What's new

Myth shatterd "india won 65 war?"

The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 was a culmination of skirmishes that took place between April 1965 and September 1965 between India and Pakistan. This conflict became known as the Second Kashmir War fought by India and Pakistan over the disputed region of Kashmir, the first having been fought in 1947. The war began following Pakistan's Operation Gibraltar, which was designed to infiltrate forces into Jammu and Kashmir to precipitate an insurgency against rule by India.

Pakistan attempted to ignite the resistance movement by means of a covert infiltration, codenamed Operation Gibraltar The Pakistani infiltrators were soon discovered, however, their presence reported by local Kashmiris, and the operation ended in a complete failure.


so i think you should enlighten yourself with history
Another leaf out of BR, I guess.;)
There was operation Gibraltar, Grand Slam, Dessert Hawk.
It would be convenient to deposit all into the same to make your argument even more authentic and legit. :disagree:
 
Another leaf out of BR, I guess.;)
There was operation Gibraltar, Grand Slam, Dessert Hawk.
It would be convenient to deposit all into the same to make your argument even more authentic and legit. :disagree:

If you do not wanna believe...do not believe....the truth will remain the truth.....
you attacked & u lose.....as simple as that..
 
Some here to contribute while others thrive in the art of nit pick.
You used the term aftermath, well last i heard was that the Kashmir issue was the main hurdle thus a tumbling block to any bilateral talks or ties. History is a witness that you can't quash any freedom movement by mere use of brute force.

the very Kashmiris who you expected to rise up in rebellion against us...got your agents and army officers caught by the Indian police...

and we are very happy with the way things are in Kashmir...as we are ready to fight to maintain the status quo...
History is a witness that you can't quash any freedom movement by mere use of brute force.
there are some freedom movements in your country too...it should only be poetic justice for your brute force to fail there as well...

as far as the war is concerned...Kashmir didn't lose an inch....nothing changed.
 
Another leaf out of BR, I guess.;)
There was operation Gibraltar, Grand Slam, Dessert Hawk.
It would be convenient to deposit all into the same to make your argument even more authentic and legit. :disagree:


every war has numerous army operations...the war of 1971 had operation trident...operation python etc...you don't believe we fought three times in '71 now do you?
doesn't make much sense what you posted.
 
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 titled The greater game: India's race with destiny and China, David Van Praagh wrote–
India won the war. It gained 1,840 square kilometers of Pakistani territory: 640 square kilometers in Azad Kashmir, Pakistan's portion of the state; 460 square kilometers of the Sailkot sector; 380 square kilometers far to the south of Sindh; and most critical, 360 square kilometers on the Lahore front. Pakistan took 540 square kilometers of Indian territory: 490 square kilometers in the Chhamb sector and 50 square kilometers around Khem Karan.

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.

"A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947" by Robert Johnson mentions –
India's strategic aims were modest – it aimed to deny Pakistani Army victory, although it ended up in possession of 720 square miles of Pakistani territory for the loss of just 220 of its own.

An excerpt from William M. Carpenter and David G. Wiencek's "Asian security handbook: terrorism and the new security environment" –
A brief but furious 1965 war with India began with a covert Pakistani thrust across the Kashmiri cease-fire line and ended up with the city of Lahore threatened with encirclement by Indian Army. Another UN-sponsored cease-fire left borders unchanged, but Pakistan's vulnerability had again been exposed.

English historian John Keay's "India: A History" provides a summary of the 1965 war –
The 1965 Indo-Pak war lasted barely a month. Pakistan made gains in the Rajasthan desert but its main push against India's Jammu-Srinagar road link was repulsed and Indian tanks advanced to within a sight of Lahore. Both sides claimed victory but India had most to celebrate.

Uk Heo and Shale Asher Horowitz write in their book "Conflict in Asia: Korea, China-Taiwan, and India-Pakistan"–
Again India appeared, logistically at least, to be in a superior position but neither side was able to mobilize enough strength to gain a decisive victory.
 
the very Kashmiris who you expected to rise up in rebellion against us...got your agents and army officers caught by the Indian police...
One then wonders, why the Indian set up has designated such terminologies as Pakistan is making India bleed in Kashmir,
and we are very happy with the way things are in Kashmir...as we are ready to fight to maintain the status quo...
The locals certainly wouldn't agree with your claims and sentiments.
there are some freedom movements in your country too...it should only be poetic justice for your brute force to fail there as well...
Care to name even one, keeping in mind the difference between a freedom movement and a dying insurgency.



as far as the war is concerned...Kashmir didn't lose an inch....nothing changed.
Meaning the 90,000 odd Kashmiris were expendable.
 
every war has numerous army operations...the war of 1971 had operation trident...operation python etc...you don't believe we fought three times in '71 now do you?
doesn't make much sense what you posted.

Sadly it wouldn't to all in self denial. Period.
 
Some here to contribute while others thrive in the art of nit pick.
You used the term aftermath, well last i heard was that the Kashmir issue was the main hurdle thus a tumbling block to any bilateral talks or ties. History is a witness that you can't quash any freedom movement by mere use of brute force.
Albeit some members are adamant to digress the topic, never the less a reply was in place.


YouTube - Indian Army Barbarity in Kashmir

lol on the video, the poster does not know difference between army and police. I told this before too. lol
 
lol on the video, the poster does not know difference between army and police. I told this before too. lol

OK, let me ask you, dragged and beaten or punched and dragged,
Is there any difference to the treatment meted out.
 
Windjammer,

from my past experiences with you, I know you won't believe anything coming from an Indian, no matter how true it is. There are encyclopedias, articles, reports claiming India won the war, not just 1965 but all wars fought with Pakistan. But for you I guess history has a different meaning.

Just use google and research something. There may be hundreds of articles stating how Pak was successful, but that doesn't mean the million others that say that India won are false.

Don't want to argue and request other Indians to stop posting. It won't make a difference.
 
Highlighting some interesting facts..

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 titled The greater game: India's race with destiny and China, David Van Praagh wrote–
India won the war. It gained 1,840 square kilometers of Pakistani territory: 640 square kilometers in Azad Kashmir, Pakistan's portion of the state; 460 square kilometers of the Sailkot sector; 380 square kilometers far to the south of Sindh; and most critical, 360 square kilometers on the Lahore front. Pakistan took 540 square kilometers of Indian territory: 490 square kilometers in the Chhamb sector and 50 square kilometers around Khem Karan.

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.

"A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947" by Robert Johnson mentions –
India's strategic aims were modest – it aimed to deny Pakistani Army victory, although it ended up in possession of 720 square miles of Pakistani territory for the loss of just 220 of its own.

An excerpt from William M. Carpenter and David G. Wiencek's "Asian security handbook: terrorism and the new security environment" –
A brief but furious 1965 war with India began with a covert Pakistani thrust across the Kashmiri cease-fire line and ended up with the city of Lahore threatened with encirclement by Indian Army. Another UN-sponsored cease-fire left borders unchanged, but Pakistan's vulnerability had again been exposed.

English historian John Keay's "India: A History" provides a summary of the 1965 war –
The 1965 Indo-Pak war lasted barely a month. Pakistan made gains in the Rajasthan desert but its main push against India's Jammu-Srinagar road link was repulsed and Indian tanks advanced to within a sight of Lahore. Both sides claimed victory but India had most to celebrate.

Uk Heo and Shale Asher Horowitz write in their book "Conflict in Asia: Korea, China-Taiwan, and India-Pakistan"–
Again India appeared, logistically at least, to be in a superior position but neither side was able to mobilize enough strength to gain a decisive victory.
 
Windjammer,

from my past experiences with you, I know you won't believe anything coming from an Indian, no matter how true it is. There are encyclopedias, articles, reports claiming India won the war, not just 1965 but all wars fought with Pakistan. But for you I guess history has a different meaning.

Just use google and research something. There may be hundreds of articles stating how Pak was successful, but that doesn't mean the million others that say that India won are false.

Don't want to argue and request other Indians to stop posting. It won't make a difference.
My dear jagjitnatt, despite your conclusion of knowing me, well in this case nothing is far from reality. Every one has a right to their opinion hence let's not associate that with our judgement.
Just to let you know, my late father, who retired as a Colonel from Pakistan Army, also participated in the subject war.
 
One then wonders, why the Indian set up has designated such terminologies as Pakistan is making India bleed in Kashmir,
it does...the insurgency started in the 80s...and the whole 90s saw intense violence in Kashmir...but not related to the war you see...
we can even talk about the academy awards if you like to...but not here...

The locals certainly wouldn't agree with your claims and sentiments.
which local told you that?
give me his phone number I think he and I need to talk...don't give me a video..cus it gets hazy trying to figure out which local is which...

Care to name even one, keeping in mind the difference between a freedom movement and a dying insurgency.
the Balochistani freedom movement....it's a very well known freedom movement...it's more of a dyed-up movement than a dying insurgency...
but again let's talk about the war...

Meaning the 90,000 odd Kashmiris were expendable.

do you know how many people died during the partition?
was it a bad thing?
again the war...why don't you like the war?
 
it does...the insurgency started in the 80s...and the whole 90s saw intense violence in Kashmir...but not related to the war you see...
we can even talk about the academy awards if you like to...but not here...
And here is what you said earlier, digressing must be habitual.


"and we are very happy with the way things are in Kashmir...as we are ready to fight to maintain the status quo.."


which local told you that?
give me his phone number I think he and I need to talk...don't give me a video..cus it gets hazy trying to figure out which local is which...
Yea, he in that Bollywood mish mash.
the Balochistani freedom movement....it's a very well known freedom movement...it's more of a dyed-up movement than a dying insurgency...
but again let's talk about the war...
Why not, what about the FREEDOM WAR in India's Red Corridor or you are executing another U turn.

do you know how many people died during the partition?
was it a bad thing?
again the war...why don't you like the war?
I have a feeling the figure is written between your fingers.
Let me ask you, what do you know about wars, any personal experience, did you even witness any wars, Oh, watching Border doesn't count.
 
And here is what you said earlier, digressing must be habitual.


"and we are very happy with the way things are in Kashmir...as we are ready to fight to maintain the status quo.."
yeah...pretty much what we feel...no bouts of guilt pangs in that sir.
a man's gotta do what he gotta do....cuts both ways now doesn't it?

Yea, he in that Bollywood mish mash.
ohh cuhhmon that was so original...!

Why not, what about the FREEDOM WAR in India's Red Corridor or you are executing another U turn.

yeah son...we gonna get them sons of guns one of these days....
and actually it's not a freedom war.....it's a forced regime change...they are patriotic Indians...haven't you read about how the armed commies work?there have been plenty in history...the CCP of China didn't disintegrate China now did it?

I have a feeling the figure is written between your fingers.
Let me ask you, what do you know about wars, any personal experience, did you even witness any wars,
my brother got almost killed fighting them phony freedom fighters ye'all seem to endorse...
my grand parents lost their rickety old masalon ki dukaan in Lahore
had bloody skirmishes for company on their way back to their hindu homeland...
my maternal grandad...was a radar operator in the IAF during both the wars...
maybe you've lost more...or have a more impressive CV when it comes to it...
but most Indians would sacrifice more to maintain the status quo...and the even the Pakistanis would....but to change it.

Oh, watching Border doesn't count.

what about watching it 11 times...?
what about watching it back-back-to-back with LOC and mission Kashmir?
ah cuhmoon!....cut some slack now will you?
 
Back
Top Bottom