What's new

India helped in our liberation war for India’s interest

Munshi, in the political context I fully agree with the negative political ramifications of
Indo-Bangla relationship which has been mentioned in the article. In another thread I've
previously expressed my disgust at the way India treats many of it's small neighbours. I
feel this arrogant attitude of the Indian Government needs to change and India needs to
engage more positively & constructively with these countries. And also, if Pak & BD can
have a mutually constructive AND non anti-india relationship, why not?

In the military context there are lot of common accusations made against India's action in 1971 (highlighted in bold) to which I've tried to respond:

1)India used the 1971 Bangladesh situation to humiliate Pak and avenge the humiliation we suffered from Pak in the 1965 war: Yes sir we did so. The Pakistanis took advantage of India in 1965 didn't they? India in 1965 was weak & was just recovering from the Chinese humiliation of '62. So what the Pakistanis did to us in '65 we did to them in '71 - "EENT KA JAWAAB PATTHAR". Pretty fair & square I feel.

2)India wanted to cut-off EP from WP: Yes sir we wanted to. If you think about it, EP was a strategic, military & political anomaly - imagine a country with one part seperated from the other by thousands of miles of a hostile country's territory? A lot of pakistanis have cribbed that in '71 they lost the fight in EP because EP was logistically disconnected from the mainland (WP), that they were overwhelmingly outnumbered by the Indian forces in the East etc-etc. Well... that is what warfare is all about isn't it? - overwhelming your enemy and crushing him by whatever means necessary. Also... didn't anyone in Pakistan think about the military ramifications of having such a far-flung piece of real estate when Pakistan was being formed? Were they all smoking weed during their discussions with the Brits in 1947 I wonder?!!

EP was a thorn in India's side from day one and I'm surprised (even shocked!) that the
Indian political & military leadership had the commonsense & foresight to deal with that
problem conclusively. Had India allowed EP to exist even today, it would have been one
big terrorist training camp! BD is STILL strategically important to India in the sense that
we don't want it to turn into a thorn once again and sadly, that could be one of the
reasons why India wants BD to remain poor & weak. But that is where I feel BD needs to show that it can have fruitful relationships with Pak & China without necessarily being anti or Pro India. Such a policy by BD will definitely change India's security perception about BD.

Thank you for your honest comments.I hope there are more Indian people like you.

BTW is this your real face?(judging from your avatar);):smokin:
 
.
How does one bridge the gap of distrust between BD and India then? I could suggest several possibilities.

1. Reassess the building of dams and barrages on the Indian side of the border and proceed only after consultation with BD.
All these are in accordance with global standards. BD is more than free to take this issue up in the UN Court.

2. Remove trade barriers and tariffs on BD goods.
That i agree India must do. There is an unfair restriction on BD goods. It must go. India being bigger should if not must be magnanimous.

3. Proceed along with BD on the delimitation of maritime boundaries.
With your new govt in place, i am pretty sure, things will start moving in the right direction soon.

4. Stop propaganda against Bangladesh by your press and media.
Sorry buddy, govt doesnt control the media. Its a democracy, any Indian is free to start his/her own newspaper or news channel.

5. Restraint the BSF and stop shooting of civilians.
In reply to this, BD must constrain BDR. BDR acts like a rogue force. They are actively involved in smuggling goods and people from BD to India.

6. Allow transit to Nepal, Bhutan and China.
Nope. Not unless BD offers unrestricted access across its soil in return. But still, no way to China. China should not and would not be allowed to have port access in BD AND then be able to transfer its goods straight across India to China.

On these points Bangladesh will do the same and I am sure an understanding will develop between the countries.
With the new govt, i hope many issues will get resolved or sincere efforts would start soon.

This is as good an opportunity as India will ever get, and as favourable circumstances to clear pending issues with BD and start afresh.
 
.
The animosity shown against you neednt be considered as one against BD. No one has a problem with BD, yes infact we are worried about rising extemism in BD. And we are unhappy with ourselves in not building a good relationship with BD. If there is any country with which we should share a brotherhood, then its BD.

Come on,extremism is everywhere,you know that.Even India is plagued with extremism.Now that Awami League is in power,Indian government is definitely happy.
Moreover,our law enforcers recently launched serious crackdown on extremists,arresting many JMB members in the process.Also making first ever arrest of female extremists,new one for Bangladesh.
No one wants war,unless they are crackheads like Hitler.But you have to treat your small neighbour well to gain respect.Otherwise you people will be giving these extremists reasons to brainwash people.
 
Last edited:
.
All these are in accordance with global standards. BD is more than free to take this issue up in the UN Court.


That i agree India must do. There is an unfair restriction on BD goods. It must go. India being bigger should if not must be magnanimous.


With your new govt in place, i am pretty sure, things will start moving in the right direction soon.


Sorry buddy, govt doesnt control the media. Its a democracy, any Indian is free to start his/her own newspaper or news channel.


In reply to this, BD must constrain BDR. BDR acts like a rogue force. They are actively involved in smuggling goods and people from BD to India.


Nope. Not unless BD offers unrestricted access across its soil in return. But still, no way to China. China should not and would not be allowed to have port access in BD AND then be able to transfer its goods straight across India to China.


With the new govt, i hope many issues will get resolved or sincere efforts would start soon.

This is as good an opportunity as India will ever get, and as favourable circumstances to clear pending issues with BD and start afresh.

Agree with your replies except that of BDR.Show us proof.I know some officers may be involved in misdeeds for greed but BDR as a whole no way.Instead I can show the "good" deeds of BSF.Like raping you own citizen,forget the killing of BD national.Today BSF killed one more and injured one Bangladeshi.:angry:
 
.
Munshi, in the political context I fully agree with the negative political ramifications of
Indo-Bangla relationship which has been mentioned in the article. In another thread I've
previously expressed my disgust at the way India treats many of it's small neighbours. I
feel this arrogant attitude of the Indian Government needs to change and India needs to
engage more positively & constructively with these countries. And also, if Pak & BD can
have a mutually constructive AND non anti-india relationship, why not?

In the military context there are lot of common accusations made against India's action in 1971 (highlighted in bold) to which I've tried to respond:

1)India used the 1971 Bangladesh situation to humiliate Pak and avenge the humiliation we suffered from Pak in the 1965 war: Yes sir we did so. The Pakistanis took advantage of India in 1965 didn't they? India in 1965 was weak & was just recovering from the Chinese humiliation of '62. So what the Pakistanis did to us in '65 we did to them in '71 - "EENT KA JAWAAB PATTHAR". Pretty fair & square I feel.

2)India wanted to cut-off EP from WP: Yes sir we wanted to. If you think about it, EP was a strategic, military & political anomaly - imagine a country with one part seperated from the other by thousands of miles of a hostile country's territory? A lot of pakistanis have cribbed that in '71 they lost the fight in EP because EP was logistically disconnected from the mainland (WP), that they were overwhelmingly outnumbered by the Indian forces in the East etc-etc. Well... that is what warfare is all about isn't it? - overwhelming your enemy and crushing him by whatever means necessary. Also... didn't anyone in Pakistan think about the military ramifications of having such a far-flung piece of real estate when Pakistan was being formed? Were they all smoking weed during their discussions with the Brits in 1947 I wonder?!!

EP was a thorn in India's side from day one and I'm surprised (even shocked!) that the
Indian political & military leadership had the commonsense & foresight to deal with that
problem conclusively. Had India allowed EP to exist even today, it would have been one
big terrorist training camp! BD is STILL strategically important to India in the sense that
we don't want it to turn into a thorn once again and sadly, that could be one of the
reasons why India wants BD to remain poor & weak. But that is where I feel BD needs to show that it can have fruitful relationships with Pak & China without necessarily being anti or Pro India. Such a policy by BD will definitely change India's security perception about BD.

Finally a honest Indian who admitted the truth. I appreciate your honesty...

Thank you:cheers:
 
Last edited:
.
Sorry buddy, govt doesnt control the media. Its a democracy, any Indian is free to start his/her own newspaper or news channel.

We all know this to be untrue as RAW dictates much of what should be included about BD. In 2004 an Indian journalist claimed that RAW was forcing him to write against neighbors of India and he was threatened and livelihood taken away when he resisted.

Although you have agreed with much of what I said why has BD-India relations improved. You are emphasizing the role of this AL government but there was an AL government in 1971-75 and 1996-2001. Why were not any of these issues resolved during these two periods? The best opportunity would have been in the first AL government when relations were supposedly at their closest.

I think these questions deserve an answer.
 
.
Come on,extremism is everywhere,you know that.Even India is plagued with extremism.Now that Awami League is in power,Indian government is definitely happy.
Moreover,our law enforcers recently launched serious crackdown on extremists,arresting many JMB members in the process.Also making first ever arrest of female extremists,new one for Bangladesh.
No one wants war,unless they are crackheads like Hitler.But you have to treat your small neighbour well to gain respect.Otherwise you people will be giving these extremists reasons to brainwash people.

Agree. Also with respect to your previous posts with regard to tariffs, im not aware of it, but if it exists it has to go.
 
.
We all know this to be untrue as RAW dictates much of what should be included about BD. In 2004 an Indian journalist claimed that RAW was forcing him to write against neighbors of India and he was threatened and livelihood taken away when he resisted.

Although you have agreed with much of what I said why has BD-India relations improved. You are emphasizing the role of this AL government but there was an AL government in 1971-75 and 1996-2001. Why were not any of these issues resolved during these two periods? The best opportunity would have been in the first AL government when relations were supposedly at their closest.

I think these questions deserve an answer.

You speak as if nobdy here is attached to media. Well you never know, you might be speaking to a guy who runs a media or is having a partnership in a decent size media. 'He' never gets diktats from the govt except for 'calls asking for better coverages of their neta's'.
 
. .
Bloody YESSS,we did!!!.....now you tell me,did the bd people want to stay as a part of pakistan???....bloody NOOO
 
.
India used the 1971 Bangladesh situation to humiliate Pak and avenge the humiliation we suffered from Pak in the 1965 war[/B]: Yes sir we did so. The Pakistanis took advantage of India in 1965 didn't they? India in 1965 was weak & was just recovering from the Chinese humiliation of '62. So what the Pakistanis did to us in '65 we did to them in '71 - "EENT KA JAWAAB PATTHAR". Pretty fair & square I feel.

iamunique,
1. Hi, I am sorry that I joined this thread late. I generally avoid BD threads as I have seen lot of hatered in them and I dont wish to be a part of that hatered.
2. However, I dont see how you have come to the conclusion quoted above. The 1965 war was started because of Pak launching Operation Gibraltar wherein thousands of armed tribals from NWFP accompanied by regulars infiltrated into Kashmir with the aim of causing sabotage and subversion. India retaliated by expanding the conflict in the IB area. The outcome of the war was losses of territory for both countries in some areas and gains in others. If Pak can claim successes in Chhamb Jaurian and Khemkaran, India too captured the strategic Haji pir pass and the east bank of Ichhogil canal. Apart from that, the infiltrators (Op Gibraltar) were all killed, some died while trying to cross the Pir Panjal in the winters, hardly any one got back. Our PM Lal Bahadur Sashtri got a lot of flak for agreeing to the cease fire when Indian Army was holding the East bank of the Ichhogil canal and preparing to assault Lahore which lay exposed only a few kms away. The Tashkent agreement followed where Lal Bahadur Sashtri died mysteriously after signing the agreement. Fingers were raised at the CIA but nothing ever proved.
3. I also dont agree with your inference that 1971 was fought by India to 'avenge' so called humiliation' of 1965. Which implies that 1971 war was premeditated. Could India have foreseen Sheikh Mujib's victory in Pak general elections? Or the rejection of the poll results by the ruling Punjabi elite? Or the radio declaration of independance struggle by banga bandhu or the brutal genocide and rape that followed or the influx into India of millions fleeing to save their lives?
4. India was forced to intervene on humanitarian grounds. Yes India also stood to gain by the birth of BD. But the fact is that without Indian's intervention, many,many more millions BD citizens would have died or 'vanished', Sheikh Mujib would probably have been hanged for treason and BD would continue to be under Pakistan control with Bangla language and culture being subservient to Punjabi.
5. Maybe both India and BD have gained from the war. Now who has gained more? I leave that to you.
Regards.
 
.
Ive been reading this forum for a while now and theirs another similar related thread in another pakistani forum. Anyways I wont get into details but let me starts by first replying to what indian's believe is true then showing historical ramifications of this issue and how it applies to present day

1. Hi, I am sorry that I joined this thread late. I generally avoid BD threads as I have seen lot of hatered in them and I dont wish to be a part of that hatered.

Generally if you try to avoid BD threads then dont get involved. This shows that you dont hear what you want to hear and instead use your thoughts to make up historical evidence as usual in 3rd rate indian defence forums

2. However, I dont see how you have come to the conclusion quoted above. The 1965 war was started because of Pak launching Operation Gibraltar wherein thousands of armed tribals from NWFP accompanied by regulars infiltrated into Kashmir with the aim of causing sabotage and subversion. India retaliated by expanding the conflict in the IB area. The outcome of the war was losses of territory for both countries in some areas and gains in others. If Pak can claim successes in Chhamb Jaurian and Khemkaran, India too captured the strategic Haji pir pass and the east bank of Ichhogil canal. Apart from that, the infiltrators (Op Gibraltar) were all killed, some died while trying to cross the Pir Panjal in the winters, hardly any one got back. Our PM Lal Bahadur Sashtri got a lot of flak for agreeing to the cease fire when Indian Army was holding the East bank of the Ichhogil canal and preparing to assault Lahore which lay exposed only a few kms away. The Tashkent agreement followed where Lal Bahadur Sashtri died mysteriously after signing the agreement. Fingers were raised at the CIA but nothing ever proved.

I agree with you on the fact that the 1965 war was a stalemate but only from the indian viewpoint. The pakistani viewpoint was that we were generally outnumbered, outclassed, and outgunned yet we manned to militarily and diplomaticly defend our nation with prestigue and courage. You must remember that a famous indian general quoted that he will be having tea in lahore by the next morning. The same day india launched an attack into sialkot sector (to create a bridgehead for an assualt into lahore). This was where the biggest tanks battle since ww2 occured and pakistani tanks forces gave india a good beating and pushed indian forces back to the border. Anyways this is going off topic so Ill leave this for another day

3. I also dont agree with your inference that 1971 was fought by India to 'avenge' so called humiliation' of 1965. Which implies that 1971 war was premeditated. Could India have foreseen Sheikh Mujib's victory in Pak general elections? Or the rejection of the poll results by the ruling Punjabi elite? Or the radio declaration of independance struggle by banga bandhu or the brutal genocide and rape that followed or the influx into India of millions fleeing to save their lives?

India was actively involved since day 1 in supporting unrest within pakistan. Before we get into the dynamic of who feels oppressed and who doesnt take into mind that pre-1971 bangladesh was an internal part of pakistan and india had no right to interfere. India actively supported the mukti bahini (which was set up in india by bd exiles). Now that you have shown your true face by making remarks of the pakistani punjabi elite let me remind you the the elections were rejections by ZA Bhutto who was a sindhi and not a punjabi as indians like to portray. Lastly the influx of bangalis into india was not due to pakistani military actions as they were only for internal order but due to humanitarian reasons and the lack of a border between the two.

4. India was forced to intervene on humanitarian grounds. Yes India also stood to gain by the birth of BD. But the fact is that without Indian's intervention, many,many more millions BD citizens would have died or 'vanished', Sheikh Mujib would probably have been hanged for treason and BD would continue to be under Pakistan control with Bangla language and culture being subservient to Punjabi.

Once again believe what you want but dont screw history. Let me educate about this issue. India was not forced to intervene as india has no right to intervene in any other countries internal affairs. India has its fair share of blame in the issue by actively supporting seperatist forces which forced pakistan to take actions in terms of military strikes. India also actively supported the mukti bahini which in terms murdered many thousands who didnt support the independance movement. Are you aware of the crimes committed by the mukti bahini? Are you aware of the countless lives that were lost by india fighting in mainland east pakistan against pakistani forces? I guess not but you might as well do what you guys do best and that is to blame pakistan and the grand old ISI for every problem in the world.

5. Maybe both India and BD have gained from the war. Now who has gained more? I leave that to you.
Regards

Yup india, gained an equally dissatisfied neighbor which I hope doesnt move away from its general policy with india which is to fight against indian hegemonial desires. BD a few years ago signed a deal with china to build a base which is similar to what pakistan is also doing (gwadar). Recently the awami league came to power which is very questionable so there might be a uturn. But in reality india nor BD have gained anything significant (accept what they might believe was a full fought independance struggle by their blood while actively forgetting indian involvement). My personal opinion is that 1971 was it not for india would have been solved sooner or later. Bhutto wasnt very much popular within west pakistan as he became later due to the war. Whereby the awami league headed by mujibar rahman had a large degree of popularity in both wings. At the end of the day their might have been a major tussle but the problem would have likely been solved along the lines of of mujibars 6-point's. Lastly if bangali's want to believe that they have came a long way then kudo's to them.
 
.
I agree with you on the fact that the 1965 war was a stalemate but only from the indian viewpoint. The pakistani viewpoint was that we were generally outnumbered, outclassed, and outgunned.

In 1965 as in 1971 India had only a very marginal edge over Pakistan on the western front. The necessity of keeping substantial forces deployed in the North against China and in East against East Pak, ensured that the numerical superiority needed to achieve decisive victory against Pak was lacking. Qualitatively, India was way behind due to government policy of low expenditure in defence in the 1950s. The policy changed after 1962 but it took long for the difference to be felt. Pakistan with its American F-86 Sabres/F-104 Phantoms and Pattons had a definite qualitative edge in the period till 1971. So it was not really the David vs Goliath contest that your media would like to make it.

The same day india launched an attack into sialkot sector (to create a bridgehead for an assualt into lahore). This was where the biggest tanks battle since ww2 occured and pakistani tanks forces gave india a good beating and pushed indian forces back to the border. Anyways this is going off topic so Ill leave this for another day.

Shakkargarh bulge. There was no 'good beating', yes Pak fought a good defensive battle and the two sides got bogged down in a battle of attrition. India failed to achieve any significant depth of penetration. But succeeded in preventing Paklistan from sidestepping its Army Reserve South to the LC sector which was the main aim here.

"The violent crackdown by West Pakistan forces[11] led to East Pakistan declaring its independence as the state of Bangladesh and to the start of civil war. The war led to a sea of refugees (estimated at the time to be about 10 million)[12][13] flooding into the eastern provinces of India[12]. Facing a mounting humanitarian and economic crisis, India started actively aiding and organizing the Bangladeshi resistance army known as the Mukti Bahini.".
Source- Bangladesh Liberation War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Bengalis were under-represented in the Pakistan military. Officers of Bengali origin in the different wings of the armed forces made up just 5% of overall force by 1965; of these, only a few were in command positions, with the majority in technical or administrative posts.[15] West Pakistanis believed that Bengalis were not "martially inclined" unlike Pashtuns and Punjabis; the "martial races" notion was dismissed as ridiculous and humiliating by Bengalis.[15] Moreover, despite huge defence spending, East Pakistan received none of the benefits, such as contracts, purchasing and military support jobs."
Source- Bangladesh Liberation War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Are you aware of the countless lives that were lost by india fighting in mainland east pakistan against pakistani forces?


Yes lein, I am aware of India's sacrifices in the liberation war. Please read my post at #115 at http://www.defence.pk/forums/bangla...occupy-bangladesh-territory-8.html#post432945


BD a few years ago signed a deal with china to build a base which is similar to what pakistan is also doing (gwadar).

BD is a sovereign nation, India was the first to recognise it.

Recently the awami league came to power which is very questionable so there might be a uturn.

An internal matter of bd, dont you think ?

But in reality india nor BD have gained anything significant (accept what they might believe was a full fought independance struggle by their blood while actively forgetting indian involvement.

Every one is entitled to his opinion.

Whereby the awami league headed by mujibar rahman had a large degree of popularity in both wings.

"A planned military pacification carried out by the Pakistan Army — codenamed Operation Searchlight — started on 25 March to curb the Bengali nationalist movement[31] by taking control of the major cities on 26 March, and then eliminating all opposition, political or military,[32] within one month. Before the beginning of the operation, all foreign journalists were systematically deported from East Pakistan.[33]. The main phase of Operation Searchlight ended with the fall of the last major town in Bengali hands in mid-May. The operation also began the 1971 Bangladesh atrocities. These systematic killings served only to enrage the Bengalis, which ultimately resulted in the secession of East Pakistan later in the same year. The international media and reference books in English have published casualty figures which vary greatly, from 5,000–35,000 in Dhaka, and 200,000–3,000,000 for Bangladesh as a whole."

An effective way of demonstrating support, I should say.

Lastly if bangali's want to believe that they have came a long way then kudo's to them.

Again, you are welcome.
 
Last edited:
.
Munshi, in the political context I fully agree with the negative political ramifications of
Indo-Bangla relationship which has been mentioned in the article. In another thread I've
previously expressed my disgust at the way India treats many of it's small neighbours. I
feel this arrogant attitude of the Indian Government needs to change and India needs to
engage more positively & constructively with these countries. And also, if Pak & BD can
have a mutually constructive AND non anti-india relationship, why not?

In the military context there are lot of common accusations made against India's action in 1971 (highlighted in bold) to which I've tried to respond:

1)India used the 1971 Bangladesh situation to humiliate Pak and avenge the humiliation we suffered from Pak in the 1965 war: Yes sir we did so. The Pakistanis took advantage of India in 1965 didn't they? India in 1965 was weak & was just recovering from the Chinese humiliation of '62. So what the Pakistanis did to us in '65 we did to them in '71 - "EENT KA JAWAAB PATTHAR". Pretty fair & square I feel.

2)India wanted to cut-off EP from WP: Yes sir we wanted to. If you think about it, EP was a strategic, military & political anomaly - imagine a country with one part seperated from the other by thousands of miles of a hostile country's territory? A lot of pakistanis have cribbed that in '71 they lost the fight in EP because EP was logistically disconnected from the mainland (WP), that they were overwhelmingly outnumbered by the Indian forces in the East etc-etc. Well... that is what warfare is all about isn't it? - overwhelming your enemy and crushing him by whatever means necessary. Also... didn't anyone in Pakistan think about the military ramifications of having such a far-flung piece of real estate when Pakistan was being formed? Were they all smoking weed during their discussions with the Brits in 1947 I wonder?!!

EP was a thorn in India's side from day one and I'm surprised (even shocked!) that the
Indian political & military leadership had the commonsense & foresight to deal with that
problem conclusively. Had India allowed EP to exist even today, it would have been one
big terrorist training camp! BD is STILL strategically important to India in the sense that
we don't want it to turn into a thorn once again and sadly, that could be one of the
reasons why India wants BD to remain poor & weak. But that is where I feel BD needs to show that it can have fruitful relationships with Pak & China without necessarily being anti or Pro India. Such a policy by BD will definitely change India's security perception about BD.

iamunique :wave: although i do agree with most of your thoughts i disagree on the point that india got humiliated in 1965 war.

As Operation Gibraltar has been mentioned i will just post some stats and assesments about indo pak war 1965

india lost 3,000 soldiers, 175 tanks destroyed,60-75 aicraft lost while pakistan lost 3,800,280 tanks destroyed , 20 aircraft lost. Despite the qualitative and numerical superiority of Pakistani armour, Pakistan was outfought on the battlefield by India.

In the end the Indian army was in possession of 710 mile² (1,840 km²) of Pakistani territory and the Pakistan army held 210 mile² (545 km²) of Indian territory. The territory occupied by India was mainly in the fertile Sialkot, Lahore and Kashmir sectors,while Pakistani land gains were primarily south in deserts opposite to Sindh and in Chumb sector near Kashmir in north.

Neutral assessments
There have been several neutral assessments of the losses incurred by both India and Pakistan during the war. Most of these assessments agree that India had a upper hand over Pakistan when ceasefire was declared. Some of the neutral assessments are mentioned below —

According to the United States Library of Congress Country Studies:
The war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavy--on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government.

TIME magazine reported that India held 690 mi2 of Pakistan territory while Pakistan held 250 mi2 of Indian territory in Kashmir and Rajasthan. Additionally, Pakistan had lost almost half its armour temporarily. The same article stated that -
Severely mauled by the larger Indian armed forces, Pakistan could continue the fight only by teaming up with Red China and turning its back on the U.N.

Devin T. Hagerty wrote in his book "South Asia in world politics" -
The invading Indian forces outfought their Pakistani counterparts and halted their attack on the outskirts of Lahore, Pakistan's second-largest city. By the time United Nations intervened on September 22, Pakistan had suffered a clear defeat.

In his book "National identity and geopolitical visions"Gertjan Dijkink writes - The superior Indian forces, however, won a decisive victory and the army could have even marched on into Pakistani territory had external pressure not forced both combatants to cease their war efforts.

An excerpt from Stanley Wolpert's India,summarizing the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, is as follows: In three weeks the second Indo-Pak War ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on U.S. ammunition and replacements for both armies forced cessation of conflict before either side won a clear victory. India, however, was in a position to inflict grave damage to, if not capture, Pakistan's capital of the Punjab when the cease-fire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to Ayub's chagrin.

In his book "War in the modern world since 1815", Jeremy Black mentions that "Pakistan gambled and lost heavily". He also writes about India's missed military opportunities -
India's chief of army staff urged negotiations on the ground that they were running out ammunition and their number of tanks had become seriously depleted. In fact, the army had used less than 15% of its ammunition compared to Pakistan, which had consumed closer to 80 percent and India had double the number of serviceable tanks.

Dennis Kux's "India and the United States estranged democracies" also provides a summary of the war.
Although both sides lost heavily in men and materiel, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the better of the war. New Delhi achieved its basic goal of thwarting Pakistan's attempt to seize Kashmir by force. Pakistan gained nothing from a conflict which it had instigated.
In its October 1965 issue, the TIME magazine quoted a Western official assessing the consequences of the war
Now it's apparent to everybody that India is going to emerge as an Asian power in its own right.

In his book "Mainsprings of Indian and Pakistani foreign policies", S.M. Burke writes —After the Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 the balance of military power had decisively shifted in favor of India. Pakistan had found it difficult to replace the heavy equipment lost during that conflict while her adversary, despite her economic and political problems, had been determinedly building up her strength.


Newsweek magazine, however, praised the Pakistani military's ability to hold of the much larger Indian Army. "By just the end of the week, in fact, it was clear that the Pakistanis were more than holding their own."

Most observers agree that the myth of a mobile, hard hitting Pakistan Army was badly dented in the war, as critical breakthroughs were not madeSeveral Pakistani writers criticized the military's ill-founded belief that their "martial race" of soldiers could defeat "Hindu India" in the war.Moreover, Pakistan had lost more ground than it had gained during the war and, more importantly, failed to achieve its goal of occupying Kashmir; this result has been viewed by many impartial observers as a defeat for Pakistan.

(source wiki)

All i want to say is that the motive of war is to protect national pride by preventing the loss of territory and to win in the perception of other countries and i think india did pretty good on these fronts.
 
Last edited:
.
I agree with you on the fact that the 1965 war was a stalemate but only from the indian viewpoint. The pakistani viewpoint was that we were generally outnumbered, outclassed, and outgunned yet we manned to militarily and diplomaticly defend our nation with prestigue and courage. You must remember that a famous indian general quoted that he will be having tea in lahore by the next morning. The same day india launched an attack into sialkot sector (to create a bridgehead for an assualt into lahore). This was where the biggest tanks battle since ww2 occured and pakistani tanks forces gave india a good beating and pushed indian forces back to the border.
LEIN :wave: firstly i would like to say that these debates on who won the war would be stupidity on our part i truly believe that we are of the same stock and there is no need to prove that who is superior.i am an atheist so please spare me from religion lectures (if you believe in those stuff).some of the members fight over race, colour their ethnicity and i feel like vomiting.i mean how the hell can somebody be so stupid.they talk about history of their glorious religion and which religion is superior even here we are talking about indias intrest in liberating bangladesh not once is it mentioned that even though india had its own political intrest the average indian had a sense of brotherhood for bangla brothers even if you call it indian propaganda what an average indian believed was that they were liberating bangla brothers from evil pakistan.
as for india ,pakistan,bangladesh,china in a sense we are diffrent sovereign countries in reality we are the hoars which were f*£$ed brutally by the west and thrown away as trash when they were done.
and to add to the humiliation we still are fightig among ourselves on petty stuff and that too with the help of western nations.
in the 1965 war we were fighting among ourself with american,french,british weapons.i see a lot of pakistani talking about how americans betrayed and are not worthy of friendship i mean how the hell can you even expect friendship from someone who raped your country.we need to understand that we are in this together no one care about our nationality for them we are just south asian or asian its time for us to rise again and rule the world and f&%k the whites.:tup:
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom