How many wars has Pakistan won?

[Hamza913]

Inshallah Inshallah

Somebody pls ban this Sindhi traitor !

Honestly I wish there was a way to just ban you monkeys from my threads.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

To me Indian Muslims are Indians. I draw no distinction. Period. They are complicit. And I can argue my case powerfully. There are about 4 million Kashmir Muslims [don't have exact number so forgive] but have given nothing but grief to India. As we speak 4 million Kashmiri's are keeping half a million man army occupied. Think about that. The problem is when Kashmiri's are only 4 in 1,350 million they don't stand a chance. That is ratio of one in 340. But still 1/340 have given India a headache and keep entire Indian Army group occupied.

Now think about Indian Muslims. There is 180 million Indian Musims and make one in 7. If this 1/7 went awol like Kashmiri Muslims they would bring India to it's knees in a week. At 180 million the number is larger then most Muslim countries bar a few. Russia's population is 120 million and indeed is almost equal to Pakistan's population. However you don't hear a peep from Indian Muslims other then a lynching here and there. Now that must mean they are loyal to India or they are irredeemably 'bozdil'. I refuse to accept that all 180 million are 'bozdil'. For instance their co-ethnic brothers are fighting under the Naxalite brand. To sum it up -

Kashmiri Muslims ~ 4 million causing grief to India and facing Indian Army bullets everyday.
Indian Muslims ~ 180 million ~ not a sound other then a lynching here or there when they indulge in beef.

PRECISELY!!!!!!!!..........Based on personal experience this is what I have found myself. Apart from religion, indian so called "Muslims" are 100% identical to indian hindus and sikhs. Despite being the same as hindus and sikhs, the indian so called "Muslims" are despised by them. What is most hilarious is that hindus believe by killing indian so called "Muslims" they are getting 1 up against Pakistan................what they don't realize is that these people are the same as them bar religion................they are as different and as alien to Pakistanis as the indian hindus and sikhs are...........

Truth be told, indian so called "Muslims" are not REAL Muslims anyway. They are cucked hindu slaves and worship them. They are just as much enemies of Pakistan as the hindus and sikhs are.

 

[Suriya]

Honestly I wish there was a way to just ban you monkeys from my threads.

So that u can carry on with your fake childish assertion and blanket lies uninhibited ??

1965 : Ever heard of Ops Grandslam ?? Do know the result of that operation ?

1999 kargil war : We recaptured almost all peaks .

 

[911]

Pakistan won all wars

in the roohani dimension© of a parallel universe.
Proof:

 

[Hamza913]

So that u can carry on with your fake childish assertion and blanket lies uninhibited ??

1965 : Ever heard of Ops Grandslam ?? Do know the result of that operation ?

1999 kargil war : We recaptured almost all peaks .

Someone clearly hasn't been reading the posts on this thread. In fact, you don't even seem to have read the first post!

How pathetic.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

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.



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.

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.



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



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



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.



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.

Can you provide some evidence he wanted to join India? If he committed genocide, it is only for his own gain. Like I said, he only joined India FORCED him to. To the maharaj it was clear. Join India, or lose all land to Pakistan. So he joined India, and India captured the majority of Kashmir. Remember on AUgust 15, Kashmir was independent, so even though Pakistan got some parts of Kashmir and Jammu as well as GB. India still won as it got more land.
Its pretty simple.
August 15-JAK was neither India or Pakistan
By the end of 47 war, India got present day JaK, and Paksitan got AJK and GB. Both sides won something, but India won more. This is one case where both sides can accurately say they won something, but India won more, so there is no way you can honestly say it lost. With that being said, Maharaj Hari SIngh was rather arrogant and viewed himself as more powerful than he actually was. He should have been smart enough to know a poor, landlocked country would not be able to stand on its own without its neighbors, so he should have consulted both India and Pakistan first and worked out an agreement with them. If he had handled it differently, he could bace prevented a lot of bloodshed in the future.

My point for 1971 was that If Pakistan won on the Western front, it would have been able to negate India's gains in the east. But not only did a Paksitani invasion of India fail, India also captured large amounts of territory in Baltistan, so it actually gained something.

As for Kargil, no matter what you say, you cannot change the fact that we control the most strategic peaks in the area(Tiger Hill, and your one peak5353 that we had not even occupied is surrounded by peaks we captured), hence we control the Siachen highway(The purpose behind the Kargil operation)?

 

[Hamza913]

Can you provide some evidence he wanted to join India? If he committed genocide, it is only for his own gain. Like I said, he only joined India FORCED him to. To the maharaj it was clear. Join India, or lose all land to Pakistan. So he joined India, and India captured the majority of Kashmir. Remember on AUgust 15, Kashmir was independent, so even though Pakistan got some parts of Kashmir and Jammu as well as GB. India still won as it got more land.
Its pretty simple.
August 15-JAK was neither India or Pakistan
By the end of 47 war, India got present day JaK, and Paksitan got AJK and GB. Both sides won something, but India won more. This is one case where both sides can accurately say they won something, but India won more, so there is no way you can honestly say it lost. With that being said, Maharaj Hari SIngh was rather arrogant and viewed himself as more powerful than he actually was. He should have been smart enough to know a poor, landlocked country would not be able to stand on its own without its neighbors, so he should have consulted both India and Pakistan first and worked out an agreement with them. If he had handled it differently, he could bace prevented a lot of bloodshed in the future.

My point for 1971 was that If Pakistan won on the Western front, it would have been able to negate India's gains in the east. But not only did a Paksitani invasion of India fail, India also captured large amounts of territory in Baltistan, so it actually gained something.

As for Kargil, no matter what you say, you cannot change the fact that we control the most strategic peaks in the area(Tiger Hill, and your one peak5353 that we had not even occupied is surrounded by peaks we captured), hence we control the Siachen highway(The purpose behind the Kargil operation)?

Why else do you think he would launch a genocide? It's clear that he did it to create a population shift.

Pakistan only gained land, it's a clear cut victory.

Hindustan gave up almost all land it took in 1971 via the Simla agreement, and while it may have kept some of it, keep in mind Pakistan also gained land during 1971 that it kept after the negotiations took place (e.g Chamb sector).

Also, it was not a "Pakistani invasion", Hindustan was the aggressor in this war, just like in 1965.

No you don't, Point 5353 is as per your military the dominating peak, and we got a few more too.

Please go back and thoroughly read my post as well as the subsequent ones following it.

 

[Suriya]

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

I hope a Pakistani general would have similar grace.

Indian commanders routinely appreciates bravery of Pakistani soldiers and even recommended for gallantry awards for Pakistani soldiers .e, g

https://twitter.com/x/status/1028703230488915971

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.

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.

When u don't have power only fantasies , because with power comes responsibility .

Even today with nukes around Indian military absolutely capable of wiping out or annihilate every single Pakistani , 200 Million (or is it bit more ) with half a loss than Pakistan and still survive as a country of 1200 Million , though there be some Indian surely looking forward to this enchanting scenario , but Indian military , more importantly civilian govt running the country bears no such genocidal ambitions towards pakistan .

We simply don't live in a genocidal world like that or America would have nuked Vietnaam instead of running away in humiliation after fighting 10 years long war.

 

[My-Analogous]

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

Pakistan win her biggest war (Independence) and after so many trying to undo this Indians still FAILED to achieved that. So, Pakistan is winner here.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

To me Indian Muslims are Indians. I draw no distinction. Period. They are complicit. And I can argue my case powerfully. There are about 4 million Kashmir Muslims [don't have exact number so forgive] but have given nothing but grief to India. As we speak 4 million Kashmiri's are keeping half a million man army occupied. Think about that. The problem is when Kashmiri's are only 4 in 1,350 million they don't stand a chance. That is ratio of one in 340. But still 1/340 have given India a headache and keep entire Indian Army group occupied.

Now think about Indian Muslims. There is 180 million Indian Musims and make one in 7. If this 1/7 went awol like Kashmiri Muslims they would bring India to it's knees in a week. At 180 million the number is larger then most Muslim countries bar a few. Russia's population is 120 million and indeed is almost equal to Pakistan's population. However you don't hear a peep from Indian Muslims other then a lynching here and there. Now that must mean they are loyal to India or they are irredeemably 'bozdil'. I refuse to accept that all 180 million are 'bozdil'. For instance their co-ethnic brothers are fighting under the Naxalite brand. To sum it up -

Kashmiri Muslims ~ 4 million causing grief to India and facing Indian Army bullets everyday.
Indian Muslims ~ 180 million ~ not a sound other then a lynching here or there when they indulge in beef.

Have you ever considered the fact that after seeing the state of your country, Indian Muslims don't WANT Azadi?
Trust me, the beef lynchings are isolated incidents hyped by liberal international and Indian media, and happen less often than police shootings of unarmed black men in the US and terror attacks in Pakistan. Hell, I am pretty sure more Muslims die in a year do to terror in Pakistan than mob lynching in India. Remember that most Indian states are not even vegetarian(but that's another topic)

As for your statement about Kashmir, they are a problem, but that's because we have facing them with kid gloves. Definitely not like Israel, China, or Russia dealt with their Muslim problems. Have you heard of this region called Chechnya? It used to full on insurgency in the 90s. That is until the Russian Federation launched and all-out attack on them and began bombing them indriscriminately.

One of the architects of this plan was an obscure member of Yeltsin's cabinet and former Petrograd mayor name Vladimir Putin. You may have heard of it now.

Today how may problems do you see out of Chechnya? and we know how Israel deals with their Muslims. Unfortunately, India is viewed as a peaceful democracy and is not a US ally as deep as Israel is, so it does not have the luxury of doing what Russia and Israel did. Anyway, your premise is wrong, because the reason resistance in Kashmir is so effective is because there Muslims are in majority. No where else do Muslims make up the majority of the population in India.

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.

I understand your point and respect the bravery of Pakistan's soldiers, but what you said is like receiving a participation trophy. No matter how bravely wars are fought, the outcome is determined on the ground reality. And after four wars, do you honestly think the ground reality has improved Pakistan's position in Kashmir? I hope you understand my point.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Have you ever considered the fact that after seeing the state of your country, Indian Muslims don't WANT Azadi?
Trust me, the beef lynchings are isolated incidents hyped by liberal international and Indian media, and happen less often than police shootings of unarmed black men in the US and terror attacks in Pakistan. Hell, I am pretty sure more Muslims die in a year do to terror in Pakistan than mob lynching in India. Remember that most Indian states are not even vegetarian(but that's another topic)

As for your statement about Kashmir, they are a problem, but that's because we have facing them with kid gloves. Definitely not like Israel, China, or Russia dealt with their Muslim problems. Have you heard of this region called Chechnya? It used to full on insurgency in the 90s. That is until the Russian Federation launched and all-out attack on them and began bombing them indriscriminately.

One of the architects of this plan was an obscure member of Yeltsin's cabinet and former Petrograd mayor name Vladimir Putin. You may have heard of it now.

Today how may problems do you see out of Chechnya? and we know how Israel deals with their Muslims. Unfortunately, India is viewed as a peaceful democracy and is not a US ally as deep as Israel is, so it does not have the luxury of doing what Russia and Israel did. Anyway, your premise is wrong, because the reason resistance in Kashmir is so effective is because there Muslims are in majority. No where else do Muslims make up the majority of the population in India.


I understand your point and respect the bravery of Pakistan's soldiers, but what you said is like receiving a participation trophy. No matter how bravely wars are fought, the outcome is determined on the ground reality. And after four wars, do you honestly think the ground reality has improved Pakistan's position in Kashmir? I hope you understand my point.

You make some very valid and lucid points. Of course I do agree with the substance of what your saying but I have my own abstraction of the realties as they exist. I have to go to my daily gym workout but when I come back I will reply to you in full.

As a asides my definition of nationalism has been defined by the history of my family which provided generations of soldiers to Pak Army and the Raj before that. You may notice I have distaste for Banglas. That stems from the fact that my maternal uncle fought in the east in 1971 and became a POW. I was young lad then it left a pronounced effect on me. I guess the talk of war in my family which I remember is still etched in my mind.

@Cobra Arbok

 

[Cobra Arbok]

Why else do you think he would launch a genocide? It's clear that he did it to create a population shift.

Pakistan only gained land, it's a clear cut victory.

Hindustan gave up almost all land it took in 1971 via the Simla agreement, and while it may have kept some of it, keep in mind Pakistan also gained land during 1971 that it kept after the negotiations took place (e.g Chamb sector).

Also, it was not a "Pakistani invasion", Hindustan was the aggressor in this war, just like in 1965.

No you don't, Point 5353 is as per your military the dominating peak, and we got a few more too.

Please go back and thoroughly read my post as well as the subsequent ones following it.

I have already told you, the Maharaj committed genocide for his own benefit. I conceded that his arrogance was largely responsible for the conflict. After all he was a typical brutal Indian Maharaj like Aurangzeb But let me ask you what land did India lose? As soon as the Indian army got involved, the Pakistanis retreated from Srinagar and Ladakh to AJK. So you could say they lost territory they had once held. Let me ask you in simpler terms. Did India lose any territory is 47 that was under the Indian flag on august 15? I told you both gained territory, but India gained more.

Technically, Pakistan invaded India on 1971 by attacking an airfield in Punjab, but to be fair, Indira Gandhi did provoke you by supporting Mukhti Bahini.

You also missed my point on Kargil. If we lost, why did we secure the entire Kargil district as well as the Siachen highway? Why does the Indian flag fly proudly and comfortably on the glacier,, which is the highest and most strategic point in the region. I already explained how the only reason Pak occupied 5353 was because India first occupied the peaks around it. So we actually gained more strategic unoccupied peaks than you did. If you had actually gained the strategic edge in Kargil, you would have probably launched an attack on the Siachen highway when tensions grew in 2002.

I hope you understand my points, and thank you for debating civilly, Pakistatnforever can learn a thing or two from you.

You make some very valid and lucid points. Of course I do agree with the substance of what your saying but I have my own abstraction of the realties as they exist. I have to go to my daily gym workout but when I come back I will reply to you in full.

As a asides my definition of nationalism has been defined by the history of my family which provided generations of soldiers to Pak Army and the Raj before that. You may notice I have distaste for Banglas. That stems from the fact that my maternal uncle fought in the east in 1971 and became a POW. I was young lad then it left a pronounced effect on me. I guess the talk of war in my family which I remember is still etched in my mind.

@Cobra Arbok

Thank you for replying civilly and I am sorry for your uncle. He may have fought for the losing side but he was still a hero.

 

[Hamza913]

I have already told you, the Maharaj committed genocide for his own benefit. I conceded that his arrogance was largely responsible for the conflict. After all he was a typical brutal Indian Maharaj like Aurangzeb But let me ask you what land did India lose? As soon as the Indian army got involved, the Pakistanis retreated from Srinagar and Ladakh to AJK. So you could say they lost territory they had once held. Let me ask you in simpler terms. Did India lose any territory is 47 that was under the Indian flag on august 15? I told you both gained territory, but India gained more.

Technically, Pakistan invaded India on 1971 by attacking an airfield in Punjab, but to be fair, Indira Gandhi did provoke you by supporting Mukhti Bahini.

You also missed my point on Kargil. If we lost, why did we secure the entire Kargil district as well as the Siachen highway? Why does the Indian flag fly proudly and comfortably on the glacier,, which is the highest and most strategic point in the region. I already explained how the only reason Pak occupied 5353 was because India first occupied the peaks around it. So we actually gained more strategic unoccupied peaks than you did. If you had actually gained the strategic edge in Kargil, you would have probably launched an attack on the Siachen highway when tensions grew in 2002.

I hope you understand my points, and thank you for debating civilly, Pakistatnforever can learn a thing or two from you.

There was no reason for him to suddenly start cleansing Muslims from the region, if he didn't do it before why start now? It's crystal clear what his intent was.

Hindustan lost land, because even if Kashmir was to originally remain independent, once the instrument of accession was signed all of Kashmir belonged to Hindustan, and yet you still failed to evict us from the region. So no matter how you spin this, you lost land where as we gained it.

Not just that, but Sam Maneckshaw publicly declared that Indira Ghandi gave him several months to prepare for a war against Pakistan. Pakistan's strike was just pre-emptive.

You didn't. By the end of it, the army still held on to a significant chunk of Kargil and only evicted it due to pressure from other branches of the military, the government, and the US. Even then, we still held on to several peaks including Point 5353, which is the dominating feature and does give us a complete view of the highway.

We've never utilised it because we see no need to, the Siachen is a useless wasteland with no strategic value as per most analysts.

Thank you, you're also very polite and actually quite reasonable too.

 

[ScreamLikeMe]

Pakistan won all wars

in the roohani dimension© of a parallel universe.
Proof:

what does it mean?

 

[Cobra Arbok]

There was no reason for him to suddenly start cleansing Muslims from the region, if he didn't do it before why start now? It's crystal clear what his intent was.

Hindustan lost land, because even if Kashmir was to originally remain independent, once the instrument of accession was signed all of Kashmir belonged to Hindustan, and yet you still failed to evict us from the region. So no matter how you spin this, you lost land where as we gained it.

Not just that, but Sam Maneckshaw publicly declared that Indira Ghandi gave him several months to prepare for a war against Pakistan. Pakistan's strike was just pre-emptive.

You didn't. By the end of it, the army still held on to a significant chunk of Kargil and only evicted it due to pressure from other branches of the military, the government, and the US. Even then, we still held on to several peaks including Point 5353, which is the dominating feature and does give us a complete view of the highway.

We've never utilised it because we see no need to, the Siachen is a useless wasteland with no strategic value as per most analysts.

Thank you, you're also very polite and actually quite reasonable too.

That may have been how it was supposed to work, but how can the Maharaj give india territory he did not have? India was at a tremendous disadvantage going into the war. If you view JaK as entirely India's in august 15, than you could say India lost the war before it even sent its army. The fact is, the Maharaj only acceded when Srinagar was on the verge of being taken. It must have been extremely humiliating for an arrogant king like him to accede to India, which he had been avoiding. The point is India captured the majority of a formerly independent country disputed between India and Pak but had never belonged to either. You still have not answered my question about territory India lost that had been under the tricolor on august 15 47.

As for Kargil, the reason the military retreated was because once Tiger Hill was captured, the rest would fall. You are forgetting that Pak did not occupy 5353 until after the war when India began occupying the surrounding peaks. India still has the strategic edge in that region though. And it is definitely in your interest to take Siachen, as it would allow you to control the Indus, the lifeline of your nation. Not to mention Siachen is the highest point that allows us to view Chinese and Pak positions. The fact is if Pak had the strategic edge, they would have tried to take back territory they had lost in 1971 whenever tensions grew, such as in 2002.

Anyway, it looks like we are reading different things. I still do not think you understand my argument, So I am not sure it is fruitful to keep up this debate. It was still a nice discussion though.

what does it mean?

Aliens