How many wars has Pakistan won?

[ScreamLikeMe]

is basically running across the border causing the enemy massive destruction and running back across the border before they can effectively retaliate.

What kind of doctrine is this? I fail to understand how will an army capture land while running back?

 

[Mace]

I've decided I shall be re-posting one of my Quora answers onto this forum, if you guys like it please let me know.

Question: The title of the thread

Answer:

3 out of the 5 fought.

The first one was the Kashmir War in 1947. The ruler of Kashmir wanted to join India, but he had a Muslim majority population that wanted to join Pakistan. So what did he do? He launched a genocide against Muslims across Kashmir so create a population shift. As a result, Pakistan invaded Kashmir, and then of course the Indian army came in to defend Kashmir since the ruler officially signed the instrument of accession to obtain their help (confirming his intentions once and for all), so there was fierce fighting, with Pakistani forces outnumbered significantly (as always) but we still managed to gain roughly 40% of the region by the end of the two year conflict. If we had sat idly by, we wouldn’t have gotten any of Kashmir, so yes that’s pretty much a victory since we only gained land and lost none of it. Indians may claim that Hari Singh intended to be independent and only signed the instrument of accession to defend himself from Pakistan, but then why did he launch such brutal crackdowns on Muslims throughout the region? It’s clear what his real intentions were.

The forgotten massacre that ignited the Kashmir dispute

Here is a picture of a Pakistani tank during the Kashmir War:

Here are the current borders of the Kashmir region, which has remained relatively static after the Kashmir War other than Pakistan gifting the uninhabited Shaksgam Valley to China as a gesture of goodwill, China taking Aksai Chin from India during the Sino-Indo War in 1962, and India taking almost all of the Siachen during the Siachen War (but both Aksai Chin and the Siachen are pretty much strategically unimportant as per most analysts):

In 1965, India invaded Pakistan on the 6th of September. In little over two weeks, their attack was halted and in fact reversed, with Pakistan gaining significantly more land, destroying several times as many aircraft, attacking Dwarka, and breaking world records (e.g we won the largest tank battle since WW2, MM Alam shot down 5 planes in under a minute, this was one of the shortest wars in history, etc) all while being, again, outnumbered several times over. The Prime Minister of India also died of a heart attack once the war was, some speculating over from the sheer magnitude of defeat. However, after the war was over, both sides were amicable during negotiations and borders became back to the way they were prior to 1965.

Tashkent Agreement

Here are some pictures from the 1965 war:

Here’s one that makes me chuckle, it comes from an Indian newspaper:

For those of you who may want to learn more about MM Alam:

Fifth death anniversary of war hero MM Alam being observed today | The Express Tribune

Or other PAF achievements in 1965:

Paf’s record-breaking performance in 1965 war

As well how the PN attacked Dwarka:

Now, again, a lot of Indians will object to this by declaring that Pakistan launched covert operations in Kashmir during August, and that’s true, however, the war did not start until India launched an invasion across the international border on the 6th of September, the fighting in August was part of the pre-war build up, just like the numerous skirmishes that occurred during the Rann of Kutch dispute in 1965 prior to Pakistan’s covert operations in Kashmir.

The third war which Pakistan has won was the Kargil War in 1999. Musharraf, most probably in an attempt to garner public support for his future coup as well as just an attempt to a seize an opportunity, sent 5,000 Pakistani soldiers as well as militants to take over Kargil, and they did so with ease. The Indian military then sent in 30,000 troops to retake the area, who also got frequent resupplies as well as air support, unlike their Pakistani counterparts (Musharraf knew the rest of the military would not support his decision so he acted without informing them). Over the period of two months of fierce fighting, the Pakistani military still held on to a significant portion of Kargil and even managed to shoot down a helicopter and a fighter jet. Eventually, due to political pressure from the Pakistani government, the rest of the Pakistani military, and the US, Musharraf decided to call the Pakistani military in Kargil to withdraw from most of Kargil, but still retain some of the key peaks in the area, most notably, Point 5353.

The fact that Pakistan still retains such strategic parts of Kargil gives them complete domination over the area, so Musharraf pretty much achieved whatever objectives he set out to achieve (i.e get public support for his eventual coup and achieve a military victory against India). Even the Indian military admits this, with former Lt. Col. Kuldip Singh Ludra stating in reference to Point 5353: "it dominates, by observation and fire, the complete area on both side of the Line of Control.”

Debunking Kargil Myths & How Pakistan Captured Point 5353

Here’s a picture of Pakistani troops during the Kargil War:

@Indus Pakistan @Indus Priest King @Samlee @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @war&peace @Saif al-Arab @HannibalBarca @Ahmad Sajjad Paracha @Ahmet Pasha @Iqbal Ali @newb3e @AfrazulMandal @Zuraib Qasit Khan Deccani @Luffy 500 @M.R.9 @Kambojaric @Army research @Champion_Usmani @Clutch @Areesh @Zibago @django @Horus @Mentee @maximuswarrior @Imran Khan @Reichsmarschall @Talwar e Pakistan @ThanatosI @Windjammer @RiazHaq @WebMaster @TMA @DESERT FIGHTER @Desert Fox @waz @Mugwop @Albatross @RealNapster @Dalit @Ocean @Starlord @hussain0216 @AZADPAKISTAN2009 @Azadkashmir @Taimoor Khan @Hassan Guy @UnitedPak @WAJsal

This Quote from William H. Boyer is apt:
“Blind patriotism has been kept intact by rewriting history to provide people with moral consolation and a psychological basis for denial.”

 

[BHarwana]

Bullshit
Lakh di lanat
Agar tum jaisay dost hon tu dushman ki kia zaroorat... btw you forget WWI, WWII, 100 year between France and England, Crusades, Panipat, US civil war, Falkland war between UK and Argentina.. Napoleon's wars... man you forget to mention so many..SoB.

Why is it bullshit. We fought all these wars and we won them so why not count them?

That depends on what you count as wars.

By definition these all are wars. Now every thing depends on what is your definition of winning is?

In 1947 Pakistan liberated ajk from india and India lost.
In 1950 Pakistan defended from a major attack from Shah of Afghanistan.

 

[war&peace]

Why is it bullshit. We fought all these wars and we won them so why not count them?


By definition these all are wars. Now every thing depends on what is your definition of winning is?

In 1947 Pakistan liberated ajk from india and India lost.
In 1950 Pakistan defended from a major attack from Shah of Afghanistan.

WWII?

 

[BHarwana]

In 1960 Pakistan defended it self again from a major attack by Afghanistan and defeated the invading army paf bombed the hell out of Afghan army.

WWII?

Your lack of history is not my problem I know they don't teach in Sweden but they do propaganda

Pakistan has fought a major war with shah of Afghanistan when his troops had entered Pakistan and paf and Pakistan forces blew the hell out of them.

 

[Kambojaric]

My honest opinion? And I owe it to myself to express what I really think. At best Pakistan drew in 2 wars and lost in 5. At worse Pakistan lost all 5 out of 5 wars. Just to clarify at least one member of every generation in my family tree has served in Pak military and have fought in all wars with exception of Kargil. Do I feel any shame? No. The most vaunted military machine of the 20th century was the German Werhmacht. It lost every war in the 20th century. The reality is in every war Pakistan has faced insurmountable odds. India is simply far, far, far larger then Pakistan. India has greater population and greater resources. At the end of day the crushing numbers count.

I suppose a distinction needs to be drawn between the actual fighting in a war and diplomatic conclusion as a consequence of the fighting. I think in the first instance Pakistan clearly pushes way above the belt and that is what @Taimur Khurram is trying to convey in the OP, and rightfully so. However these impressive performances in the battlefield have not translated to actual territorial gains with the exception of 1947-48 and some minor ones in Kargil. It is futile to only blame the civilian establishment for these lack of gains as some of the wars were concluded under military supervision (65 for example). What is clearly evident is that when entering a war Pakistan clearly is not able to garner enough diplomatic support which would successfully result in it translating its military victories into actual gains at the negotiating table .Either way the era of large scale wars is now over with the advent of nuclear weapons in South Asia. We need to build up our economy, and focus on our soft power. This is where the new battleground is.

 

[Proudpakistaniguy]

Its actually bravery which matter in my book. If you are aggressive and going to pick fight on other side of the border then you will be going to bear more loss of lives. Loss of lives would be minimum when you act defensive. Pakistan lost 1971 war for obvious reasons but even then they fought gallantly as per Indian who was leading his troops on grounds

 

[Indus Pakistan]

I think in the first instance Pakistan clearly pushes way above the belt and that is what @Taimur Khurram is trying to convey in the OP, and rightfully so.

You bet. Very much so. It's always has been a David versus Goliath struggle with numbers/resources massively in India's favour.

As most people are ignorant of this fact I always use the European context to illustrate this vast disparity between Pak/India. A good example is Belgium/Germany or Ukraine/Russia. Nobody every mocks Belgium for having lost every war to Germany even if it recieved help from it's allies Britain and France. Both examples carry about the same numerical disparity.

 

[Srinivas]

Pakistani group therapy sessions thread after their defeats.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Pakistani group therapy sessions thread after their defeats.

I have tried to be as objective as possible in this thread. The reason I mentioned my families long association with Pak military is to show that I am not anti PA, that I never have felt any shame about PA's performance in the wars. I am absolutely sure that had Pakistan been 6.5 times bigger or anywhere as large as India we would have flushed you guys down the Ganga after a mass sati.

And I go back to Belgium v Germany equation. I have never heard any 'therapy' for Belgians. Far from it.

 

[Hey I'll love you]

Why is the need of war ?????? Actually some countries doesn't have military at all and never been to war does that makes them unimportant or weak. In a war not only humans but trees, animals, even insects die too.

 

[Hamza913]

Pakistani group therapy sessions thread after their defeats.

Abdul Baqara rears his hideous head again.

Please, just go away, nobody on this forum likes you.

This Quote from William H. Boyer is apt:
“Blind patriotism has been kept intact by rewriting history to provide people with moral consolation and a psychological basis for denial.”

As typical of Hindustanis, you will just spout random statements in an attempt to undermine the answer rather than actually dealing with its content.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Pakistani group therapy sessions thread after their defeats.

The only therapy needed is for the phuddi of your mama because of your papa's little weiner.........heard your mama likes to swallow it as well.........

 

[Hamza913]

As much as I want to avoid getting into this debate again, you are mistaken. Maharaj Hari Singh never wanted to accede to India. If he did, he would have done it on August 15th. He only acceded when India told himaccession was a requirement for India's military assistance. Millitarilly, India did quite well, since it prevented Srinagar from being captured and captured the entirety of Ladakh and most of Jammu. The fact is, there is no way India can be described as losing the war, as JaK was independent on August 15, so India never lost an inch of territory but rather gained the majority of a disputed region.
65 was a draw, nothing much to say there.
71, we won both East and West. Pakistan's strategy was to capture strategic points of Kashmir and India proper to negate any territory conquered in the East. If it had won in the west, India would have been forced to negotiate rather than continue the offensive in EP, since Kashmir is more important to India than BD.
Not to mention, India captured large amounts of Pakistan-occupied Baltistan, so India gained territory in the war.
Plus, India thwarted a Paksitani invasion of Rajasthsn
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/annexaion-of-turtuk-in-1971.473666/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Longewala
So Paksitan cannot honestly say it won the war on either front.

As for Kargil, I thought it is pretty simple. That point5353 was unoccupied by either side after Kargil. India later occupied the point 5310, and in Pakistan occupied point 5353.
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/reverse-kargil-capture-of-point-5310.449852/
Plus, Kargil was not about point 5353, it was about Tiger Hill, the most strategic point in Kargil sector. WHoever controls tiger hill controls Kargil. That is why after India captured the peak on July 4th, Shariff went to Washington to find a way out of the hopeless war for Pakistan. And NS made the smart choice. If he had continued the war and Pakistan continued to lose more peaks and troops, he would take the blame. So he sought a political solution, Unfortunately, he underestimated the influence of the Army. Ultimately, the purpose of the Kargil operation was to control the Siachen highway and cut of India from Siachen. Today the Siachen highway is firmly under Indian control

In all honesty, with the exception of 71, all the indo pak wars resulted in return ti the status quo with little territorial change over 70 years.(with the exception of bd). Pakistan can claim victory all it wants, but it cannot change the ground realities, as the status quo has always benefited Indis.


With losses like India's, who needs victories

Let me just add that I have full respect for all the brave Paksitani soldiers who put their lives on the line for their nation. But nationalism and ignorance of the ground realities is no way to honor their sacrifice.

As explained in my original post, he clearly wanted to join Hindustan, hence why he launched a brutal genocide against the Muslims across the region.

As for 1965, if don't want to talk about it, fine by me.

As for 1999, again, that's not the case. Hindustan only said that they never had it because admitting that it was lost would show that Kargil was clearly not a victory.

As for your comments about 1971, in the Western sector the Pakistani military did plan a massive counter-offensive that was to occur (but the ceasefire came in place prior to that), and Hindustan made no major gains. You didn't cripple the Pakistani military in the Western sector, you lost more than 3 times as many aircraft, you couldn't establish a naval blockade on West Pakistan, you couldn't take major cities near the border like Lahore or Sialkot, etc.

Nothing can change the past. Look at future. Pakistan can say they won all wars for all I care. We have to focus on focus on economic front right now. Next decade and a half will decide where subcontinent is going economically. That will in turn decide how this century looks for subcontinent . They way thing are going right now I am not terribly excited either for India or for Pakistan.

Someone asked the question, so I just gave an answer.

Currently it's the top one for the question, but since the Hindustani community is far bigger on Quora, I don't think it will take long for them to quickly concoct an answer that will obviously get far more upvotes than mine.

If you don't learn from your past mistakes you have chances of becoming victim to same in future .If rather than learning you can't even recognize the mistake your chances of becoming victim to the same in future is even more .If you think your past mistakes are not mistakes but glorious success than you are in a trap and won't come out of mistakes .

The info in this whole thread is wrong Pakistan has fought way too many wars than stated here.

1947 Kashmir
1950 Afghanistan
1960 Afghanistan
1965 India
1967 Israel
1971 Bengal
1974 Cyprus
1989 Soviet union
1995 Bosnia
1999 Kargil
2001 Afghanistan
2006 USA
2014 India
2017 USA India Israel
2018 corruption

I might have missed a few wars but will update them soon

I listed all the wars won where the Pakistani military was a principle force, in all the other ones they either weren't wars or the Pakistani military was just a small supplementary force.

Pakistan won all of the wars... Including the one with aliens

If you have nothing intelligent to say, please don't bark.

BTW, you suffered more casualties than us in Kargil

No we didn't, as per the official stats published by the Pakistani and Hindustani military's.

Pakistan lost all the wars with India.
None of the Pakistani strategic objectives of any battle were met.
1947 - Occupation or liberation of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh. Failed.
1965 - Tashkent declaration shows how much land was returned by whom. Grand Slam failed.
1971 - Pakistan ceases to exist as original nation.
1999 - objective of capturing Kargil peaks. failed.

As a Muslim we should always tell the truth.

The main reason for the defeats is that PA has tried to follow the western concept of fighting set piece battles. Unless you play to your strength and create a people's army, success will be hard to come.

Asalamu Alaikum

1947 - Not at all, we liberated a significant portion of the region, and not to mention we gained a large portion of land that we would have otherwise lost. We only made gains, while losing nothing.

1965 - Grand Slam was not the start of the war, that happened as part of pre-war build up, just like skirmishes that occurred in the Rann of Kutch a couple of months prior.

1971 - We lost a colony, big deal.

1999 - We took Point 5353 among other peaks, which gives us complete domination over the area.

You bet. Very much so. It's always has been a David versus Goliath struggle with numbers/resources massively in India's favour.

As most people are ignorant of this fact I always use the European context to illustrate this vast disparity between Pak/India. A good example is Belgium/Germany or Ukraine/Russia. Nobody every mocks Belgium for having lost every war to Germany even if it recieved help from it's allies Britain and France. Both examples carry about the same numerical disparity.

Please don't post depictions of people considered holy in Islam (I know you meant no ill-intention but still).

Thanks.

Other than that, good point.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Pakistan lost all the wars with India...
As a Muslim we should always tell the truth.

As an Indian, anything to put down Pakistan.

You cannot even concede losing half of Jammu and Kashmir to us. War on terror also lost by Indian proxies in Afg and Balochistan due to PA and ISI.