Reflections of the 65 war.

[vsdoc]

Nice read @Bang Galore

I tend to get fatalistic about the whole thing sometimes.

About what could have been. But was not.

But to be fair, we followed '65 up with '71, and in 65 were born the seeds of 71.

65 to my mind failed for India only in that we lost, probably forever, the land bridge to central Asia and beyond. I cannot think of any other strategic imperative that might have been achieved were we to have "bashed on regardless."

 

[Capt.Popeye]

I never knew there was 1965 until recently. Nevertheless, after read so much on 1965, IMO, 1965 was the event that divided India and Pakistan for eternity and the reason for inflexibility on Kashmir on India's part.

That is correct. After 1965, there was an irreversible change in India's Kashmir Policy; 1971 cast it in stone!

Nice read @Bang Galore

I tend to get fatalistic about the whole thing sometimes.

About what could have been. But was not.

But to be fair, we followed '65 up with '71, and in 65 were born the seeds of 71.

65 to my mind failed for India only in that we lost, probably forever, the land bridge to central Asia and beyond. I cannot think of any other strategic imperative that might have been achieved were we to have "bashed on regardless."

In 1965; that "bash on, regardless" was certainly not a possibility.
In 1971, the probability had increased. But Indira wisely took Sardar Swaran Singh's counsel and ruled it out.

 

[vsdoc]

In 1965; that "bash on, regardless" was certainly not a possibility.
In 1971, the probability had increased. But Indira wisely took Sardar Swaran Singh's counsel and ruled it out.

Probably the ambitions of "bash on regardless" could be different in different minds.

Some might take it to be the fabled "bisect Pakistan" via an armored thrust through the sands of Rajasthan. Isolating Sindh and Karachi from Lahore and Islamabad.

Or the near achievable ...

Were the Indian forces to have taken Lahore, do you think in the negotiations that followed ceasefire we could have bartered it for Pakistan occupied Kashmir?

That part of Kashmir held little for the Pakistanis without the valley. Siachen and the Karakoram highway came a lot later.

And contrary to the excerpts posted by @Bang Galore , I do not think any Pakistani general was actually risking 100 million Pakistanis for 5 million Kashmiris. Not then, not now, not ever.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Were the Indian forces to have taken Lahore, do you think in the negotiations that followed ceasefire we could have bartered it for Pakistan occupied Kashmir?

That part of Kashmir held little for the Pakistanis without the valley. Siachen and the Karakoram highway came a lot later.

And contrary to the exerpts posted by @Bang Galore , I do not think any Pakistani general was actually risking 100 million Pakistanis for 5 million Kashmiris. Not then, not now, not ever.

The underlined part is an interesting Proposition !

Doc, that excerpt quoted by @Bang Galore is credible.
Ayub got really spooked after 1965. The problem was that he had neither the intelligence nor the intellect to out wit Bhutto..... his erstwhile protege who then became his bete noire; ........ a phenomenon that has repeated itself in Pakistan so many times over.

Driven by unbridled lust for power... to the eventual detriment of the country. Never underestimate what a "Cowboy" can do to destroy his own country..... without even knowing it!
The last such specimen was Musharafff.

 

[vsdoc]

The underlined part is an interesting Proposition !

Doc, that excerpt quoted by @Bang Galore is credible.
Ayub got really spooked after 1965. The problem was that he had neither the intelligence nor the intellect to out wit Bhutto..... his erstwhile protege who then became his bete noire; ........ a phenomenon that has repeated itself in Pakistan so many times over.

Driven by unbridled lust for power... to the eventual detriment of the country.

My point was that I do not believe Ayub launched Gibraltar for the Kashmiris.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

My point was that I do not believe Ayub launched Gibraltar for the Kashmiris.

Did Ayub launch 'Gibraltar' ?

 

[vsdoc]

Did Ayub launch 'Gibraltar' ?

Are you saying there was a coup going on even as the nation was fighting a hot war?

I know he was not on board, had his reservations. Was he overruled or simply kept in the dark?

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Are you saying there was a coup going on even as the nation was fighting a hot war?

I know he was not on board, had his reservations. Was he overruled or simply kept in the dark?

Ayub ...... simply floated with the tide....
Bhutto was one of Pakistan's "greatest prayer-rug salesmen" ...... till Zia ul-Haq beat him(in that rating)...... and despatched him.... god-knows-where.

 

[Solomon2]

FLUSHED with victory in the Rann of Kutch in April 1965, Field Marshal Ayub Khan and his confidants thought that the time was ripe for wresting Kashmir from India by inciting the Muslim population to rise in rebellion -

I've read the U.S. diplomatic record in the declassified Foreign Relations of the United States. 1965 marked a sea-change in Pakistani thinking, that the military would not be used primarily for defense but to seek legitimacy through conquest. It was an unnecessary war. It was not initiated for justice - negotiations were slow but progress was being made. Rather, the Pakistanis and their government decided to use the weapons provided by the West and the army trained by the British for the purposes of defense to seek glory instead.

It was a betrayal of both allies and moral values. That's what made Pakistan's behavior in 1965 reprehensible.

To this day Pakistan proclaims that it seeks not peace with India but "mutual respect" - to be treated as a legal and moral (and even physical) equal, regardless of Pakistan's conduct, as "sovereignty" is supposed to be the shield and excuse for everything. Thus in 1967 Z.A. Bhutto wrote (in The Myth of Independence) it should be Pakistani policy to conquer one-third of India, regardless of the wishes of the locals.

Even after the 1971 debacle, rump Pakistan is still holding on to the this morally depraved policy whose wicked plots have caused suffering to millions of people in South Asia. Can Pakistan change three generations of bad habits? Currently it doesn't want to - that's why the Haqqani Network remains intact, why terror camps continue to train "stateless" combatants for operations in Kashmir and India, and apparently why Osama bin Laden was sheltered without apology practically under the aegis of the Pakistani Army in Abbottabad.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

I've read the U.S. diplomatic record in the declassified Foreign Relations of the United States. 1965 marked a sea-change in Pakistani thinking, that the military would not be used primarily for defense but to seek legitimacy through conquest. It was an unnecessary war. It was not initiated for justice - negotiations were slow but progress was being made. Rather, the Pakistanis and their government decided to use the weapons provided by the West and the army trained by the British for the purposes of defense to seek glory instead.

It was a betrayal of both allies and moral values. That's what made Pakistan's behavior in 1965 reprehensible.

To this day Pakistan proclaims that it seeks not peace with India but "mutual respect" - to be treated as a legal and moral (and even physical) equal, regardless of Pakistan's conduct, as "sovereignty" is supposed to be the shield and excuse for everything. Thus in 1967 Z.A. Bhutto wrote (in The Myth of Independence) it should be Pakistani policy to conquer one-third of India, regardless of the wishes of the locals.

Even after the 1971 debacle, rump Pakistan is still holding on to the this morally depraved policy whose wicked plots have caused suffering to millions of people in South Asia. Can Pakistan change three generations of bad habits? Currently it doesn't want to - that's why the Haqqani Network remains intact, why terror camps continue to train "stateless" combatants for operations in Kashmir and India, and apparently why Osama bin Laden was sheltered without apology practically under the aegis of the Pakistani Army in Abbottabad.

OK.... all that is fine.

But is that reflected in the thinking in "Foggy Bottom" and in the Pentagon ??

As for "mutual respect".... sadly that is fading slowly into the Sunset.... like the Gunslinger in a MGM Western, the only difference being that the Gunslinger gets both the Girl and vanquishes his opposition before doing so.

 

[third eye]

I never knew there was 1965 until recently. Nevertheless, after read so much on 1965, IMO, 1965 was the event that divided India and Pakistan for eternity and the reason for inflexibility on Kashmir on India's part.

How old are you ?

 

[Capt.Popeye]

How old are you ?

Likely to be less than half-a-century !

 

[vsdoc]

Likely to be less than half-a-century !

No man.

I am 5 short of half century.

 

[ito]

How old are you ?

25

 

[Capt.Popeye]

25

So.... half of....half a century.