The Kargil Conflict Revisited

[Chak Bamu]

Thank you for the education. So the response to ethnic cleansing by the Dogra Raj was the loot, rape and murder of Muslims by the Lashkars? Would you not say that it was a peculiar reaction?

While there were some excesses, I am surprised that you see this as the contribution of the Lashkars. For someone seemingly over-obsessive about 'facts', is that the right attitude? I see that you are interested only in facts that suit you.

Again, not entirely unknown, not entirely unrecorded. A small minority, with NO representation from the Vale in general, consisting of people from Poonch exclusively, at one stage objected to the secular policy of the National Conference, and reverted to the older name of the Muslim Conference, and went to join Pakistan.

This is your opinion of course. Do you have anything to substantiate your claims here? Facts? Where are they? If anything you have just confirmed my assertions. There WAS division in the ranks, and those who were useful to the Indians were co-opted and declared to be the 'legitimate' representatives. That is just what I had said. Thanks for confirming my position.

You may or may not be aware that when Mr. Jinnah visited the Valley himself, before 1947, the leaders of the pro-Muslim League elements, mainly the then Mirwaiz and a handful of others, bitterly disappointed him. He went on record to say that nothing was to be hoped from them.

There was no support for Pakistan in the Vale, only in the Muzaffarabad area, a handful from Poonch, the Mirwaiz and his followers, and the princely states of Swat and Chitral. I have already mentioned this.

I am well-aware of the lack of support from some vocal Kashmiris towards Quaid-e-Azam and Muslim League. It was a similar picture in Punjab. But the elections of 1946 completely reversed the picture. People forced the Unionist party to merge into Muslim League. Did we ever have that in Kashmir? Was there ever an election that allowed people to chose? Was there ever a referendum, or a plebiscite?

That is why I say that Raja of Kashmir thought of his subjects as Cattle which was just convenient for Indians. Do you know how Muslims were treated in the Dogra raj? Do you know what indignities they suffered? There were taxes on # of hearths, on houses, on marriage, Dogra army men would extort money as and when they liked. The Hatus of Kashmir were cattle in their eyes. Like I said, this was what Indians wanted and got: cattle they could count on their side without giving so much as a chance for the people to express their opinions. You build up your case on this situation. You think that a piece of paper can be used to decide the fate of millions without asking them for their opinion. Do you hail from a democracy. Based on the above, I think not.

Sadly, you are letting your emotions overcome you. Instead, you should find out the facts. They are on record.

Sadly, you are letting nationalism speak in riddle-legalese devoid of Humanism for you. Instead you should see the facts as they are. Raja and India treated people like cattle and you seem to see no problem with that. The piece of paper with Raja's signature is somewhere in your archives. That is a fact for you. A piece of paper with forced signature handing away people, their property, their rights, their state as though they were not people but cattle. And you support that? A bit of introspection is called for here.

The Maharaja bitterly opposed the democratization sought by the National Conference. He imprisoned Sheikh Abdullah and many of the leaders of the National Conference. It was the Indian National Congress-led Government of India that insisted, as a condition of accepting the Maharaja's accession, that Abdullah should be released and should be allowed to form a government. Contrary to what you say, the Government of India was aligned with Abdullah and the National Conference and against the Maharaja and his line of thought.

See how one person is built up as the spoke-person and representative for millions of people, even though he was controversial in and outside of Kashmir. I would posit that Ch. Abbas was more popular and a more true representative of Kashmiris. After the Indian take over, Kashmiris voted with their feet. Do you have any idea, how many Kashmiris migrated to Pakistan? It was easy enough though, all the rivers and their valleys point to Pakistan. When you dismiss these linkages, you are ignoring facts. Why are Kashmiris so close to Punjabis of Pakistan? They share cultural, economic, & religious practices. If given a choice Kashmiris of yesterday and today would doubtless side with Pakistan. They voted with their feet, they would vote with their hands, minds, and souls. That is the confidence that Pakistanis have in them. Even if we have to accept an independent Kashmir, we would do so, because in the end Kashmiris would decide in our favor.

You may dismiss my opinion (and it is an opinion based on facts), but yours is no better than mine.

It is surprising that you are building such an edifice of supposed purpose and counter-purpose without knowledge of the base facts.

What base facts? You mean a piece of paper signed by an un-elected piece of **** who condoned violence against his own people because they differed in religion from him?

What base facts? You mean an Indian stooge who declared himself to be the representative of people and JLN gleefully put him on pedestal. The same Sh. Abdullah was thrown in jail, once his purpose was served, by the same JLN. Lessons from history are more pertinent than assumed facts. Kashmiris never had a choice. Indians never gave them a choice. They still want to be independent of India.

Go and read up on anti-Muslim pogroms in Poonch aided and abetted by Dogra soldiers. I have read eye-witness accounts from the refugees. I hope you do the same. The first state secretary of Azad Jammu & Kashmir was an ethnic Punjabi who grew up in Poonch, Kashmir - where his father was a retired state official. He chronicles the detail of how and how many Muslims were killed in each district of Kashmir. The Muslims of Bagh, Muzaffarabad, and Mirpur had served in British army and thus put up resistance and repelled the state troops. It was they who called upon the tribals to help them. If you can read Urdu, you may try to find a copy of 'Shahabnama'. That would turn you to many facts that you presently find convenient to ignore.

Generations of Pakistanis have been brainwashed into believing these urban legends. You really should find out more.

Like wise, generations of Indians have been brainwashed into believing these urban legends. You really should find out more.

The Nawab of Junagadh declared for Pakistan. Two subsidiary principalities objected, and declared for India. The Nawab sent in the State forces to coerce them into submission. They then appealed to India, and Indian troops moved into these subsidiary states only, not into Junagadh proper.

By then, the Nawab had fled with his kennels of dogs. Only the Diwan, Shah Nawaz Bhutto, was left, alone and isolated. He contacted the nearest officer of the Government of India, situated outside Junagadh, and asked him to take over the administration. Subsequently, he actuated his own request by proceeding to Karachi. The officer concerned moved into a vacuum in Junagadh, with no treasury, no prince and no diwan, and informed the Government of India, who moved in troops, maintained law and order, and ran a plebiscite, overseen by the British.

So you do concur that Nawab of Junagadh declared for Pakistan. I hope you see the circular logic at work here. I could substitute names here are your would find that this is almost a mirror case of Kashmir. The only difference being that Lashkars stopped 30 miles short of Srinagar of Kashmir, and Indian army invaded and occupied. I suppose the Nawab of Junagadh fled for no reason, no threats were made, no show of force was on display. Nothing extra-ordinary at all. Something just caught his fancy and he just strolled out with his dogs (are they relevant?). Hypocrisy, anyone?

I wish you would get your facts together before putting together opinions as sweeping as you have expressed.

I suggest the you do the same. Most of your facts are mere spiderwebs. And your opinions are just as fragile.

And this happened when? In 1947? Sometime between August and December? The Nizam had ample opportunity, chose not to take it, and instead allowed groups of armed thugs called Razakars to go on the rampage. There were widespread communal massacres, aided and abetted by state troops.

Nizam of Hyderabad was a ruler in his own right. He had representation at the UN. I would like to know how India made a case for the naked aggression that was comically labelled 'police action', as though police carry heavy weapons, tanks, and other such stuff. Funny people these Indians. They establish 'facts' using force and then hop around making noise just so no one would notice. I am reminded of how a case of Satti was recorded by a traveller (Ibn-e-Batuta?) The widow was placed on the pyre. When the flames reached her and she started to cry and yell and struggle, the priests just pitched up the volume of 'music' Cymbals, conches, and such - so that her screams were drowned out.

Your case of impossible defense of Indian aggression on Hyderabad brings the above incident to mind. Just make noise, make a pseudo-legal argument and cry facts, facts...

Do get your facts straight.

Have you?

Because Goa was not part of the British Crown Colony of India, nor was it one of the subsidiary states over which the British Crown wielded suzerain (not sovereign) power. That's why.

In that case the aggression carries a halo of holiness? It was not a mission to occupy territory using threat, force, violence? For Kashmir you have a piece of paper, for whatever it is worth as a fig leaf, for Junagadh and Manadvar you may claim a fig leaf of whatever you say. For Hyderabad, there is no fig leaf, but you may imagine that you have something (much like an establish 'fact' on groud a-la-Israel), but what do you have to say about Goa, Diu? No fig leaf here, no instrument, no person you could thrust forward as being a purported 'representative'. What can you say apart from the fact that India got what it wanted by force, like in all other previous cases? Might is right, Right?

The facts, please.

No facts, just an acknowledgement of more of 'might is right'. Why bother with facts when India has plenty of guns, soldiers, tanks, planes, and a misleading fig leaf of democracy? If you are sincere, then call for a plebiscite in Kashmir.

An external invasion by Masud and Waziri tribals from the NWFP, and an armed attack by the State troops of Chitral is what you are pleased to call a full-time insurrection? Can you point to a single Kashmiri involved in any resistance to the Kashmir state troops, in your supposed 'full-time' insurrection?

Sardar AbdulQayyum. He was one of the first Kashmiris to wage Jihad against Dogra raj. There is your single (and perhaps first) Kashmiri along with thousands of others. Need more? There is a fact for you. Now are you going to argue that these people either did not exist, or that they are not 'true' Kashmiris?

As for the net immigration of Kashmiris to Pakistan, that is an unsubstantiated claim by you. The only people to travel to Pakistan were those who were taken across and trained in irregular warfare for several years from 1984 onwards.

May I remind you that the recent confrontation on the LOC was sparked by a Granny who fled India Occupied Kashmir to join members of her family on the other side? There are a number of Kashmiris who left Indian occupied territory. Many of them live in Pakistan, some of them relocated to UK and other countries of Europe. I would encourage you to do some research and unearth some inconvenient facts. You may not like them, but they are there. But I would not waste my time establishing the obvious for you.

And are you not substantiating everything I have said through this conversation? The pro-India role of Sheikh Abdullah? The fact that Kashmiris had nothing to do with Pakistan? What else do you want to hear? Or is it that what stares you in the face is not what you want to hear?

Nope actually I have not provided you with a narrative of support. I have not touched on a number of things, you are just seeing what you want to see. Let me see: did I provide you with an argument legitimizing Sh. Abdullah? No. Did I say that Kashmiris had nothing to do with Pakistan? No. I quoted Mr. Ghulam Nabi as saying that Kashmiris did not do enough. Big difference. Need more? He mentioned his conversation in Indian soldiers who garrisoned Srinagar. Do you want snippets like "Hamary Naitaon nai inn logon sey kuch wa'day kiyai thay. Woh pooray nahi huay tou yeh log Alaihda hona chahtai hain". I hope you found that instructive. After all you probably have never had much of a conversation with a Kashmiri who had something to do with cause of Independence from India? I have talked to several.

And how should Kashmir have supported Pakistan in a so-called bid for being free from India? Pakistan did not win this freedom through popular support; she won it through negotiation. None of the constituent elements of Pakistan, ironically, not the Punjab, not Sindh, not Baluchistan, emphatically not the NWFP political elements, were pro-Pakistan. It was the Muslims of the UP and Bombay who voted for the Muslim League. It was only after the Unionists in the Punjab realized that the British were intent on gifting the Punjab in partitioned form to the Muslim League to form Pakistan that they came across to support the League.

Wanderings of a misinformed mind. One word: 1946 elections (and referendum in erstwhile NWFP and Jirga in Balochistan for state of Qalat). I can guess there is something seriously wrong with how you gather facts. How can you make unfounded assertions above? Pakistan came into being by the power of vote preceded by a spirited campaign that ran for a decade or so. My grand father was a worker in Pakistan movement in Punjab. We made the political elements take notice and change course. We made history. Why would we allow you to twist it? Unbelievable.

Do get your facts straight.

Have you got your's straight? You are shooting opinions left and right and calling them facts.

Do look up the reference, and the consequent Resolutions of the UN. You seem to have not even an elementary idea of what happened.

The UN ruled that Pakistan would have to vacate its aggressions, and then the UN would hold a plebiscite. Indian troops were specifically allowed to stay on in Kashmir. Pakistan refused to meet these demands of the UN. That caused the matter to become a dispute. If Pakistan had obeyed the UN, there would have been no dispute today.

The Resolutions are on public record. The proceedings of the UN team are on public record. Is that a sufficient hint?

I do have some idea of the resolutions. Enough that any Indian who calls Kashmir a part of India can be pointed to these very resolutions and be reminded that Kashmir in fact is a disputed territory.

In case India is sincere, a plebiscite can be held as it is, under UN auspices. But for the last 60 years, there is no hint of sincere action from India to any resolution at all.

They were legally under the Maharaja of Kashmir. Again, look it up. Not under the influence. Under the state.

Pointless. Why would the British then build forts in Chitral if indeed Chitral was under Kashmir? What did the Raja of Kashmir do when a local civil war of sorts was going on in Swat? He had no influence there, legal or otherwise. Anyone can claim anything. These are your facts? Unbelievable.

I am NOT defending trolls, Indians or Pakistani. I am contesting your sweeping claim that all Pakistanis carry a halo around, and that all Indians have a set of horns and a tail. As for your association with this site, I am sure you have nothing to do with Indians or Pakistanis trolling here. What did I bring up that forms an association with you and trolls? Do elaborate, so that I can put whatever gives you that impression in better form.

As far as I am concerned, any Indian who claims that Kashmir is a part of India is trolling here. After all India and Pakistan have precious little to quarrel over except Kashmir which is a disputed territory.

My point was that I was, and am, a contributor, when you were a ghostly presence. Those who participate actively surely have more right to be heard than those who by accident of citizenship have a claim on being natives to this forum, without doing anything to justify their claim other than that ephemery.

It does matter. Just as absentee landlords have less claim to the land than the tiller of the soil.

Bhai, pls go on tilling the soil on this website. But do not claim that you have any special rights. Just look at the hour and a half you made me waste on a set of posts that precious few are going to read. I have a plot too and I intend to do my bit here. No special rights claimed or recognized, apart from the fact that this is Defence.pk...

 

[kurup]

Bogus, fabricated claims.

go tell yr stories to some one else u believe u people.

Losses were relatively heavy--on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan.

India held 710 mi²(1,840 km²) of Pakistani territory and Pakistan held 210 mi²(545 km²) of Indian territory.


Now go and cry us a river.

 

[Mav3rick]

I don't know what makes you contribute if you haven't ability to understand depth of matters. Go ahead with your illusions.

Says the man who cannot write 2 lines without jumping left right and centre and that too all out of context.

Mate, you are just grasping at straws now.. The FACT that NLI falls under military chain of command is not a feeling. Based on that FACT its your decorated general's opinion/feeling that Musharraf is simply lying to protect his a$$..

In either case, it was a unit under the military chain of command and not irregular mujahids/militia

Its a decorated General's opinion against the lie of a criminal and a murderer...

Musharraf wasn't just more decorated then this General, he was/is also senior both in rank and place. So there goes your arguments down the drain again. And until NLI was commissioned into regular army, they were non regulars regardless of which chain of command they followed.

 

[DV RULES]

Says the man who cannot write 2 lines without jumping left right and centre and that too all out of context.

Say the man who can't think in matters but slave of his own surface mind set, such are every where in our country so Pakistan went into this condition.

 

[karan.1970]

Musharraf wasn't just more decorated then this General, he was/is also senior both in rank and place. So there goes your arguments down the drain again.

The key word being "WAS". Today he is a declared criminal wanted in Pakistan on charges of murdering a private citizen and assassinating an ex Prime Minister of Pakistan.. You may chose to go up or down the drain with that.. That's totally up to you..

And until NLI was commissioned into regular army, they were non regulars regardless of which chain of command they followed.

Question.. Do you consider FC and Rangers as irregulars whose actions do not reflect the will of the Pakistani state?? You don't. NLI had the same status before it was commissioned in the PA.. As a matter of fact they were even then a step closer to PA since unlike rangers and FC, they fell in the chain of command of PA. Their relationship to the COAS was exactly same as that of a PA soldier..

 

[Mav3rick]

The key word being "WAS". Today he is a declared criminal wanted in Pakistan on charges of murdering a private citizen and assassinating an ex Prime Minister of Pakistan.. You may chose to go up or down the drain with that.. That's totally up to you..

He's an 'accused', he's not guilty until proven. Hope that's not too hard to understand, unless the drain that you are swimming in is so clogged with garbage that the stink is playing up in your mind.

Question.. Do you consider FC and Rangers as irregulars whose actions do not reflect the will of the Pakistani state?? You don't. NLI had the same status before it was commissioned in the PA.. As a matter of fact they were even then a step closer to PA since unlike rangers and FC, they fell in the chain of command of PA. Their relationship to the COAS was exactly same as that of a PA soldier..

A step closer than the Rangers or not, they were not regulars and that is the end of argument. It matters not what I think.

Say the man who can't think in matters but slave of his own surface mind set, such are every where in our country so Pakistan went into this condition.

Nonsense, again. What else is to be expected from you.

 

[karan.1970]

He's an 'accused', he's not guilty until proven.

He is actually no longer just an accused. He has already been declared a fugitive for resisting arrest and not surrendering after the warrant was issued in his name.

Hope that's not too hard to understand, unless the drain that you are swimming in is so clogged with garbage that the stink is playing up in your mind.

Ah! incompetence peeking thru again...

A step closer than the Rangers or not, they were not regulars and that is the end of argument.

They are as regular as rangers are.. If not more.. And THAT is the end of argument

It matters not what I think.

Finally something what we agree on

 

[Umair Nawaz]

Losses were relatively heavy--on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan.

India held 710 mi²(1,840 km²) of Pakistani territory and Pakistan held 210 mi²(545 km²) of Indian territory.


Now go and cry us a river.

Bogus claims we dont believe in yr figures.

the loss was a loot less on Pak side as we were just defending not attacking.

And if u believe everything was so hunky dory then why didnt u continued the fighting??
what stopped u??
the reality is not that what u claim. Yr armed forces had actually depleted its resources, their poor fighting skills were exposed.

and let me ask u another Question....Why is that yr country is still not holding those Pakistan's Occupied land n why both the countries were forced to go back to the pre feb 26, 1965 position??

refer to post#317 for more info.

and dont be blind in yr patriotism.

 

[kurup]

Bogus claims we dont believe in yr figures.

These are all neutral assesments not our figures.

Neutral assessments

There have been several neutral assessments of the losses incurred by both India and Pakistan during the war. Most of these assessments agree that India had the upper hand over Pakistan when ceasefire was declared. Some of the neutral assessments are mentioned below —

According to the Library of Congress Country Studies conducted by the Federal Research Division of the United States –

The war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavy—on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government.

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. The article further elaborates,

Severely mauled by the larger Indian armed forces, Pakistan could continue the fight only by teaming up with Red China and turning its back on the U.N.

Devin T. Hagerty wrote in his book "South Asia in world politics" –

The invading Indian forces outfought their Pakistani counterparts and halted their attack on the outskirts of Lahore, Pakistan's second-largest city. By the time United Nations intervened on September 22, Pakistan had suffered a clear defeat.

In his book "National identity and geopolitical visions",Gertjan Dijkink writes –

The superior Indian forces, however, won a decisive victory and the army could have even marched on into Pakistani territory had external pressure not forced both combatants to cease their war efforts.

An excerpt from Stanley Wolpert's India, summarizing the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965,

In three weeks the second Indo-Pak War ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on U.S. ammunition and replacements for both armies forced cessation of conflict before either side won a clear victory. India, however, was in a position to inflict grave damage to, if not capture, Pakistan's capital of the Punjab when the cease-fire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to Ayub's chagrin.

In his book titled The greater game: India's race with destiny and China, David Van Praagh wrote –

India won the war. It gained 1,840 km2 (710 sq mi) of Pakistani territory: 640 km2 (250 sq mi) in Azad Kashmir, Pakistan's portion of the state; 460 km2 (180 sq mi) of the Sailkot sector; 380 km2 (150 sq mi) far to the south of Sindh; and most critical, 360 km2 (140 sq mi) on the Lahore front. Pakistan took 540 km2 (210 sq mi) of Indian territory: 490 km2 (190 sq mi) in the Chhamb sector and 50 km2 (19 sq mi) around Khem Karan.

Dennis Kux's "India and the United States estranged democracies" also provides a summary of the war,

Although both sides lost heavily in men and material, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the better of the war. New Delhi achieved its basic goal of thwarting Pakistan's attempt to seize Kashmir by force. Pakistan gained nothing from a conflict which it had instigated.

BBC reported that the war served game changer in Pakistani politics,

The defeat in the 1965 war led to the army's invincibility being challenged by an increasingly vocal opposition. This became a surge after his protege, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, deserted him and established the Pakistan People's Party.

"A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947" by Robert Johnson mentions –

India's strategic aims were modest – it aimed to deny Pakistani Army victory, although it ended up in possession of 720 square miles (1,900 km2) of Pakistani territory for the loss of just 220 square miles (570 km2) of its own.

An excerpt from William M. Carpenter and David G. Wiencek's "Asian security handbook: terrorism and the new security environment" –

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.

English historian John Keay's "India: A History" provides a summary of the 1965 war –

The 1965 Indo-Pak war lasted barely a month. Pakistan made gains in the Rajasthan desert but its main push against India's Jammu-Srinagar road link was repulsed and Indian tanks advanced to within a sight of Lahore. Both sides claimed victory but India had most to celebrate.

Uk Heo and Shale Asher Horowitz write in their book "Conflict in Asia: Korea, China-Taiwan, and India-Pakistan" –

Again India appeared, logistically at least, to be in a superior position but neither side was able to mobilize enough strength to gain a decisive victory.

the loss was a loot less on Pak side as we were just defending not attacking.

You were defending .....

The war began following Pakistan's Operation Gibraltar, which was designed to infiltrate forces into Jammu and Kashmir to precipitate an insurgency against rule by India
On August 5, 1965 between 26,000 and 33,000 Pakistani soldiers crossed the Line of Control dressed as Kashmiri locals headed for various areas within Kashmir. Indian forces, tipped off by the local populace, crossed the cease fire line on August 15

And if u believe everything was so hunky dory then why didnt u continued the fighting??
what stopped u??
the reality is not that what u claim. Yr armed forces had actually depleted its resources, their poor fighting skills were exposed.

and let me ask u another Question....Why is that yr country is still not holding those Pakistan's Occupied land n why both the countries were forced to go back to the pre feb 26, 1965 position??

But all the neutral assessments states your martially superior military were beaten up badly by Indians.

And you talk about blind by patriotism...........

refer to post#317 for more info.

and dont be blind in yr patriotism.

 

[Mav3rick]

He is actually no longer just an accused. He has already been declared a fugitive for resisting arrest and not surrendering after the warrant was issued in his name.

A fugitive does not mean he is declared a criminal in the crime he is accused. Why argue just to argue dude? NS was convicted, he is a convicted felon but what happened to him huh??

Ah! incompetence peeking thru again...

So said the undisputed lead of the incompetent!

They are as regular as rangers are.. If not more.. And THAT is the end of argument

They are today, they were not in 1999!! That's the end of argument!!

Finally something what we agree on

And thank God for that!!

These are all neutral assesments not our figures.

Neutral assessments

There have been several neutral assessments of the losses incurred by both India and Pakistan during the war. Most of these assessments agree that India had the upper hand over Pakistan when ceasefire was declared. Some of the neutral assessments are mentioned below —

According to the Library of Congress Country Studies conducted by the Federal Research Division of the United States –

The war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavy—on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government.

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. The article further elaborates,

Severely mauled by the larger Indian armed forces, Pakistan could continue the fight only by teaming up with Red China and turning its back on the U.N.

Devin T. Hagerty wrote in his book "South Asia in world politics" –

The invading Indian forces outfought their Pakistani counterparts and halted their attack on the outskirts of Lahore, Pakistan's second-largest city. By the time United Nations intervened on September 22, Pakistan had suffered a clear defeat.

In his book "National identity and geopolitical visions",Gertjan Dijkink writes –

The superior Indian forces, however, won a decisive victory and the army could have even marched on into Pakistani territory had external pressure not forced both combatants to cease their war efforts.

An excerpt from Stanley Wolpert's India, summarizing the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965,

In three weeks the second Indo-Pak War ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on U.S. ammunition and replacements for both armies forced cessation of conflict before either side won a clear victory. India, however, was in a position to inflict grave damage to, if not capture, Pakistan's capital of the Punjab when the cease-fire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to Ayub's chagrin.

In his book titled The greater game: India's race with destiny and China, David Van Praagh wrote –

India won the war. It gained 1,840 km2 (710 sq mi) of Pakistani territory: 640 km2 (250 sq mi) in Azad Kashmir, Pakistan's portion of the state; 460 km2 (180 sq mi) of the Sailkot sector; 380 km2 (150 sq mi) far to the south of Sindh; and most critical, 360 km2 (140 sq mi) on the Lahore front. Pakistan took 540 km2 (210 sq mi) of Indian territory: 490 km2 (190 sq mi) in the Chhamb sector and 50 km2 (19 sq mi) around Khem Karan.

Dennis Kux's "India and the United States estranged democracies" also provides a summary of the war,

Although both sides lost heavily in men and material, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the better of the war. New Delhi achieved its basic goal of thwarting Pakistan's attempt to seize Kashmir by force. Pakistan gained nothing from a conflict which it had instigated.

BBC reported that the war served game changer in Pakistani politics,

The defeat in the 1965 war led to the army's invincibility being challenged by an increasingly vocal opposition. This became a surge after his protege, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, deserted him and established the Pakistan People's Party.

"A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947" by Robert Johnson mentions –

India's strategic aims were modest – it aimed to deny Pakistani Army victory, although it ended up in possession of 720 square miles (1,900 km2) of Pakistani territory for the loss of just 220 square miles (570 km2) of its own.

An excerpt from William M. Carpenter and David G. Wiencek's "Asian security handbook: terrorism and the new security environment" –

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.

English historian John Keay's "India: A History" provides a summary of the 1965 war –

The 1965 Indo-Pak war lasted barely a month. Pakistan made gains in the Rajasthan desert but its main push against India's Jammu-Srinagar road link was repulsed and Indian tanks advanced to within a sight of Lahore. Both sides claimed victory but India had most to celebrate.

Uk Heo and Shale Asher Horowitz write in their book "Conflict in Asia: Korea, China-Taiwan, and India-Pakistan" –

Again India appeared, logistically at least, to be in a superior position but neither side was able to mobilize enough strength to gain a decisive victory.




You were defending .....

The war began following Pakistan's Operation Gibraltar, which was designed to infiltrate forces into Jammu and Kashmir to precipitate an insurgency against rule by India
On August 5, 1965 between 26,000 and 33,000 Pakistani soldiers crossed the Line of Control dressed as Kashmiri locals headed for various areas within Kashmir. Indian forces, tipped off by the local populace, crossed the cease fire line on August 15



But all the neutral assessments states your martially superior military were beaten up badly by Indians.

And you talk about blind by patriotism...........

As I have said many times before, how can we have 'Neutral Assessment' when India refused neutral arbitration upon Pakistan's offer. The decline of the fair offer by India and the offer itself on Pakistan's part is an undeniable fact that Pakistan was in a much better position then India was.......besides, India had exhausted more then 80% of her ammunition and was in no condition to continue the war!

 

[karan.1970]

A fugitive does not mean he is declared a criminal in the crime he is accused. Why argue just to argue dude? NS was convicted, he is a convicted felon but what happened to him huh??

A fugitive (or as you say in hindi Bhagoda) is someone who is resisting arrest by running away and hiding.. In Law, running away is as good as an implicit admission on guilt. NS, like Zardari and Gilani, got convicted and served their time. At least they paid their due to the legal system. Musharraf on the other hand does not even have the morals to do that even.. Hence his word has very little meaning to anyone except his fanboys..

So said the undisputed lead of the incompetent!

Personal attacks are the last resort of the incompetent..

They are today, they were not in 1999!! That's the end of argument!!

Even in 1999 they were in the Army's chain of command.. And they were never called Mujahids or freedom fighters as claimed by the Criminal and liar called Mussharraf.. and THAT is end of the argument..

And thank God for that!!

As I have said many times before, how can we have 'Neutral Assessment' when India refused neutral arbitration upon Pakistan's offer. The decline of the fair offer by India and the offer itself on Pakistan's part is an undeniable fact that Pakistan was in a much better position then India was.......besides, India had exhausted more then 80% of her ammunition and was in no condition to continue the war!

Did Musharraf tell you that ??

 

[INDIC]

As I have said many times before, how can we have 'Neutral Assessment' when India refused neutral arbitration upon Pakistan's offer. The decline of the fair offer by India and the offer itself on Pakistan's part is an undeniable fact that Pakistan was in a much better position then India was.......besides, India had exhausted more then 80% of her ammunition and was in no condition to continue the war!

It was Pakistan who exhausted 80% of her ammunition. India attacked Lahore to weaken Pakistan troops in Kashmir, we had no greed of Pakistani land.

 

[kurup]

As I have said many times before, how can we have 'Neutral Assessment' when India refused neutral arbitration upon Pakistan's offer. The decline of the fair offer by India and the offer itself on Pakistan's part is an undeniable fact that Pakistan was in a much better position then India was.......besides, India had exhausted more then 80% of her ammunition and was in no condition to continue the war!

One has to wonder why majority if not all of these neutral observers reported that India had a clear advantage over pakistan in 65 even after India refusing neutral arbitration ......Answer isWestern conspiracy against pakistan even in the 60s ...poor pakistan as usual.

 

[Mav3rick]

A fugitive (or as you say in hindi Bhagoda) is someone who is resisting arrest by running away and hiding.. In Law, running away is as good as an implicit admission on guilt. NS, like Zardari and Gilani, got convicted and served their time. At least they paid their due to the legal system. Musharraf on the other hand does not even have the morals to do that even.. Hence his word has very little meaning to anyone except his fanboys..

Heroes often have to retreat to safer sanctuaries specially when they know that law to be in the hands of unjust. Nothing surprising there. Zardari was never convicted although he spent 8 years in political confinement (hardly any jail time), Gilani was the scapegoat of PPP Government and he will be the sacrifice that will be reignited during elections along with BB & Bhutto etc., NS never served any real time as he was granted asylum under express conditions by Saudi Arabia and the US.

And why would you consider a Musharraf supporter to be a fanboy? Musharraf's tenure saw progress in Pakistan that can only be rivaled by the tenure of Ayub Khan. No politician has even dreamt of coming close. And this is the saddest thing about Pakistan, citizens are forced to pray for Military takeovers after disastrous democracy periods.

Personal attacks are the last resort of the incompetent..

How convenient of you to forget who started it.

Even in 1999 they were in the Army's chain of command.. And they were never called Mujahids or freedom fighters as claimed by the Criminal and liar called Mussharraf.. and THAT is end of the argument..

Kargil was not only fought by NLI Non-Regulars but also Mujahideen so the argument was never a lie, it was merely strategic truth (half truth if you must).

Did Musharraf tell you that ??

About India rejecting neutral arbitration? That's common knowledge, available all over the internet.

It was Pakistan who exhausted 80% of her ammunition. India attacked Lahore to weaken Pakistan troops in Kashmir, we had no greed of Pakistani land.

Your Army Chief begs to differ, it was his assessment, not mine. Next part of your post is correct but Indian advance was not only blunted before Lahore, it was repelled back across the border!

One has to wonder why majority if not all of these neutral observers reported that India had a clear advantage over pakistan in 65 even after India refusing neutral arbitration ......Answer isWestern conspiracy against pakistan even in the 60s ...poor pakistan as usual.

Not really, it is because the propaganda machine in India is far more active and effective then Pakistan. Even more importantly, the civilian and military leadership of India has always stood together both during and after the war, there has hardly ever been any criticism despite even the '62 loss. In Pakistan the civilian government is always looking for a chance to discredit the military leadership and vice versa. Unfortunately for Pakistan, we lost the real civilian leadership too early and have never been able to recover.

 

[karan.1970]

Heroes often have to retreat to safer sanctuaries specially when they know that law to be in the hands of unjust. Nothing surprising there. Zardari was never convicted although he spent 8 years in political confinement (hardly any jail time), Gilani was the scapegoat of PPP Government and he will be the sacrifice that will be reignited during elections along with BB & Bhutto etc., NS never served any real time as he was granted asylum under express conditions by Saudi Arabia and the US.

Kind of funny that since 2000 all leaders of Pakistan, in one way or the other have been declared criminals/alleged criminals/fugitives by Pakistani courts

And retreat into safer sanctuaries is simply a lame cop out by Musharraf.. Not worthy of discussion really...

And why would you consider a Musharraf supporter to be a fanboy?

That's what a fan is.. a passionate supporter..

Musharraf's tenure saw progress in Pakistan that can only be rivaled by the tenure of Ayub Khan. No politician has even dreamt of coming close. And this is the saddest thing about Pakistan, citizens are forced to pray for Military takeovers after disastrous democracy periods.

Wasnt there a talk of how the numbers from Musharraf's time were overstated and since it was dictatorship, no one could question the same.. And remember that it was this very public who ousted Musharraf.. Not someone from out side..

How convenient of you to forget who started it.

Not at all.. You did..

Kargil was not only fought by NLI Non-Regulars but also Mujahideen so the argument was never a lie, it was merely strategic truth (half truth if you must).

Musharraf claimed that there were no Pakistani regulars and they got involved only after IAF started their sorties.. That was a shameface lie.. Now I could go with your argument of confidentiality while the skirmishes were going on, but he has maintained that till now.. That's what makes him a shame faced liar..