Views of Pakistanis regarding 1965 war

[53fd]

The same argument can be given by India when Pakistan cries about Siachen. That its on the LoC and hence not war.

So the concluding remarks of this thread -

• Pakistan initiated the hostilities in '65 with the aim of liberating Kashmir from Indian rule and failed.
• The war ended in a stalemate with India enjoying a definite upper hand.

The thread can be closed !

How did India enjoy the upper hand? The hostile territories gained by both countries were returned, just like Pakistan returned the territory it gained in Indian held Kashmir in 1999, so yes, it was a stalemate. However, in terms of the troop size/troop loss ratio, as well as the aerial battle, Pakistan did much better than India.

---------- Post added at 12:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:44 PM ----------

LOC demarcates possession. There are UN observers on LOC. Crossing it with armed personnel is WAR. By your logic no war took place in Kargil, although your army did try that chickenish logic first, getting only laughter from world over in return. Stop making arguments for the sake of making arguments.

Np, the LOC is not an international border, & Kashmir isn't Indian territory, it is disputed territory as per UN resolutions.

 

[Bhairava]

How did India enjoy the upper hand? The hostile territories gained by both countries were returned, just like Pakistan returned the territory it gained in Indian held Kashmir in 1999, so yes, it was a stalemate. However, in terms of the troop size/troop loss ratio, as well as the aerial battle, Pakistan did much better than India.

Good that you agreed that it was a stalemate and not a Pakistan victory as previously claimed.

Second, why India enjoyed upper hand was that on cessation of hostilities,the Indian objective of denying Pakistani objective was achieved, while Pakistani objective of liberating Kashmir was not.

Also another reason why India held the upper hand was , India held much more Pakistani land than vice versa and those lands were in the strategic areas of Punjab and Kashmir, not some uninhabited marshlands in Katchh.

Thread closed !

 

[notsuperstitious]

Np, the LOC is not an international border, & Kashmir isn't Indian territory, it is disputed territory as per UN resolutions.

And that is not at all relevant to who started the war. Pakistani army attacked land held (as per same UN resolutions you mention like a parrot) by India, hence starting the war. As I said, don't make arguments for the sake of it, you have not a leg to stand on.

Pakistan failed in its war objectives and India succeeded. That tells us who won, thank you and bye.

 

[Bang Galore]

Np, the LOC is not an international border, & Kashmir isn't Indian territory, it is disputed territory as per UN resolutions.

LoC is a treaty, why do your guys demarcate it otherwise. Just because a border is disputed does not mean you can violate it. Sir Creek is disputed, does it mean we have the right to walk into the Pakistani side anytime? Clutching at straws is what your argument is all about.

 

[nemesis102]

The same argument can be given by India when Pakistan cries about Siachen. That its on the LoC and hence not war.

So the concluding remarks of this thread -

• Pakistan initiated the hostilities in '65 with the aim of liberating Kashmir from Indian rule and failed.
• The war ended in a stalemate with India enjoying a definite upper hand.

The thread can be closed !

Sorryy.. It should be in a different way..
[*] Pakistan initiated the hostilities in '65 with the aim of liberating Kashmir from Indian rule and ended up defending lahore
[*] Pakistan took it as a victory because they ended up defending lahore...

 

[Cool_Soldier]

No one can claim for victory.Both side had heavy casualities and destruction.But this is fact that Indian had four times huge force as compared t Pakistan.S by comparing size, we can say that a small size army very well perfrmed to push back a bigger size force and destruction was nearly equal.

 

[toxic_pus]

Np, the LOC is not an international border, & Kashmir isn't Indian territory, it is disputed territory as per UN resolutions.

Your desperation has now reached epic heights.

The UN resolutions, that you swear by, also ask for cease-fire along the LoC (CFL then). Pakistan accepted that cease-fire agreement, making it obligatory for Pakistan to 'refrain from taking any measures that might augment the military potential of the forces under their control in the State of Jammu and Kashmir' [Part 1(B); UNCIP/SC resolution, 13th Aug, 1948]. Hence the implication that LoC is 'not an international border' and therefore violable, is unadulterated tripe.

Whether or not, Kashmir is Indian territory [incidentally the very same UN resolution requires Pakistan to vacate completely, not India] Pakistan broke an international agreement in 1965, giving India every right to respond in any manner it thought appropriate.

 

[SQ8]

The 65 war was a dictator's attempt at Hara Kiri for Pakistan.
It was a foolish endeavor that cost the lives of many a lion for the appeasement of a few lambs.
The war was a demonstration of the valor of many warriors, in the air, on the ground and at sea.
The war was proof of a dictators idiocy and lust for power.

The war was fought under false pretenses and badly managed, where Pakistan started out as the predator but quickly ended up as the prey.

The war was a morale victory for the people of Pakistan, but a Moral defeat for its leadership.

---------- Post added at 02:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:58 AM ----------

If people cannot stick to the crux of the topic, then this thread needs to be closed.

 

[A1Kaid]

Wall street Journal.



Opinion: South Asia's Looming Arms Race - WSJ.com

That's an opinion piece written in the WSJ, not an actual factual source/report from the WSJ.

 

[mayankmatador]

I guess you liked it when we ruled over you guys for 700 years, converted your people, & managed to split 1/4th of the Indian subcontinent in 1947.

haha bilal in one of the thread u wrote u r related to bihar..
so bro they converted ur ancestors,not ours....
and please stay on topic

 

[mayankmatador]

No one can claim for victory.Both side had heavy casualities and destruction.But this is fact that Indian had four times huge force as compared t Pakistan.S by comparing size, we can say that a small size army very well perfrmed to push back a bigger size force and destruction was nearly equal.

There was East pakistan,West pakistan,Hostile China, internal conflicts.Just a war had ended of 1962. Pakistan had superior technology of western nations.

Pakistan strategically had upper hand.but then too see the debacle.

 

[Rusty]

I don't see why we're even discussing this. Who won or who lost is immaterial now. Here are a few practical ideas for my pakistani friends (and indians too) to consider.

1.In the modern world borders matter little, if Pakistanis really want kashmiris to be happy they shouldn't be bothered what country owns that land. They should instead want kashmiris to enjoy a better life, whether with India, Pakistan, China or on their own. Granted there are human rights problems in IoK but they are simply because the Army does not know whom to suspect and thus many innocents do get killed.If Pakistan stops promising liberation to them, they'd get back to work and livelihood and prosper in the booming Indian economic landscape.

2.Kashmir is an emotional issue for Pakistanis simply because they associate religion with it. The logic - Pakistan is a Muslim state-->Most Kashmiris are Muslims--->Therefore Kashmir should belong to Pakistan -This logic simply does not apply because India is a secular country. Although there have been tensions between Hindus and Muslims, they are nowhere near the scale which the creators of Pakistan had predicted. So why can't Kashmiris stay in India.

3.Past issues like UN resolutions are old nonsense that all parties should stop harping on if they want peace. For every argument that the Pakistani side has about resolutions and stuff, Indian side has a counter-argument. As far as reality and practicality is concerned these old resolutions and treaties hold little relevance now.

4.The only viable option is 'to maintain status quo and turn the LoC into international border'. Indians are much more willing to accept this than the Pakistanis i have met. And this may I add, is not because India holds more kashmiri territory than pakistan - Indians are in general willing to pay such costs for peace, for example India does not press the issue of territory with China after they annexed some of it from India. India is happy, India is growing, prosperity is increasing even if slowly and Indians are satisfied.

5.Unless Pakistan and its citizens detach two things - Emotion and Religion from the Kashmir issue and insist on taking Kashmir by force or forcing a plebiscite or fostering an insurgency, No solution is possible. Simply because Pakistan will keep showing Kashmiri muslims hope that there will be 'liberation' or 'plebiscite' one day, and they will never feel like Indians. If they do not feel like Indians, some of them will support the insurgency. If they support the insurgency, the Indians will not feel sympathetic towards their human rights issues. Till Indians do not feel sympathetic towards kashmiri human rights, The Army will feel guarded towards kashmiris and maintain mistrust. Till this mistrust exists, there will be human rights issues.

6.You see tagging an emotion to a peice of land on the basis of religion is to no one's advantage. Neither the Kashmiris (whom pakistan claims to be acting in interest of), Nor Indians, Nor Indian army, Nor Indians gain anything from it. No child is born with a religion, his parents give him one. Many people forget this when they discuss Kashmir.


Goodbye, this will be my last post here. It is not about the 65 war, or the 71 or the 47 war either. It has always been about religion, emotion, impracticality, and stupidity.

seriously, you need to stop copy pasting the same thing in every post.

 

[DADU]

shastri died of a heart attack in tashkent...lol

He may have died of a heart attack, but the real heart attack was left for pak.

Lal Bahadur Shastri was an intelligent Indian p-m . if he wasn’t pm in 65 situation could have been very different, for paks advantages.

The generals and criminals at the time betrayed Pakistani people, they betrayed the Kashmiri cause.

“If you’re Gonna start something then make sure you finish it.”

Love live the bravem soldiers from all sides# in the war.

Anyhow the figures of causalities are grossly exaggerated especially on Indian side.

Pak learnt to defend it self in Sep 65 but the hole was left out showing its weakness (east p)

Peace

 

[Varunastra]

^ All you indians are in such denial that you crossed international borders and invaded Lahore, Pakistan. We kicked you out, kept your soldiers as war prisoners and kept your tanks.

Pakistan was the ultimate winner because the aggressor 8 times our size couldn't achieve its objective of capturing our territory.

---------- Post added at 11:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:46 PM ----------



Yes we had captured Kargil but that time the coward Nawaz Sharif was the Prime Minister and gave into US pressure after one phone call from Bill Clinton.

dude get this somehow into your small head!!!!!..........our objective was to SAVE KASHMIR we attacked pakistan territory as a counter offensive........and finally we did manage to secure our ultimate objective!!!!.........that was to save kashmir!!!