it. All i can see are troops, tanks and other war material rolling in a steady stream towards the front.
If the Indian Air Force is so victorious, why has it not tried to halt this flow?
The answer is that it has been knocked from the skies by Pakistani planes. These Muslims of Pakistan are natural fighters and they ask for no quarter and they give none.
In any war, such as the one going on between India and Pakistan right now, the propaganda claims on either side are likely to be startling, but if i have to take bet today, my money would be on Pakistan side.
Pakistan claims to have destroyed something like one third of the Indian Air Force, and foreign observers, who are in a position to know say that the actual kills may be even higher, but the PAF authorities are being scrupulously honest in evaluating these claims. They are crediting PAF only those killing that can be checked and verified from other sources.

This was about how Indian insiders saw the1965 war.

Increasingly, it has become an exercise in gathering certificates, typically from western sources, typically adulatory.

It invites response in kind.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Not highlighting my identity - just stating facts.

Previous post you said :

But I don't think so. Despite the that fact my ancestors may be high class Aryo-Brahmins having Euro-Indic genes and would have ruled the likes of you since centuries - first as Brahmins and then as Muslims.

First you state that : "that fact my ancestors may be high class Aryo-Brahmins having Euro-Indic genes and would have ruled the likes of you since centuries - first as Brahmins and then as Muslims."

Then you ask me the below question

Who are you by the way?

When you have no clue of who i am ,

how come you state that your ansestors might have ruled the likes of me , and on top of that , you state you are "just stating facts"

What is your identity.

Please don't show me your student ID.

If those above were philosophical question, leave me out

 

[Ticker]

ticcker do u know what is difference between religion and politics.?..i know but just what to know ur point of view ?? ok leave it i donot want to derail this thread!!!!

Religion has largely intermingled with politics or remained part of it since thousands of years of history. In the contemporary history, UK was one of those societies which chose to separate religion from politics, for various reasons.

There are large sets of people in various European countries, where if you discuss religion with them, they will tell you that although my papers say that I am catholic or protestant or something else, I don’t believe in God. This doesn’t mean that these countries are populated by all God-less people. If I correctly remember, there are 13 or so European secular states where the constitution also cites its secular governance order, as protector of Christianity, which indeed surprises many. And though secular, religion is part thereof, through such citation in their constitution.

America is a secular state, yet it is also one of the most religious countries in the western world. Ross Perot, a one time independent candidate for President’s office supported God’s Christian Army (now a declared terrorist outfit) in Africa through funding from his own resources – he was a rich man.

Look at India, it is also one of the most religious nations of the world. Though their constitution proclaims secularism and the country is known as Socialist, Secular, something, something, something and something India (sorry I forget such a lengthy name – in Hindi it is even difficult due to usage of Sanskrit words), religion is intertwined in politics.

And then there are Muslim countries who declare that they are in their constitutions. Here religion is part and parcel of daily life. Turkey is secular, however if you go to central Turkey, like Pakistan they also say that they are upholding the virtues of Islam. Infact, they are more akin to Pakistani Sunnis in practice of their religious rites in general, than any other country that I have seen.

After the collapse of Soviet Russia, people thronged Christian churches. Earlier their system oppressed them and won’t allow them to do so. The moment oppression was removed, religion which was earlier part of their private lives, also became part of their open lives and political environment. Even during the Soviet era, the Christian Church leaders would give out political statements.

Therefore, in my personal opinion, religion can never be separated from politics through a governance order – irrespective of how we analyse it.

 

[ajtr]

Nope! i'm not religious

enduku......

 

[Contrarian]

Don't u just love it that Pakistanis now start saying 'we didn't achieve what we wanted but hey India failed too'

The only reason for an offensive in Lahore was to reduce pressure in Kashmir.

The last consolation prize is that we won the air war!

Lol. Pakistan lost. Deal with it. When you go from starting the attack to defending the 2nd or 3rd most important city of Pakistan and then signing a ceasefire with nothing to show why you started the war.. you have Lost.

 

[ajtr]

Not highlighting my identity - just stating facts.

Who are you by the way?

What is your identity.

Please don't show me your student ID.

dadi ki nanand ki saas ki bhateeji ke bahu ki pardadi ke bete ho to bolo kya identity huyee........

 

[Ticker]

Previous post you said :

First you state that : "that fact my ancestors may be high class Aryo-Brahmins having Euro-Indic genes and would have ruled the likes of you since centuries - first as Brahmins and then as Muslims."

Then you ask me the below question

When you have know clue of who i am , how come you state that your ansestors might have ruled the likes of me , and on top of that , you state you are "just stating facts"

If those above were philosophical question, leave me out

Fairly skewed philosophy.

Left out sir.

 

[ajtr]

Therefore, in my personal opinion, religion can never be separated from politics through a governance order – irrespective of how we analyse it.

It can be....Hand over red book to every one....

 

[Ticker]

dadi ki nanand ki saas ki bhateeji ke bahu ki pardadi ke bete ho to bolo kya identity huyee........

hmmmmmm ...........

Some sort of a rishtaydar - though very confusing to identify the relationship with clarity

 

[ajtr]

hmmmmmm ...........

Some sort of a rishtaydar - though very confusing to identify the relationship with clarity

so now tell me Brahmin or mullah main se kya identity huyee.

 

[Ticker]

Don't u just love it that Pakistanis now start saying 'we didn't achieve what we wanted but hey India failed too'

The only reason for an offensive in Lahore was to reduce pressure in Kashmir.

The last consolation prize is that we won the air war!

Lol. Pakistan lost. Deal with it. When you go from starting the attack to defending the 2nd or 3rd most important city of Pakistan and then signing a ceasefire with nothing to show why you started the war.. you have Lost.

When you say that you won 1971. You are right.

But when you say that India won 1965. It is a crap and you know it.

At best, if I have to agree to what you imply, it was merely a setback of different levels for both. But for this you have to have a comparison of forces etc or level of strength. And then decide
who achieved what or lost what.

You are such a huge country with such a large army and resources, what did you gain except a bloody nose from a smaller and a weaker nation. You may also have punched some in desperation, but people don't see a bleeding weaker opponent - what they see is a large bully with bloody nose, going and telling the world - isnay mujhay mara hai.

so now tell me Brahmin or mullah main se kya identity huyee.

High class Brahmin in old days and siraf Musalman in current environment.

Ye mulla beech mein kahan se aa gya.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

enduku......

Badakam!

 

[Ticker]

It can be....Hand over red book to every one....

Kahan ki red book .... China ya North Korea .... ya Indian Red Political Parties.