The Story of Indian Army's "Cowardice and Panic" in 1965 By R.D. Pradhan

[GreenApple]

yeah that is what u do the role of india in mukhti bani and making of bangladesh is not "dhaka chupa".attacking from back is rule of cowards not brave people

..ok tell ur 'brave' GHQ to attack kashmir...and not hide under pajamas of hafiz saeed..

 

[Not So Good]

My memory serve right then, this is his third or fourth post (blog) by OP on same paragraph of R D Pradhan.

Is not there are rules here that prevent links from another blogs,
But I think amusing guy is Jobless jack
Anyway

 

[SP!TF!R3]

yeah that is what u do the role of india in mukhti bani and making of bangladesh is not "dhaka chupa".attacking from back is rule of cowards not brave people

If I remember correctly,India played the same game in 1971 which Pakistan played in 1965..

Remember Operation Gibraltar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ???

Its not our fault that "Gibraltar Force" got doomed..

 

[Umair Nawaz]

Friend, India did not win the war, there is no doubt about it, but Pakistan surely lost it. If you fail to achieve your political objectives, then any war is just a slugfest for the initiator. And if the defender is successful in thwarting the efforts of the initiator, then the objectives of the defender are achieved. So if you want to get into the nuances of who won and who lost, purely speaking from objective POV, you lost we won (by denying you your objectives). But in reality, man up and accept that while India did not win, you surely lost it for yourself.

Surely we been always weak on the political front with india because of our lack of experience. But militarily, we have been far far superior legacy of our Legendary empires in south asia as well as the experience we have since our independence from u. Also the fact that these are the forces of Pakistan raised by newly victorious forces of British was focus on warrior instincts, fighting spirit, professionalism and training. Our goals were straight forward ie to defend our country against foreign aggression And in Tashkent treaty had shown who was actually able to accomplish its objectives We were even able to get those lands which were under yr occupation during war. Yes we had to give in return those lands as well which we gained but OBJECTIVE was achieved, since basically we had exchanged the occupied lands. Resulting in no territorial loss. After the Tashkent treaty even yr Leader Lal Bahadur Shastri got a heart attack when he saw what was decided on the treaty, resulting in total victory for Pakistan as far as results and accomplishing of Objectives are concern.

That was our main objective. And we accomplished it accurately.

 

[kakashi]

yeah that is what u do the role of india in mukhti bani and making of bangladesh is not "dhaka chupa".attacking from back is rule of cowards not brave people

Attacking from back is what your wannabe arabs are famous for. not us... back in 1970 and 71 Indira gandhi toured entire world exposed the genocide you are committing on bd people and then royally attacked and split your country in to two.. that is class. now compare this to the coward act of your ex president musharaff who attacks india and occupies kargil hieghts while we leave them and couldn't secure them when we attack you back..

 

[RiazHaq]

Congress Leader Capt Amarinder Singh: "#India almost lost #Amritsar in 1965 war" Amarinder: India almost lost Amritsar in ’65 war | The Indian Express via @sharethis

Fifty years after the 1965 Indo-Pak war, deputy leader of Congress in the Lok Sabha, Captain Amarinder Singh, has shed new light on an order allegedly given by the then Army Chief to withdraw Indian Army troops in Punjab, which could have led to the surrender of Amritsar.
Speaking to The Indian Express, Amarinder revealed he is writing a book on the 1965 war to mark its 50th anniversary. The book will trace battles fought in various theatres during the war, and give detailed information about several contentious issues.
One of these is an order allegedly given by then Chief of Army Staff Gen J N Chaudhari to the then General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of Western Command, Lt Gen Harbaksh Singh, to withdraw Indian troops in Punjab. The order, had it been carried out, would have meant the surrender of Amritsar to the Pakistan Army, besides causing panic among Indian troops.
In September 1965, the Pakistan Army surprised Indian defenders in the Khemkaran Sector in Punjab when their armoured division made a dash towards the town of Khemkaran and captured it. The Indian Army had to pull back towards the village of Asal Uttar to consolidate their defence. The Pakistani division was believed to be in a three-pronged attack in which one column was heading towards south of Amritsar, one towards the town of Jandiala and another towards Beas. After the initial surprise, the Indian Army reinforced its presence in the area and the Pakistani advance was defeated in the Battle of Asal Uttar. The village is now known as the graveyard of Patton tanks.
Amarinder, who was the aide-de-camp of the GOC-in-C during the war, said he was a witness to the fact that Lt Gen Harbaksh received a call from Gen Chaudhuri late at night while the Pakistani armoured offensive in Khemkaran was under way. Gen Chaudhuri wanted the Indian troops to withdraw to river Beas, which would serve as a natural barrier to stop the advance of Pakistan’s armoured division.
“We had returned from Khemkaran very late and the general had gone to sleep when I received the call from the chief and put it through to the army commander. The general was heard telling the chief that he would not carry out those orders, and if he wanted this to be done, he should put it down in writing,” said Amarinder.
According to the former Punjab CM, the army chief went to Ambala the next day and met the GOC-in-C but did not mention his order of the previous night, because by then the battle in Asal Uttar had stabilised and the situation was under control.
“Had it been anyone other than Lt Gen Harbaksh, he would not have been able to resist the orders of the army chief. And had those orders been carried out, we would have had to surrender Amritsar, and the road from Beas onwards to Delhi would have been open because there would have been general panic. It would have been a repeat of 1962,” said Amarinder.
The book, expected to be out later this year, and will also include details about why several brigade and battalion commanders were removed from command during the war. Having witnessed the war from the vantage point of an army commander’s staff, Amarinder will be using the information to give a clearer version of what happened in those fateful days of September 1965

 

[Hellfire]

Surely we been always weak on the political front with india because of our lack of experience. But militarily, we have been far far superior legacy of our Legendary empires in south asia as well as the experience we have since our independence from u.

You are veering off into a territory where things may get ugly so I suggest you stick to facts. At best the legacy of your "Legendary Empires" can be severely dented on your claim to be a direct inheritor of the original invaders who at times were mere brigands in modern sense, or raise serious questions of your legitimacy and your origin itself. Having said that, what really is the point is that in so far your last line of gaining independence from us, you decide whether you had your legendary empires or you were enslaved. As far as I can make out, you yourself are living in an utopia which is uncannily similar to Nehru's and that should seriously lead into further mess for you. Anyways, your wish if you really don't want to be taken seriously.

Also the fact that these are the forces of Pakistan raised by newly victorious forces of British was focus on warrior instincts, fighting spirit, professionalism and training. Our goals were straight forward ie to defend our country against foreign aggression And in Tashkent treaty had shown who was actually able to accomplish its objectives We were even able to get those lands which were under yr occupation during war. Yes we had to give in return those lands as well which we gained but OBJECTIVE was achieved, since basically we had exchanged the occupied lands. Resulting in no territorial loss. After the Tashkent treaty even yr Leader Lal Bahadur Shastri got a heart attack when he saw what was decided on the treaty, resulting in total victory for Pakistan as far as results and accomplishing of Objectives are concern.

That was our main objective. And we accomplished it accurately.

PM got a heart attack after signing a document which he read after he signed it? Sorry mate for my earlier comments. I now know how seriously are you to be taken.

You initiated Op Gibraltar and yet we are the aggressors lol!!!!

yeah that is what u do the role of india in mukhti bani and making of bangladesh is not "dhaka chupa".attacking from back is rule of cowards not brave people

Like your bravery in Kasmir darling?

@RiazHaq Thanks mate! Exactly my point. We almost lost the war (so effectively we have not won it) but you were better, you actually failed to achieve your target and lost a war (politically by failure to meet your objectives) when you could have won.

 

[Mustang06]

But militarily, we have been far far superior legacy of our Legendary empires in south asia

 

[xyxmt]

As the talks have not taken place, in the coming days it will be clear as to who is a coward or not on the boarder. BTW I know about one RD Burman, never heard of a RD Pradhan!!

you just wasted ink here, no one is expecting this story to sit well with Indians.

 

[ebony&ivory]

LOL at India. They lost every single war since independence. Even before they lost every single war to Central Asian invaders and later the British over 1000 years.

 

[punit]

LOL at India. They lost every single war since independence. Even before they lost every single war to Central Asian invaders and later the British over 1000 years.

lool! Nanking is only 60 year old !

 

[I M Sikander]

..ok tell ur 'brave' GHQ to attack kashmir...and not hide under pajamas of hafiz saeed..

We already took back a size kashmir portion known as azad Kashmir and gilgit baltistan from india.
No you show some guts.

 

[Nishachar]

We already took back a size kashmir portion known as azad Kashmir and gilgit baltistan from india.

No , you didn't . it's us who took Kashmir , Jammu and ladakh from you

 

[RiazHaq]

Indian journalist Shivam Vij on 1965 War: "India's own official history of the war, published only two years ago, is scathing in its review of how poorly the Indian army and air force performed. The Indian armed forces are now rewriting the history to show that it was a clear victory....On the outskirts of Srinagar, to make sure that no Pakistani fighters were hiding in an area, an entire colony was set on fire by Indian forces. I have been to that place, and people remember that even today, blaming India for being insensitive. The war showed it was not going to be easy for Pakistan to liberate Kashmir militarily, and though the Kashmiris didn't rise up with the Pakistani fighters, it exacerbated a conflict between India's security forces and the locals in Kashmir."

Why neither India nor Pakistan won the 1965 war | World | DW.COM | 27.08.2015

 

[RiazHaq]

Why #India can’t defeat #Pakistan or #China in a war? http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatime...india-cant-defeat-pakistan-or-china-in-a-war/ … via @TOIOpinion

To provoke a somnolent establishment into action, your message has to be blunt. There cannot be a more blunt warning to India’s political leadership and defence establishment than what Pravin Sawhney and Ghazala Wahab have delivered in their admirable and unsparing book Dragon On Our Doorstep: Managing China Through Military Power (Published by Aleph, Pages 458, Price Rs 799). Let alone China, India cannot even win a war against Pakistan. Yes, you read that right.

------


Dragon On Our Doorstep could be a little misleading title since the authors are not only discussing the China threat but India’s defence strategy. In full play is Pakistan, Kashmir and the red menace, the greatest threat India is facing, as former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh put it. Sawhney and Wahab say that in terms of threat, Pakistan is China and China is Pakistan, pointing out especially the ‘inter-operability’ that both military forces have achieved.
So despite the strongman Narendra Modi at the helm, why can’t India defeat Pakistan in a war? Sawhney and Wahab make a critical distinction to win their argument. Pakistan has built military power, India a military force. And they explain: “Military force involves the mere collection of war-withal, that is, building up of troops and war-waging material; military power is about optimal utilization of military force. It entails an understanding of the adversaries and the quantum of threat from each, the nature of warfare, domains of war, how it would be fought, and structural military reforms at various levels to meet these challenges.”


-------

What else makes Indian defence forces vulnerable? Since the defence forces are outside the government, they have little interaction with the political leadership in peacetime and little say in the acquisition of conventional weapons. The defence services have little knowledge and understanding of their own nuclear weapons and Pakistan’s nuclear redlines. As India does not have an efficient indigenous defence industry, war supplies are not assured. All these, for an average reader, sound pretty scary.

---------
The authors also examine India’s foreign policy in relation to China and Pakistan and criticise Modi for his failure in not rising as a statesman prime minister to transform India into a leading power. Modi’s foreign policy, the authors say, is more optics than substance.
They say that ‘Act East, Think West’ policy is hampered by the perennial failures in strategic thinking and a lack of appreciation for military power. They pick on India’s foreign aid policy and say that if our neighbours are neither deferential nor deterrent there is something amiss. Sawhaney and Wahab argue that aid is seldom given to fulfill the needs of the recipient. It is given to meet the requirements- strategic in the case of nations- of the giver. And if the requirements are not met, you increase the aid or diversify it. They also say that India is the only country in the world where foreign policy with nations having disputed borders- China and Pakistan- is made with regard to military advice. All these criticisms should rile the defence establishment and the bureaucrats who have straitjacketed India’s foreign policy.