Myth shatterd "india won 65 war?"

[chachachoudhary]

Much water has flown since 65 and this thread is not only irrelevant, but verges on the border of absurdity.

An indepth analysis is done after each and every war by the involved factions.

It will therefore benefit both india and pakistan to ponder over some very important points as far as 65 war is concerned.

1)What was the genesis of 65 conflict, who initiated it?

2)What was the purpose of this conflict.

3)Did the party that initiated the war achieve its objective?

4)Did the party that defended achieve its objective?

5)Did this war end in a ceasefire?

6)If the war ended in a ceasefire, what were the reasons behind both parties agreeing to a ceasefire?

7)If the war ended in a ceasefire, what terms and conditions were agreed upon in the ceasefire by both parties.

 

[kumar_V1.0]

The sequence of 1965 war was like this: Pakistan initiates guerrilla war in Kashmir, while trying to incite a rebellion, to which India responds by decimating Hajipir pass and Neelam Valley - the logistic base of the infiltrating SSGs and Army regulars. Pakistan gets scared that India will now be extending this conflict to take over Muzaffarabad. So to dilute Indian pressure Pakistan launches Operation Grand Slam, attacking the Chamb-Akhnur region in Jammu. India finally responds by crossing international border threatening to take over Lahore.

Grand Slam - A Battle of Lost Opportunities
................
................
Not a decisive victory. A victory nevertheless.

Thanks Toxic for the post.

This thread should definitely shatter some myths but of Pakistani Janta.

 

[jagjitnatt]

Well, the thread starter didn't do the complete research I must say. There are thousands of sources that would say that the war ended in a stalemate. But India captured more territory than it lost. Also India succeeded in defending Kashmir. So all objectives of Indian army were met. As for Pakistan army, there objective was to take over Kashmir, which they failed in.
Because Indian army had also started moving into Lahore, Pakistan army found a new objective, ie to defend Lahore, which later they claimed to be their sole objective. Also Indian army had moved very close to Lahore, on the outskirt of Lahore, when the ceasefire was declared and India had to move back.

Pakistan army twisted the facts and claimed that they had won the war. In reality it was a failure.

Pakistan (03/09)

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.

Asia: Silent Guns, Wary Combatants - TIME

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.

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

PAKISTAN'S ASSERTIVE REGIONAL STRATEGY -- [FROM THE TASK FORCE ON TERRORISM AND UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE, HOUSE REPUBLICAN RESEARCH COMMITTEE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, DC, AUG. 24, 1994] (Extension of Remarks - September 12, 1994)

 

[notsuperstitious]

I thought Operation Gibraltar was a covert operation to spark an insurgency/rebellion in Kashmir, and not a conventional military assault to militarily take Kashmir.

If the former, then 'taking Kashmir' militarily was not the initial Pakistani objective. AFAIK, it was India that launched the first overt conventional military assaults across the ceasefire line in Kashmir, and then later opened another front on the International border when it came under severe pressure in Kashmir because of the Pakistani counterattack.

Given the above, your reasoning of why it was Pakistan that lost the war does not add up.

So operation gibralter was not part of the 1965 war? That it did not form part of pakistan staretegy? So it was done by army without telling the PM? Oh, Army was in power then, then was it the PM who did it without telling the army?

I think the same kind of selective wordplay can be extended to other wars too, and then you can celebrate a victory day in december too.

 

[RiazHaq]

1965 War, the Inside Story by R.D. Pradhan:

In Chapter 8 titled "Of Cowardice and Panic", the author describes the cowardice of Maj. Gen. Niranjan Prasad, the Indian general commanding officer in Lahore sector. When the general was fired upon by Pakistani forces, he "ran away". "On learning that, Lt. Gen. Harbakash Singh and the corps commander drove in a Jonga to the battlefront. Army commander found that the enemy (PAF) air attack had created a havoc on G.T. Road. (Indian) Vehicles were burning and several vehicles of 15 Division abandoned on the road, the drivers having run away, leaving some of the engines still running. Maj. Gen. Niranjan Prasad was hiding in a recently irrigated sugar cane field. As described by Harabakash Singh: "He (Prasad) came out to receive us, with his boots covered with wet mud. He had no head cover, nor was he wearing any badges of his rank. He had stubble on his face, not having shaved." Seeing him in such a stage, Harbakhash Singh asked him: "Whether he was the General Officer commanding a division or a coolie? Why had he removed badges of rank and not shaved? Niranjan Prasad had no answer."

Pradhan's book contains many different entries by Indian Defense Minister Y.B. Chavan. A Sept 9, 1965 entry reads: Had a very hard day on all fronts. Very fierce counter-attacks mounted and we are required to withdraw in Kasur area. COAS was somewhat uncertain of himself. I suggested to him that he should go in forward areas so that he will be in touch of realities. He said he would go next day.

Haq's Musings: Demolishing Indian War Myths about Pakistan

 

[paritosh]

India tried to invade in Lahore and Sialkot, with 600 tanks only for Lahore and they coudn't do anything coudnt capture an inch and u say invading lahore was defending kashmir? When they coudnt invade our territories then who is victorious !!!!!

the Indian held territories in Pakistan exceeded the ones Pakistan held in India.

 

[Yusuf]

All right even if we for once take the cowardice on the face value, how does it reflect what happened in the 65 war? Does Pakistan have Kashmir? The answer is no. Nobody did squat in the war. Whatever was won or lost was nullified at the table by the damn politicians.

 

[Nemesis]

Tell that to the thousands of Indians claiming that India won all three wars against Pakistan in articles, blogs, forums and comments across the web.

Who cares about what they say? We are talking official history of the India-Pak war of 65. I trust you know the difference between official history and internet ramblings.

 

[paritosh]

I thought Operation Gibraltar was a covert operation to spark an insurgency/rebellion in Kashmir, and not a conventional military assault to militarily take Kashmir.

If the former, then 'taking Kashmir' militarily was not the initial Pakistani objective. AFAIK, it was India that launched the first overt conventional military assaults across the ceasefire line in Kashmir, and then later opened another front on the International border when it came under severe pressure in Kashmir because of the Pakistani counterattack.

Given the above, your reasoning of why it was Pakistan that lost the war does not add up.

let us cut the bull-shytt.

I thought Operation Gibraltar was a covert operation to spark an insurgency/rebellion in Kashmir, and not a conventional military assault to militarily take Kashmir

A covert operation if caught...does not remain covert and is your normal tactical military misadventure by the enemy.
The 'victim' country has every right to use force.
By using this motive of sparking rebellion in IHK...you declared war on the GoI which as the world knew held Kashmir at that point in time.
The UN didn't send a peace keeping force to liberate Kashmir...but Pakistan couldn't muster the patience to wait for the world to decide to opt for a military solution against India.
and I am very sure that your military planners knew that a "covert operation to spark a rebellion" would have got a lot of attention here...and would have known the consequences and would have been a step ahead in planning for them...which was testified by the fact that your armored columns were mobilized even before we could whiff the war.

we were not the instigators.We reacted.


the way that I see it...you are trying also to reason the amount of force that we used...

it was India that launched the first overt conventional military assaults across the ceasefire line in Kashmir, and then later opened another front on the International border

So you are saying that like you we should have sent raggedy pundits armed with trishuls and "paani ka lota" into P.0.K(along with Indian army regulars)?
We only have our army to fight with.
and you really can't stop wars from escalating...can you?
Had your army launched one or two more pushy offensives during Kargil..I am sure we'd have fought over the international border as well.
and as far as the "real initiation of war" is concerned...tell me if we carry out precision strikes in P.0.K...would you not attack in Rajasthan/Punjab?
where the bulk of your army/armor is concentrated?
because Gen. Musharaf promised an all-out war had we crossed the LOC which as you rightly point out is not the international border.

and now who won...

Given the above, your reasoning of why it was Pakistan that lost the war does not add up

well...who had an objective to meet?
Pakistan...strike rebellion...liberate Kashmir.
objective not met.
did we want your Punjab?
no...the attack was...as is everywhere stated...to relieve pressure off the Akhnoor sector...which is held by India today.
We held more territory...which also wasn't our objective...
but gave us the necessary leverage at Tashkent..which you lusted for.
so I guess we won.

 

[Zob]

If you have 'guts to Attack' then you should have guts to 'Accept your defeat'

Or you want From next time onwards we should force you to sign
"Instrument of Surrender" as 1971

lets not go there shall we! because that is a totally different issue & that involves india getting involved in a civil war!!!

let's not spoil this thread please!

 

[third eye]

Cannot understand the sudden surge in " I won" here.

The Indian thrust towards Lahore was to reduce pressure from J&K & expand the war by threatening vital objectives in Pak whose loss would be unacceptable to the enemy. The IA succeeded & the PA recoiled to defend Lahore.

This article is worth a read. I will not suggest how close to reality it is & leave it to readers to surmise.

This has been discussed earlier in this forum in the following thread:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-history/20694-1965-war-different-legacy.html

Lastly, someone mentioned here that on the Lahore front not an inch was lost by Pak. The IA did reach the outskirts of Lahore. My father brought home memorabilia of a Bata factory on the outskirts of Lahore where the Ichogil Canalstopped the IA. I wonder if the canal is called by the same name,possibly the city has grown beyond the canal now.Still have them at home along with railway tickets from Pak railway station en route.

We need to dispel this notion that " I/ we won!". No one wins in a war, we all lose - we lose lives, lose opportunities to develop, improve, make friends,dear ones.

War creates widows, orphans and a livetime of hurt & sadness. Believe me, its not worth it.

1965 War: A Different Legacy

Today, over a hundred and fifty million Pakistanis celebrate the 42nd Defense of Pakistan Day. It was 6th of September 1965 when Pakistan’s armed forces faced off against India’s in the first full-scale war between the two countries. Much to the credit of the brave men (and women) in uniform that day–and for next 2-3 weeks following that–the enemy attack on the City of Lahore was repulsed and the General J. N. Chaudhary’s dream of having his drink at Lahore Gymkhana on the evening of September the 6th was squashed.

Tomorrow, the country celebrates the Airforce Day to pay tribute to the defenders of the country’s air space. PAF’s performance during the 1965 War was truly remarkable given the comparative state of balance between the two airforces. It managed to shoot down 110 of India’s aircrafts while itself incurring the loss of only 18 of its own. Not only did PAF establish itself as a qualitatively superior airforce in the 1965 War but also established its credentials as one of the best airforces of the world.

While much has been written, by official and unofficial quarters, on the history of the 1965 War and a lot more continues to be written every year, there are several gross misconceptions about this event in Pakistan’s history that need to be tackled with and addressed. In Pakistan, ever since (or soon after) its creation in 1947, the writing of history has been an almost exclusive domain of the establishment whereby an official “doctrine” or “mythology” is often disseminated to ensure a homogeneity of thought and conformity of actions.

Noted historian, K. K. Aziz, in his “Murder of History: A Critique of History Textbooks Used in Pakistan” (1998) notes that:

“In Pakistani schools and colleges what is being taught as history is really national mythology, and the subjects of Social Studies and Pakistan Studies are nothing but vehicles of political indoctrination. Our children don’t learn history. They are ordered to read a carefully selected collection of falsehoods, fairy tales and plain lies.”

The myth and mystery around the 1965 War is no exception. One would not be surprised that a normal–perhaps even average college educated–Pakistani believes–or is led to believe–that on Sept 6th 1965, India invaded Pakistan (specifically Lahore) and that once thrust into this battle, Pakistan came out to be victorious over its archrival. Both of these facts, on close examination, are quite far from reality. True, India did attack Lahore on September 6th 1965, but it was not the one to force a war on Pakistan in the first place. It was Pakistan’s provocation in the form of Operation Gibralter that led India towards opening the Western front in Pakistan.

It is also true that by the end of the 3rd week of war, both countries had found themselves in a virtual military stalemate. While Pakistan’s armed forces had successfully defended Lahore–thanks, primarily to men like Raja Aziz Bhatti who, despite the failure of leadership at the top-most levels, gave up their lives but not inch of the country’s territory, but also due to the strategic position of the BRB Canal that formed a natural defense for Lahore–all of Pakistan’s offensive maneuvers had come to a naught.

The Operation Gibralter that began in May-June of 1965 to take Indian territory in Kashmir and create an insurgency and popular uprising in the region was frustrated. This launched Operation Grand Slam that was aimed at cutting the Jammu-Rajouri road at Akhnur and to ultimately capture the latter. This operation was unnecessary delayed because of a change in top-military commander–a change widely perceived as unwarranted at that time. Despite these delays, however, as Pakistani troops gained some territory, India launched a full-scale offensive aimed at Lahore (0530 hrs on the 6th) and Sialkot (night between 7th and 8th). The rest as they say is history.

In the ground war itself, there was a military stalemate on virtually all, northern (Kashmir), central ( Lahore), and southern, axes. At the time of the ceasefire, India held 450 square miles of Pakistan’s territory and Pakistan held 1600 square miles of Indian territory. General K. M. Arif, in his book Khaki Shadows, though, highlights that the Indian land gains were mainly in the fertile Sialkot and Kashmir sectors while Pakistani land gains were primarily in deserts opposite Sindh. While Pakistan came out with better numbers in terms of casualties (dead, injured, and missing) and equipment losses, it hardly was victorious as is often claimed by the establishment. Unless you define victory as being able to defend oneself during an offensive operation — hardly a [/B]definition indeed.

Apart from the unfortunate myth about who actually started the war itself, another factor that has received much less attention, and for obvious reasons, is why it was started in the first place. At the time of the 1965 War, Pakistan did not really have a full-time Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. General Ayub Khan was, at best, a part-time military commander, as he was too engaged in political affairs of the country. He had chosen General Musa Khan as his full-time Chief of Army Staff but only on the basis of his loyalty to the former rather than merit, competency or professionalism. This lack of leadership and competency at the highest levels of Pakistan’s military during the 1965 became legendary and is well-documented.

This was also something that was consequently taken advantage of by none other that Foreign Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Bhutto was, at the time of the 1965 war, at the peak of his power as Ayub’s foreign minister and a foreign policy hawk, par excellence. He single handedly molded the opinion of the foreign office and his friends at the GHQ to plan operation Gibralter. Ayub was informed about the plans but only to an extent.

Most importantly, Bhutto and his colleagues at the GHQ were able to dupe everyone who mattered into believing that capturing Kashmir was in sight, that an insurgency would immediately create an uprising, and that India would never declare full-scale war on Pakistan. Ayub’s indifference to this whole affair can be estimated from the fact that the Supreme Commander was vacationing in Swat during the last week of August 1965 when Pakistani troops were dying in Kashmir.

Each one of the above assumptions was grossly incorrect and both Ayub and Pakistan paid a heavy price for it. For his part, Bhutto was able to walk away from his created mess and managed to turn the tide against Ayub and actually benefit from the situation. The 1965 War was the turning point of Ayub’s career at the helm. Bhutto rode this wave of dissatisfaction with the war as well as the Tashkent Agreement to power in 1970.

Setting the record straight on what the 1965 War was all about, who started it, and why did it get started is not only a important constitutional right of Pakistani citizens but also is critical to learning from our own mistakes. Unfortunately, that is something that Pakistan has never been good at. General K. M. Arif in Khaki Shadows writes that in the immediate aftermath of the 1965 War “Pakistan suffered a loss of a different kind…Soon after the War the GHQ ordered all the formations and units of the Pakistan Army to destroy their respective war diaries and submit completed reports to this effect by a given date. This was done?Their [the war diaries'] destruction, a self-inflicted injury and an irreparable national loss, was intellectual suicide.”

Clearly, the political-military nexus had an interest in ensuring that nobody should find out what actually happened during the 1965 War — the former because of its incompetence and lack of leadership and the latter because of its culpability in taking Pakistan to war. While considerable second-hand material has become available since then, first hand information and accounts of the war remain a national secret whose disseminator could be charged under the Official Secrets Act. The organizational and legal paraphernalia to ensure that nobody ever learns from this tragic event in Pakistan’s history is complete and foolproof.

What could have happened differently if Pakistanis had actually learnt from what happened before, during, and after the 1965 War?

One, Mr. Bhutto would probably have found it difficult to ride the wave of anti-Ayub discontent as easily as he did for he was equally, if not more, culpable for what was solely blamed on Ayub Khan.

Two, Mr. Bhutto would not have found it as easy to continue to befriend army generals and exercise the kind of influence at GHQ that he did during the 1971 debacle. Perhaps Pakistan would have been intact.

Three, the army leadership would have received its fair share of blame for its professional incompetence, and preoccupation with civilian and political affairs at the expense of their military duty.

Four, Perhaps Pakistan would have learnt its lessons and Kargil-II (1965 War was, in fact, Operation Kargil-I) would not have happened. Consequently, Sharif government would not have been toppled and Musharraf would have been living a retired existence for the last 5 years.

The chain of causalities run fairly deep and dense in Pakistan’s history. Our inability and unwillingness to learn from our own mistakes merely reinforces these events and brings us closer to a new–and more challenging–disaster every time. The 1965 War should be remembered as a day of courage and sacrifice of Pakistani people–most notably our men and women in uniform–who were wronged by their civilian and military leaders, but more importantly it should be remembered as a missed opportunity to learn and improve our lot. That is the test we continue to fail each year.

 

[Avatar]

From the title of this thread I have learnt that Pakistani's believed that India had actually won the 1965 war which is contrary to the claims made by every Pakistani I have come across. So the word "Shattered" further suggests that Pakistani's or in fact the world no longer need to believe in the mass belief that India has won all wars. However, the reasoning which follows is very poor. As long as Pakistan does not gain anything in Kashmir, then the war is worthless.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There is no need to act like smart when you are not listening to the opposition. The matter which you played down under is a very serious issue, to challenge the soverignity of a country. An act like this will not tolerate by any country and they will protect its dignity at any cost.

You did not provide an answer that deserved to be listened to - it was needless sarcasm in response to a legitimate question of how you expect 5000 covert infiltrators to militarily wrest Kashmir away from the Indian Military deployed in J&K at the time.

Secondly, J&K was and is disputed, and India had officially announce several years earlier that it was no longer interested in implementing the UNSC resolutions on resolving the dispute - so your argument of sovereignty does not apply in this case, since it is clearly not considered Indian territory by the international community and the UN.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The sequence of 1965 war was like this: Pakistan initiates guerrilla war in Kashmir, while trying to incite a rebellion, to which India responds by decimating Hajipir pass and Neelam Valley - the logistic base of the infiltrating SSGs and Army regulars. Pakistan gets scared that India will now be extending this conflict to take over Muzaffarabad. So to dilute Indian pressure Pakistan launches Operation Grand Slam, attacking the Chamb-Akhnur region in Jammu. India finally responds by crossing international border threatening to take over Lahore.

This does not invalidate the point I made that India had defeated Operation Gibraltar, which the article you posted points out was to stoke a rebellion in Kashmir, and then proceeds to launch a military offensive against Pakistan across the ceasefire line.

Since Op. Gib had been defeated, the point about Indian objectives in attacking Pakistani controlled Kashmir remains, and the rest of earlier comments follow from there.

So Whatever Indian objectives were after Op. Gibralter was defeated, they were not accomplished since India ended with little territory gained either across the ceasefire line or IB.

 

[kumar_V1.0]

You did not provide an answer that deserved to be listened to - it was needless sarcasm in response to a legitimate question of how you expect 5000 covert infiltrators to militarily wrest Kashmir away from the Indian Military deployed in J&K at the time.

Secondly, J&K was and is disputed, and India had officially announce several years earlier that it was no longer interested in implementing the UNSC resolutions on resolving the dispute - so your argument of sovereignty does not apply in this case, since it is clearly not considered Indian territory by the international community and the UN.

1. so it was india's fault that your assumption that india will not retaliate went down the drain.
2. This is a dispute because india claims J&K and holds a large part , the India leaves her claims there is no dispute. and If India claims J&K India will retaliate. You mean to say Pakistan government was so naive that they discounted this altogether.