I respect your opinion however there are some obvious flaws...Please note my intention is not to degrade/chest thump here...
I don't want this to turn into yet another 1965 war narrative. But here is my brief understanding of that war, especially after reading (from the NY Times paid archives) from 7th Sept. till the end of the war: The Indian attack through the international border was judged as a "classic" diversionary move to relieve the pressure in Indian-held Kashmir. It didn't seem like India was much interested in escalation and neither was Pakistan. But for weeks there WERE a lot of Indian moves into W. Pakistan to go deep but they met fierce resistance--indeed, Pakistani forces managed something well beyond the war-capabilities. That CAN'T be taken away.
I am in agreement here...Pakistan did well to safegaurd West Pakistan(of that time) from an Indian onslaught...however we also need to keep in mind on some of key words used above...."escalation was not desired"....think about it...it was a diversionary move which means the main intent behind was to relive pressure in Kashmir...now i am not trying to defend IA not able to make deep inroads or taking away PA defending their home turf however just want to highlight that capturing Pak territory deep inside was perhaps not the main intent nevertheless an intent!!
Also, Ayub Khan is on record to have said that Indian forces were well-equipped--better than they were in 1962. Ayub blamed the West for the advanced Indian weaponry. Ayub said that India used the China bogeyman to acquire sophisticated weapons between 1962-65, only to use them against Pakistan. So, while our Indian PDF guests may be partially correct that Pakistan had qualitative advantage I think the Indian weaponry was not that bad--and neither was Indian war "preparedness" especially in light of 1962.
Now this is where you are going wrong...1962 was perhaps an awakening for us. Prior to that our beloved(pun intended) chacha Nehru was of the opinion that NAM is the way to go and Army is a waste of resource....what a moron!!
Think about it ....IA is huge as compared to PA so 3 years in that context is too small a time to induct things, prepare doctrines, create infrastructure/ground support, provide it to your huge army and train them to fight a war!! ...no??
Pakistan which was a member of CENTO, Seato in 1955 and flogging GDP rate higher than India was in much better shape than Indian Army...Indian Army major force at that time was its numerical superiority. This is also quiet evident from the fact that by the time ceasefire came into picture 80% of our ammunition was intact as compared to 20% of yours...Had war continued a bit longer PA would have find it very difficult.... In short we can't ignore that PA army was enjoying the best toys of that time and perhaps the only time in history where IN had no answers to PN(though navy hardly play a role however used just to prove a point)
My personal opinion is that Pakistanis are justified to claim a "victory" in light of the odds--a purely military victory, and not a political or strategic victory. The Indian advancement for weeks was going to take a life of its own to "degrade" or even destroy the Pakistani state and yet that was not achieved.
Bold part is wrong and sorry to say this piece smells hypocricy as well...IA did want to destroy PA however that idea was floated in 71 war which never got political nod and thus died...In 65 had the aim of destroying PA then perhaps an easier target would have been eastern Pakistan, no?? We would have gone and capture that Area and played defensive in western flank...
Also on one hand you justified claiming victory by saying that Indian Army failed to achieve objective of destroying PA(which is more of a speculation) however simply ignoring the PA objectives(which actually was the aggressor) failure viz-a-viz Gramdslam and Gibralatar....
As for 1971--it was essentially a victory for the Bangladeshi nationalists--as our BD friend rightly says above. India came in very late when the war was essentially already lost. Other than the humiliation of surrender--in a war of extremely heavy odds--Pakistanis don't cry over the loss of E. Pakistan. In fact, the loss of E. Pakistan was almost taken with a stride. Remember that: Even General McArthur had to run away with his tail between his legs at the height of American power in the Korean War.
Now this is intellectual dishonesty....Your eastern flank was never protected enough and "Defence of East lies in West" was your military staff planners mantra...check your history books...this is not something that we made...Your western flank failed to make any major inroads into our borders and that is where you lost the war...This is the time when India military was getting all the goodies from USSR and was turning into a major force to rekon with....IN which was literraly cooling heals in 65 war turned the tide never to look back from there....
On topic: Indeed, the missile capabilities of Pakistan are very lethal for India (and of course vice versa). Combine that with the upgraded air defense systems of Pakistan, I don't think, in a war on defensive footing, India can 'win' without destroying India itself. And I am not going to bother mention the nukes--they should never be used or even discussed. Only countries like Uncle Sam, Russia, and China can attack Pakistan and be "victorious" as things stand now.
If you are talking in purely conventional terms then I am sorry but you have lost the edge...An army which was more of an aggressor has simply shed the role and turned into a defensive force...if you are bringing in nukes then i believe even china will not go victorious....the day you field a true ICBM then you can strike Russia and USA as well...because nobody win's a nuclear war...simple!!