What's new

Sam Manekshaw: Remembering the Greatest Soldier India Ever Knew

Lmao, you covertly tried to take Kashmir, this was tipped off by locals(oh the irony). India commence to destroy militia, you bring in your military into Kashmir, but ended up defended Punjab. Utter failure and a total waste of time on your part. Let's not even kid.

India is 4 times bigger, but an almost isolated country, with good relations to losers(USSR), with weak socialist economy. You had the support of everyone, with a better economy, yet you still couldnt do anything.

The US had sanctions on us once the war started, hardly support at all. As for you guys, the USSR gave you full backing. Oh and we didn't try and 'capture' Kashmir, we just supported local militia as a response to your dumbass lot starting skirmishes. You then decided almost 2 weeks later to invade Pakistan, and got whipped so hard you asked for the ceasefire and your Prime Minister got a heart attack.

By this logic, the 1971 war was started by Pakistan when PAF initiated the Operation Chengiz Khan, because before that, India was only “sending troops to support the local insurgents". So, my dear friend, do you see the blatant fallacy of your statement? An undeclared attack is still an attack. Operation Gibraltar and then Operation Grandslam were clear acts of aggression. Just because Pakistan govt didn't announce the war, doesn't mean they didn't start it.

Oh yes they were clear acts of aggression, but they were a RESPONSE to India starting skirmishes along the border constantly and India showed no signs of fighting a full scale war until almost 2 weeks later.

As for Chengiz Khan, India was already pretty much going to join the war anyway, unlike in 65 when India made the move completely out of the blue almost 2 weeks later.
 
The US had sanctions on us once the war started, hardly support at all. As for you guys, the USSR gave you full backing. Oh and we didn't try and 'capture' Kashmir, we just supported local militia as a response to your dumbass lot starting skirmishes. You then decided almost 2 weeks later to invade Pakistan, and got whipped so hard you asked for the ceasefire and your Prime Minister got a heart attack.


"Skirmishes" have happened for decades even now, what you tried to pull then was different, and an utter failure. You infiltrated militia and trained soldiers to take Kashmir, or break it off from India. This is an act of war. Failure because --

1.) locals didnt rebel like you expected
2.) IA pushing on the isolated infiltrators and eradicated them

You then pushed with full on tanks into Kashmir, India didnt have the capability to take on Pakistani armor in Kashmir. India counter attacked Punjab, to pull your line out of Kashmir. This worked.

Your objective of breaking Kashmir, failed.

India's objective of pulling your forces out of Kashmir worked.

Somehow in your mind you won. It's another case of your generals, politicians being dumbasses and wasting the time and lives of your people, and you have people defending said dumbasses.
 
Last edited:
The US had sanctions on us once the war started, hardly support at all. As for you guys, the USSR gave you full backing. Oh and we didn't try and 'capture' Kashmir, we just supported local militia as a response to your dumbass lot starting skirmishes. You then decided almost 2 weeks later to invade Pakistan, and got whipped so hard you asked for the ceasefire and your Prime Minister got a heart attack.



Oh yes they were clear acts of aggression, but they were a RESPONSE to India starting skirmishes along the border constantly and India showed no signs of fighting a full scale war until almost 2 weeks later.

As for Chengiz Khan, India was already pretty much going to join the war anyway, unlike in 65 when India made the move completely out of the blue almost 2 weeks later.

There are many weaknesses in your argument..

1) You somehow assume that India was the one starting all the skirmishes, and Pakistan was only reacting. You have any neutral sources to back this up.?

2) You're trying to portray Op Gibraltar and Op Grandslam as some sort of spontaneous reactions to cross-border skirmishes, which they clearly weren't. They were extensively planned operations planned and launched by higher echelons of your military leadership. Definitely not something that can be brushed away as ‘spontaneous'.

3) Just as India had already showed her clear intent to go for war by infiltrating Mukti Bahini and regular IA paratroopers into East Pakistan way before Operation Chengiz Khan, similarly Pakistan has showed a clear intent of going to war in 1965 by initiating Grandslam and attacking Akhnoor. Your attempts at portraying Pakistan as the poor victim in 1965 are very very feeble.
 
There are many weaknesses in your argument..

1) You somehow assume that India was the one starting all the skirmishes, and Pakistan was only reacting. You have any neutral sources to back this up.?

2) You're trying to portray Op Gibraltar and Op Grandslam as some sort of spontaneous reactions to cross-border skirmishes, which they clearly weren't. They were extensively planned operations planned and launched by higher echelons of your military leadership. Definitely not something that can be brushed away as ‘spontaneous'.

3) Just as India had already showed her clear intent to go for war by infiltrating Mukti Bahini and regular IA paratroopers into East Pakistan way before Operation Chengiz Khan, similarly Pakistan has showed a clear intent of going to war in 1965 by initiating Grandslam and attacking Akhnoor. Your attempts at portraying Pakistan as the poor victim in 1965 are very very feeble.

1. Do some research and you will find it, the British PM at the time actually played mediator. These skirmishes lasted all the way from April to well within the summer. There is only so much we can take.

2. We have always done ops like those, just not to the same scale. I wouldn't be surprised if there were Pakistani troops supporting Kashmiri militants in India right now.

3. 1971 was a different situation, India was already going to send troops en masse to Pakistan, and did so. In 1965, if we wanted to start a major war, why was there an almost 2 week gap between the ops and the actual start of the war?

"Skirmishes" have happened for decades even now, what you tried to pull then was different, and an utter failure. You infiltrated militia and trained soldiers to take Kashmir, or break it off from India. This is an act of war. Failure because --

1.) locals didnt rebel like you expected
2.) IA pushing on the isolated infiltrators and eradicated them

You then pushed with full on tanks into Kashmir, India didnt have the capability to take on Pakistani armor in Kashmir. India counter attacked Punjab, to pull your line out of Kashmir. This worked.

Your objective of breaking Kashmir, failed.

India's objective of pulling your forces out of Kashmir worked.

Somehow in your mind you won. It's another case of your generals, politicians being dumbasses and wasting the time and lives of your people, and you have people defending said dumbasses.

We have always done ops like Gibraltar, just not on such a large scale. We are probably doing ops like that right now, does this mean India should go ahead and invade Pakistan tomorrow? No, it doesn't. Gibraltar was just meant to be the big push to make Kashmiri's really fight, and whilst it didn't work in the short term, in the long term it certainly made Kashmiri insurgency more popular.

After that, we did not push with tanks into Kashmir, don't be stupid. There was an almost 2 week gap and then India invaded Pakistan and tried to take Lahore.

India did not manage to take Lahore, and ended up asking for the ceasefire. Also, when your Prime Minister get's a heart attack from the ceasefire, you have dun fucked up.
 
1. Do some research and you will find it, the British PM at the time actually played mediator. These skirmishes lasted all the way from April to well within the summer. There is only so much we can take.

2. We have always done ops like those, just not to the same scale. I wouldn't be surprised if there were Pakistani troops supporting Kashmiri militants in India right now.

3. 1971 was a different situation, India was already going to send troops en masse to Pakistan, and did so. In 1965, if we wanted to start a major war, why was there an almost 2 week gap between the ops and the actual start of the war?



We have always done ops like Gibraltar, just not on such a large scale. We are probably doing ops like that right now, does this mean India should go ahead and invade Pakistan tomorrow? No, it doesn't. Gibraltar was just meant to be the big push to make Kashmiri's really fight, and whilst it didn't work in the short term, in the long term it certainly made Kashmiri insurgency more popular.

After that, we did not push with tanks into Kashmir, don't be stupid. There was an almost 2 week gap and then India invaded Pakistan and tried to take Lahore.

India did not manage to take Lahore, and ended up asking for the ceasefire. Also, when your Prime Minister get's a heart attack from the ceasefire, you have dun fucked up.

Bro.. tell me something.. Did India attack Lahore before Operation Grandslam or after??

www.dawn.com/news/1203708

This isn’t a week for civilians. Wars old and new will be celebrated and much made of the abilities and wisdom of the Great Protectors. Which is fine, really. What’s a week between friends.
Especially if there’s not much good to say. 1965 was a bad idea taken to perfection, all three stages of it. First came Gibraltar, that silliness of sending irregulars and radicalised civilians over into India-held Kashmir to foment revolution.
When revolution didn’t show up, we got into the business of Grand Slam — sending regular army troops over to wrest a bit of India-held Kashmir and win that most lusted after of victories, a strategic one.
We don’t have to rely on uninformed opinion, because there is a uniformed one available.
Then came actual war across the border, for which we were somehow unprepared and scrambled to fight to a stalemate because the Indians were a bunch of reluctant invaders.
Told you, it’s not a week for civilians. Luckily, we don’t have to rely on uninformed opinion, because there is a uniformed one available.
An eminent one — dripping with medals, reached the highest offices, tasked to write the official tale of 1965 and took two decades to do it. But then he got the funny idea of publishing his 650-page report, which was promptly banned by the army and never heard of again.
It’s a good week to remember the forgotten. Coming to you from a dusty shelf, the words of Lt Gen (retd) Mahmud Ahmed from a tome rather unassumingly and modestly titled History of the Indo-Pak War — 1965.
Tell us, General, what was Operation Gibraltar all about?
“The military aim of launching the guerrilla operations was threefold. Firstly, disrupt Indian civil and military control of the State. Secondly, to encourage, assist and direct an armed revolt by the people of Kashmir against Indian military occupation, and thirdly, to created conditions for an advance by the Azad Kashmir forces into the heart of occupied Kashmir and eventual liberation of IHK.”
So, how’d it go?
“The intelligence directorates were unable to provide any worthwhile intelligence to 12 Division for the guerrilla operations. Each commander of the Gibraltar Forces was given a few names of collaborators whom they were able to contact after infiltration into inside Indian Held Kashmir but their reliability was uncertain. In fact, none came forth to help the guerrilla forces. Therefore, despite undetected infiltration across the Cease Fire Line, all the Gibraltar Forces, with the exception of Ghaznavi, ran into trouble at the very outset of their operations.”
Then what, General?
“In the event, the Gibraltar Forces were unable to initiate any large scale uprisings in IHK as was visualised or hoped. Instead, the Indian Army in Kashmir retaliated violently resulting in the loss of some valuable territory. Undismayed by these losses, [Maj Gen Akhtar Hussain Malik, commander of 12 Division] was able to convince GHQ that the time for the attack he had envisaged through the Munawwar Gap was indeed opportune since the bulk of the Indian Army in IHK was committed in the retaliatory operations in addition to its involvement in counter-insurgency measures. A reluctant GHQ was thus compelled to act in accordance with Gen Akhtar’s proposal by sheer force of circumstances rather than by sound professional reasoning which demanded logical military contingency preparations from the very moment when the decision to launch Operation Gibraltar was first taken.”
How’d one screw-up, Gibraltar, lead to an even bigger cock-up, Grand Slam?
“If anything, the limited guerrilla operation [Gibraltar] served as pinpricks to rouse a slumbering giant as it were, though India initially went into action almost reluctantly with a self-imposed restraint of confining its attacks to the upper parts of Kashmir. Operation Grand Slam was a logical move after the failure of the guerrilla operations.”
Civilian note: Mahmud doesn’t think Grand Slam was a bad idea. He thinks it was not ambitious enough — the army should have gone for Jammu and created a giant Punjabi pincer to gobble up the Indian armed forces. Total victory could have been ours! Oh, generals.
So, err, what happened next?
“The Pakistani high command considered the international boundary with India and the Working Boundary with the State of Jammu and Kashmir inviolable and expected its Indian counterpart also to regard it as such. From the inviolability of the international boundary sprang the policy of ‘no provocation’. Having had all defence works dismantled and the mines removed as part of the Kutch agreement, the GHQ forbade occupation of defences along the Punjab border on the eve of Operation Grand Slam to avoid provoking India into launching an offensive across the international boundary.”
You’re saying we left ourselves open to invasion, General?
“It is a matter of great irony that despite its forward assembly the Pakistan Army still managed to allow itself to be surprised by the Indian attack on 6 September 1965! The Indian build-up (as reaction to Operation Grand Slam), of which there were clear indications since 3 or 4 September, was somehow not taken note of. It was only after listening to an All India Radio broadcast in the evening of 4 September that the Pakistan C-in-C, Gen Muhammad Musa, reached the conclusion that Indian intentions were hostile. Then too the GHQ sent a rather ambiguous signal message to the formations.”
But the fight was heroic, yes?
“Apart from the sheer number of tanks involved, it is well worth asking if the armoured battles were really great by any standard? The fact is both sides lacked skill in handling armour at the operation level.”
In the end, we did get something out of it, right? Right?
“In the case of Pakistan, if it was solution of Kashmir, then we failed; if it was merely to defreeze the issue, then the means employed and risks taken were grossly disproportionate to the results achieved. In the bargain, we got a war which we perhaps did not want and could have avoided.”
So there it is. An official history by an official general in a proper book with maps and diagrams. But who needs history when we’ve got a war to celebrate.
 
Bro.. tell me something.. Did India attack Lahore before Operation Grandslam or after??

www.dawn.com/news/1203708

This isn’t a week for civilians. Wars old and new will be celebrated and much made of the abilities and wisdom of the Great Protectors. Which is fine, really. What’s a week between friends.
Especially if there’s not much good to say. 1965 was a bad idea taken to perfection, all three stages of it. First came Gibraltar, that silliness of sending irregulars and radicalised civilians over into India-held Kashmir to foment revolution.
When revolution didn’t show up, we got into the business of Grand Slam — sending regular army troops over to wrest a bit of India-held Kashmir and win that most lusted after of victories, a strategic one.
We don’t have to rely on uninformed opinion, because there is a uniformed one available.
Then came actual war across the border, for which we were somehow unprepared and scrambled to fight to a stalemate because the Indians were a bunch of reluctant invaders.
Told you, it’s not a week for civilians. Luckily, we don’t have to rely on uninformed opinion, because there is a uniformed one available.
An eminent one — dripping with medals, reached the highest offices, tasked to write the official tale of 1965 and took two decades to do it. But then he got the funny idea of publishing his 650-page report, which was promptly banned by the army and never heard of again.
It’s a good week to remember the forgotten. Coming to you from a dusty shelf, the words of Lt Gen (retd) Mahmud Ahmed from a tome rather unassumingly and modestly titled History of the Indo-Pak War — 1965.
Tell us, General, what was Operation Gibraltar all about?
“The military aim of launching the guerrilla operations was threefold. Firstly, disrupt Indian civil and military control of the State. Secondly, to encourage, assist and direct an armed revolt by the people of Kashmir against Indian military occupation, and thirdly, to created conditions for an advance by the Azad Kashmir forces into the heart of occupied Kashmir and eventual liberation of IHK.”
So, how’d it go?
“The intelligence directorates were unable to provide any worthwhile intelligence to 12 Division for the guerrilla operations. Each commander of the Gibraltar Forces was given a few names of collaborators whom they were able to contact after infiltration into inside Indian Held Kashmir but their reliability was uncertain. In fact, none came forth to help the guerrilla forces. Therefore, despite undetected infiltration across the Cease Fire Line, all the Gibraltar Forces, with the exception of Ghaznavi, ran into trouble at the very outset of their operations.”
Then what, General?
“In the event, the Gibraltar Forces were unable to initiate any large scale uprisings in IHK as was visualised or hoped. Instead, the Indian Army in Kashmir retaliated violently resulting in the loss of some valuable territory. Undismayed by these losses, [Maj Gen Akhtar Hussain Malik, commander of 12 Division] was able to convince GHQ that the time for the attack he had envisaged through the Munawwar Gap was indeed opportune since the bulk of the Indian Army in IHK was committed in the retaliatory operations in addition to its involvement in counter-insurgency measures. A reluctant GHQ was thus compelled to act in accordance with Gen Akhtar’s proposal by sheer force of circumstances rather than by sound professional reasoning which demanded logical military contingency preparations from the very moment when the decision to launch Operation Gibraltar was first taken.”
How’d one screw-up, Gibraltar, lead to an even bigger cock-up, Grand Slam?
“If anything, the limited guerrilla operation [Gibraltar] served as pinpricks to rouse a slumbering giant as it were, though India initially went into action almost reluctantly with a self-imposed restraint of confining its attacks to the upper parts of Kashmir. Operation Grand Slam was a logical move after the failure of the guerrilla operations.”
Civilian note: Mahmud doesn’t think Grand Slam was a bad idea. He thinks it was not ambitious enough — the army should have gone for Jammu and created a giant Punjabi pincer to gobble up the Indian armed forces. Total victory could have been ours! Oh, generals.
So, err, what happened next?
“The Pakistani high command considered the international boundary with India and the Working Boundary with the State of Jammu and Kashmir inviolable and expected its Indian counterpart also to regard it as such. From the inviolability of the international boundary sprang the policy of ‘no provocation’. Having had all defence works dismantled and the mines removed as part of the Kutch agreement, the GHQ forbade occupation of defences along the Punjab border on the eve of Operation Grand Slam to avoid provoking India into launching an offensive across the international boundary.”
You’re saying we left ourselves open to invasion, General?
“It is a matter of great irony that despite its forward assembly the Pakistan Army still managed to allow itself to be surprised by the Indian attack on 6 September 1965! The Indian build-up (as reaction to Operation Grand Slam), of which there were clear indications since 3 or 4 September, was somehow not taken note of. It was only after listening to an All India Radio broadcast in the evening of 4 September that the Pakistan C-in-C, Gen Muhammad Musa, reached the conclusion that Indian intentions were hostile. Then too the GHQ sent a rather ambiguous signal message to the formations.”
But the fight was heroic, yes?
“Apart from the sheer number of tanks involved, it is well worth asking if the armoured battles were really great by any standard? The fact is both sides lacked skill in handling armour at the operation level.”
In the end, we did get something out of it, right? Right?
“In the case of Pakistan, if it was solution of Kashmir, then we failed; if it was merely to defreeze the issue, then the means employed and risks taken were grossly disproportionate to the results achieved. In the bargain, we got a war which we perhaps did not want and could have avoided.”
So there it is. An official history by an official general in a proper book with maps and diagrams. But who needs history when we’ve got a war to celebrate.

The way I see it is India tried to take Lahore and failed miserably to the point where they asked for the ceasefire. Not to mention the IAF was on the brink of being crushed, and the Indian PM got a heart attack afterwards. You can say all you want about the war, but that counts as a win in my book.
 
The way I see it is India tried to take Lahore and failed miserably to the point where they asked for the ceasefire. Not to mention the IAF was on the brink of being crushed, and the Indian PM got a heart attack afterwards. You can say all you want about the war, but that counts as a win in my book.


You failed, that source of your own general is enough. You went in with militia, later military, then ended up defending Punjab which was never intended to be the battle zone, or focus of your objective. It was a poorly executed scheme. The idea to manipulating your original line out of Kashmir was the main objective of the Indian side.

If making a fool out of yourself was winning, your generals got that for you.
 
You failed, that source of your own general is enough. You went in with militia, later military, then ended up defending Punjab which was never intended to be the battle zone, or focus of your objective. It was a poorly executed scheme. The idea to manipulating your original line out of Kashmir was the main objective of the Indian side.

If making a fool out of yourself was winning, your generals got that for you.

India invaded Pakistan in 1965, the invasion was halted. We won, you can't spin it any other way.
 
India invaded Pakistan in 1965, the invasion was halted. We won, you can't spin it any other way.


Take your own general's word for it, he knew just as well how much of waste of time it was. Proved only one thing, Pakistan was run by dumbasses, even for 3rd world standards.
 
Last edited:
Take your own general's word for it, he knew just as well how much of waste of time it was. Proved only one thing, Pakistan was run by dumbasses, even more 3rd world standards.

Take your PM's word for it, he died of heart attack afterwards.
 
Great? You still lost, like dumbasses. And wasted your own time and people's lives. This also lead to further mistrust. In which lead to Pakistan losing East Pakistan. If 1965 never happened, there would be no Bangladesh. 1965 laid the foundation for that.

Wow you have no understanding of history, yet you call me the dumbass. How ironic.

If you had even half a brain cell or knew even a shred of history you would know that in the 1965 war, Bangladeshi's fought damn hard in protecting Pakistan. 1965 made no difference as to whether or not they wanted to stay.

Also, if you didn't cross the border on 6th of September, there wouldn't of been a war. You started it, it doesn't matter what the reasons were, you started it. If we wanted war we would of whipped your fat *** in 62 when China was walking all over you.
 
Wow you have no understanding of history, yet you call me the dumbass. How ironic.

If you had even half a brain cell or knew even a shred of history you would know that in the 1965 war, Bangladeshi's fought damn hard in protecting Pakistan. 1965 made no difference as to whether or not they wanted to stay.

Also, if you didn't cross the border on 6th of September, there wouldn't of been a war. You started it, it doesn't matter what the reasons were, you started it. If we wanted war we would of whipped your fat *** in 62 when China was walking all over you.


I called your military planners and politicians dumbasses, which they are. What is ironic is those dumbasses later in their life saw the same exact tactic of starting a war through insurgency, but having your end goal completely met. (Bangladesh) Just the other way around this time.
 
I called you military planners and politicians dumbasses, which they are. What is ironic is those dumbasses saw the same exact tactic of starting a war through insurgency, but having your end goal completely met later on. (Bangladesh)

Politicians? Yes, 100%. Military planners? Yes, 200 f*cking percent. But 1965 has nothing to do with 1971, the whole EP drama would have happened regardless of 65.
 
The way I see it is India tried to take Lahore and failed miserably to the point where they asked for the ceasefire. Not to mention the IAF was on the brink of being crushed, and the Indian PM got a heart attack afterwards. You can say all you want about the war, but that counts as a win in my book.

The ‘way you see it' is wrong then.. I'd rather take the word of ACM Asghar Khan and ACM Nur Khan instead of your words. These gentlemen actually fought in the war and were heroes for Pakistan.

BTW, you're changing the goalposts now.. We were discussing who was the aggressor, not who lost more planes.. If wars were won or lost by the body count of casualties, then the Germans won WW2 impressively. Do you know how many Russians each German soldier killed in WW2?? And USSR won in Afghanistan by that logic. Wars are not decided by who lost more soldiers or tanks or planes, but by who achieved their objectives..

In 1965 war, Pakistani objective was to incite a rebellion in J&K and sever it from India, which failed. India went to war with an objective of saving Kashmir, the Akhnoor bridge in particular (Your own experts agree on this), which obviously India succeeded in.

Now, even if you want to count corpses and declare victory on that basis, then Pakistan lost more land, slightly more tanks and soldiers in the war, although PAF performed impressively against IAF and covered themselves in Glory.

And please stop using silly arguments like ‘Your PM got a heart attack, so you lost'. If the well-being of a leader was the metric of Victory, then the mongols failed in sacking Samarkand, because Ogedei khan died shortly afterwards. Porus certainly won against Alexander (because he lived longer) and Stannis won the battle of blackwater bay (because he lived longer than Joffrey or Tywin). LOL..!!

BTW, you didn't answer my question?? What came first? Indian thrust on Lahore or Operation Grandslam??
 
Who asked for the ceasefire? India.
Who's Prime Minister got a heart attack afterwards? India.
Who's Air Force was on the brink of collapse? India.
Who was 4 times their adversaries size militarily? India.
who won the war? definitely India
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom