Pakistan should have attacked India during the Sino-Indian War of 1962

[Saleem]

the simple reason is ayub was busy feeling important and with advisers like zulfiqar [bhutto] who sold off east pakistan later, what do you expect....

 

[Panther 57]

Opportunity comes tip toes and bang the door when it goes. So the door is still banging. Had Pakistan took the advantage of situation. Atoot Ang Slogan would have long gone.

Not becoming a party in the conflict was indirectly a help to India, otherwise goose was definitely cooked. Only bridge to Kashmir was just a few kilometers.

 

[ares]

Opportunity comes tip toes and bang the door when it goes. So the door is still banging. Had Pakistan took the advantage of situation. Atoot Ang Slogan would have long gone.

Look at this way..we could have taken entire Kashmir and more from you in 1971. You had already lost half you country, one third of your army, one fourth of your navy and one fifth of your air force uptill Decmber 16th 1971 ..had we continued the war...you would have suffered major losses in the west too.

 

[danger007]

I miss my flight by 30 min.... i should come 45min early..... lolz you guys talking about decades ago matter.... funny people....

 

[Panther 57]

Look at this way..we could have taken entire Kashmir and more from you in 1971. You had already lost half you country, one third of your army, one fourth of your navy and one fifth of your air force uptill Decmber 16th 1971 ..had we continued the war...you would have suffered major losses in the west too.

Unfortunately, this could not have happened. History cannot be denied and it is always written by victors. In 1971 BD was victor, therefore, those considered traitors in Pakistan are their heroes. Though a military regime was in place in 1971 but political leaders in lust of power divided this country to achieve their vested interests. Intentional blunders were committed to satisfy their vested interests, an opportunity given to a third stake holder. Propaganda war started where west Pakistanis were fed with notions of being supporters of flood riddled east Pakistan and East Pakistanis were told that West Pakistanis are taking away their golden fiber. Apparently these things seem very petty, but when such points are agitated again and again. It becomes a big issue. There were many such petty issues which could have been resolved amicably but were allowed to develop into cancer.

Armies can fight on the front and return victorious, but history is a witness that wars are not lost because of armies but because of traitors within the ranks. Mukti Baini may be a liberation force for BD and their members must be regarded as heroes. For Pakistan those were traitors.

Situation in West was not the same as East and India was weak on this end. Certain communication took place between senior military officials of both the countries and commitments were made, but unfortunately those were not honoured by Inida. Please don't take this as blame game, it is just narration of some facts. Pakistan's west wing was well guarded and India would have suffered heavily on this front which prompted it to go for a deal. East was had internal problems, where India took the advantage and engaged army at the borders, whereas they were supposed to be countering enemy within. A limited force fighting at two fronts is bound to end up in troubles. This does not absolve army from their act of cease fire. It was weakness of the commander who developed a pressure on decision makers to go for surrender. Had the army not surrendered, scenario might be other then creation of BD.

 

[Panther 57]

@ares sometimes people wonder away in memory lanes This is what life is talk about past, Live in present and struggle for future.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

it's just a matter of political will....

 

[ares]

Situation in West was not the same as East and India was weak on this end. Certain communication took place between senior military officials of both the countries and commitments were made, but unfortunately those were not honoured by Inida. Please don't take this as blame game, it is just narration of some facts. Pakistan's west wing was well guarded and India would have suffered heavily on this front which prompted it to go for a deal. East was had internal problems, where India took the advantage and engaged army at the borders, whereas they were supposed to be countering enemy within. A limited force fighting at two fronts is bound to end up in troubles. This does not absolve army from their act of cease fire. It was weakness of the commander who developed a pressure on decision makers to go for surrender. Had the army not surrendered, scenario might be other then creation of BD.

West was little better guarded than the East. But by 16 dec 1971.. Indians had everything going for them, your forces had surrendered in the East... we had already put one third of your army out of action for negligible loss to our forces, your Navy was neutralized, your ports had been put out of action and the country completely blockaded by Indian navy, after sounding defeat in the East..your troop morale lay shattered top.

When the war broke out..India had deployed majority forces in the East, where as Pakistan deployed them in the west...but even these forces could not break through Indian lines...Now imagine after victory in the East were India to transfer it's armies to the Western front.

Giving its entire punch across a single front..it would have certainly decimated your defenses in the west too.

However all these are hypothetical scenarios ..just like how you imagine..had you joined 1962 war..you could have won anything at all..especially since India had deployed only ten thousand soldiers on the Chinese front and rest of forces lay as reserves.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

the simple reason is ayub was busy feeling important and with advisers like zulfiqar [bhutto] who sold off east pakistan later, what do you expect....

E-Pak was a long lost cause.....should have let them go their own way in 1947.

more could have been done then for the liberation of Kashmir

 

[HariPrasad]

And where are you going to get the money to do that, considering your collapsing currency, collapsing growth, and booming deficits?

Our Economy is still 2nd fastest growing economy in the world and falling rupee is going to help us in doing lots of export and earn revenue. Remember your government had deliberately kept your currency low in order to boost export. Who knows it may be a policy of our government. Our economy is not export driven like that of yours. Wait for just one month. A lots of new highly sophisticated missile are going to be tested next month. You will get your answer.

 

[Panther 57]

each side has its own story and reasoning, so there is no point arguing unnecessarily. As I said earlier, there are two sides of story; traitor to some are heroes for others. Just like both Tallibans and USA calls their war casualties as Martyrs.

 

[Gautam]

It was a goodwill gesture by Pakistan who did not exploit the situation. But when there was a bad situation in east Pakistan, India exploited the situation. I am telling you, Hidnu India and Upper caste Indians are not trust worthy.

 

[asad71]

Unfortunately, this could not have happened. History cannot be denied and it is always written by victors. In 1971 BD was victor, therefore, those considered traitors in Pakistan are their heroes. Though a military regime was in place in 1971 but political leaders in lust of power divided this country to achieve their vested interests. Intentional blunders were committed to satisfy their vested interests, an opportunity given to a third stake holder. Propaganda war started where west Pakistanis were fed with notions of being supporters of flood riddled east Pakistan and East Pakistanis were told that West Pakistanis are taking away their golden fiber. Apparently these things seem very petty, but when such points are agitated again and again. It becomes a big issue. There were many such petty issues which could have been resolved amicably but were allowed to develop into cancer.

Armies can fight on the front and return victorious, but history is a witness that wars are not lost because of armies but because of traitors within the ranks. Mukti Baini may be a liberation force for BD and their members must be regarded as heroes. For Pakistan those were traitors.

Situation in West was not the same as East and India was weak on this end. Certain communication took place between senior military officials of both the countries and commitments were made, but unfortunately those were not honoured by Inida. Please don't take this as blame game, it is just narration of some facts. Pakistan's west wing was well guarded and India would have suffered heavily on this front which prompted it to go for a deal. East was had internal problems, where India took the advantage and engaged army at the borders, whereas they were supposed to be countering enemy within. A limited force fighting at two fronts is bound to end up in troubles. This does not absolve army from their act of cease fire. It was weakness of the commander who developed a pressure on decision makers to go for surrender. Had the army not surrendered, scenario might be other then creation of BD.

1971 War was a civil war. Each side was fighting heroically for itself. For example, in WW II the Allies and the Axis were each fighting for own. Terming one side traitor by the other amounts to missing the point.

 

[Panther 57]

This is exactly what i said. Thanks for reiterating.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

I should have asked her out.
I should have bought Apple stock.

I could have...
You would have...
They should have...

Except it's not just past issues, but future ones too:

With the ruling lot of Pakistan's sellout politicians, Pakistan is more likely to help India than China in a war.

Luckily the balance of power between China and India is so strongly in our favor, that it doesn't even matter which side you take in future.

Back in 1962, we had just come out of the worst famine in all of Chinese history, and were on the verge of collapse from starvation, with both the superpowers looking for our blood, and surrounding us on all sides with their proxies. Both the superpowers were our open enemies, having previously fought the Korean War with the USA, and being in the middle of the Sino-Soviet split with the USSR.

Back then, India had a stronger economy than China, compounded by the Great leap forward which put our already weak economy on the verge of collapse.

Today the situation is completely different, our GDP is $8.3 trillion compared to India's GDP of $1.5 trillion (or less considering the collapse of the Rupee). Russia is our strategic ally, while the USA is our biggest trading partner, and we are their biggest creditor nation.

Not to mention that India right now is in the middle of a currency and deficit collapse, with looming elections in 6 months.

India has never been weaker vis-a-vis China than it is right now, look at the recent video where our soldiers just pushed straight through the Indian border troops without any resistance.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian-defence/273161-chinese-incursion-caught-tape.html

Whereas even a shadow passing over the India-Pakistan border would have hundreds of bullets fired at it by the Indian side, regardless of whether it is a soldier or a civilian or even a slight breeze.