What happened during 1965 War between Pakistan and India | Watch Special Virtual Report

[zeroboy]

 

[The BrOkEn HeArT]

We Indians wish Pakistan more "victories " like 1965 in future against India.

 

[YeBeWarned]

We Indians wish Pakistan more "victories " like 1965 in future against India.

I am sure your Airforce don't

 

[Lincoln]

We Indians wish Pakistan more "victories " like 1965 in future against India.

I find it funny many people try to spin it as an Indian Victory. It may have been a stalemate but it was a successful defence which no one can deny. Western Newspapers of that time bear witness to when Indian Army admitted to retreat and the largest tank battle as well as the domination of the skies, most of all, the American pilot officer in Pakistan at the time is a witness to the encounters and the victories Pakistan achieved and he even has a book yet his book is no where to be cited on the Wikipedia although unlike these authors who were not there or who were part of the Indian Army, he was there and not part of the Pakistani Army.

In exactly what kind of a war, does the victor not get the best out of an agreement? Throughout history, the victor has dictated the terms of an agreement that brings the war to an end. In the Tashkent Declaration, the agreement favoured neither, that should tell you something about the nature of this war.

Also, if you're going to cite the Wikipedia, please, at least put in an effort to showing the sources it has provided; Most of the sources for the information are from selective books published by different authors, of which I would say somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 of the books are by Indian authors, while the rest of the majority is American. The Wikipedia even tries to convince us that there was a major miscalculation where India had only expired 15% of its ammo while its Chief of Army believed 85% had been used, a difference of 70 percent, you want me to believe that?

Quite a spinning machine.

 

[The BrOkEn HeArT]

I find it funny many people try to spin it as an Indian Victory. It may have been a stalemate but it was a successful defence which no one can deny. Western Newspapers of that time bear witness to when Indian Army admitted to retreat and the largest tank battle as well as the domination of the skies, most of all, the American pilot officer in Pakistan at the time is a witness to the encounters and the victories Pakistan achieved and he even has a book yet his book is no where to be cited on the Wikipedia although unlike these authors who were not there or who were part of the Indian Army, he was there and not part of the Pakistani Army.

In exactly what kind of a war, does the victor not get the best out of an agreement? Throughout history, the victor has dictated the terms of an agreement that brings the war to an end. In the Tashkent Declaration, the agreement favoured neither, that should tell you something about the nature of this war.

Also, if you're going to cite the Wikipedia, please, at least put in an effort to showing the sources it has provided; Most of the sources for the information are from selective books published by different authors, of which I would say somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 of the books are by Indian authors, while the rest of the majority is American. The Wikipedia even tries to convince us that there was a major miscalculation where India had only expired 15% of its ammo while its Chief of Army believed 85% had been used, a difference of 70 percent, you want me to believe that?

Quite a spinning machine.

Defence?? Lol

First you attack on someone, then you call it defence when things turns opposite.
RIP logic.

I am sure your Airforce don't

Our airforce was great all the time.

 

[Lincoln]

Defence?? Lol

First you attack on someone, then you call it defence when things turns opposite.
RIP logic.

Let me google the definition of defence for you.

"the action of defending from or resisting attack", from Google.

In response to the small force, capable of a skirmish at most, deployed to Kashmir by Pakistan, India launched a counter OFFENSIVE against Pakistan. The intent went far from defending Kashmir, it went to invading Pakistan; Remember which General told the Journalists that they will be having tea in Lahore on a morning? Pakistan resisted this offensive and did so successfully, against an Army which was 3 to 4 times larger, had the full scale support of USSR, had more ammunition, aircrafts and resources. If that isn't a Defence, then please, kindly educate me on what 'Defense' means, sir.

The reality is that we have more to celebrate here than you do. Pakistan may have failed it's incursion into disputed region of Indian Occupied Kashmir, but Pakistan successfully stopped the full scale incursion by it's enemy's army which was 3 to 4 times as big, more resourceful, had a much larger support from it's closest strategic ally USSR compared to Pakistan's United States which cut off supply.

 

[Basel]

We Indians wish Pakistan more "victories " like 1965 in future against India.

 

[Trango Towers]

We Indians wish Pakistan more "victories " like 1965 in future against India.

Did u enjoy your tea at lahore gymkhana?

Sour grapes

 

[my2cents]

I find it funny many people try to spin it as an Indian Victory. It may have been a stalemate but it was a successful defence which no one can deny. Western Newspapers of that time bear witness to when Indian Army admitted to retreat and the largest tank battle as well as the domination of the skies, most of all, the American pilot officer in Pakistan at the time is a witness to the encounters and the victories Pakistan achieved and he even has a book yet his book is no where to be cited on the Wikipedia although unlike these authors who were not there or who were part of the Indian Army, he was there and not part of the Pakistani Army.

In exactly what kind of a war, does the victor not get the best out of an agreement? Throughout history, the victor has dictated the terms of an agreement that brings the war to an end. In the Tashkent Declaration, the agreement favoured neither, that should tell you something about the nature of this war.

Also, if you're going to cite the Wikipedia, please, at least put in an effort to showing the sources it has provided; Most of the sources for the information are from selective books published by different authors, of which I would say somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 of the books are by Indian authors, while the rest of the majority is American. The Wikipedia even tries to convince us that there was a major miscalculation where India had only expired 15% of its ammo while its Chief of Army believed 85% had been used, a difference of 70 percent, you want me to believe that?

Quite a spinning machine.

We were just coming out of defeat by Chinese in 1963 war. Pakistan took advantage of our low moral and our unpreparedness but because of international pressure you had to agree to ceasefire and end war. Tashkent declaration overseen by Russia put both of us back to 1949 line of control and to give up all conquered areas. So, we were back to square one but it cemented our suspicions and hardened our stance to teach you guys a lesson. In one sense it was prelude to a real war in 1971 where you actually lost half your country.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

I’m still waiting in the Lahore Gymkhana. Your chai is getting cold...

1971

You guys bring this into every topic. Give it a rest.

We are paying you back for 1971 in Afghanistan, Punjab, and Kashmir.

 

[Tejas Spokesman]

Did u enjoy your tea at lahore gymkhana?

Sour grapes

Did you enjoy your tea at Akhnoor club?
Sour grapes.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Did you enjoy your tea at Akhnoor club?
Sour grapes.

Lol. New government propaganda.

 

[Tejas Spokesman]

View attachment 497036
View attachment 497037 View attachment 497038
View attachment 497039
View attachment 497040

View attachment 497041 View attachment 497042 View attachment 497043 View attachment 497043
View attachment 497044 View attachment 497045 View attachment 497047 View attachment 497049 View attachment 497050

Not all.
As per neutral assesment we had lower losses in almost all categories.
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[29]–

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.

• Former New York Times reporter Arif Jamal wrote in his book Shadow War[13] —

This time, India's victory was nearly total: India accepted cease-fire only after it had occupied 740 square miles, though Pakistan had made marginal gains of 210 square miles of territory. Despite the obvious strength of the Indian wins, both countries claim to have been victorious.

• Devin T. Hagerty wrote in his book "South Asia in world politics"[130] –

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",[131] Gertjan Dijkink writes –

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

• An excerpt from Stanley Wolpert's India,[132] 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[11] –

India won the war. It held on to the Vale of Kashmir, the prize Pakistan vainly sought. 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,[133]

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.

• "A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947" by Robert Johnson mentions[12] –

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"[134] –

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[135] –

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"[136] –

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.

• According to the Office of the Historianwithin the U.S Department of State:[137]

Conflict resumed again in early 1965, when Pakistani and Indian forces clashed over disputed territory along the border between the two nations. Hostilities intensified that August when the Pakistani army attempted to take Kashmir by force. The attempt to seize the state was unsuccessful, and the second India-Pakistan War reached a stalemate.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Not all.
As per neutral assesment we had lower losses in almost all categories.
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[29]–

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.

• Former New York Times reporter Arif Jamal wrote in his book Shadow War[13] —

This time, India's victory was nearly total: India accepted cease-fire only after it had occupied 740 square miles, though Pakistan had made marginal gains of 210 square miles of territory. Despite the obvious strength of the Indian wins, both countries claim to have been victorious.

• Devin T. Hagerty wrote in his book "South Asia in world politics"[130] –

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",[131] Gertjan Dijkink writes –

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

• An excerpt from Stanley Wolpert's India,[132] 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[11] –

India won the war. It held on to the Vale of Kashmir, the prize Pakistan vainly sought. 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,[133]

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.

• "A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947" by Robert Johnson mentions[12] –

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"[134] –

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[135] –

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"[136] –

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.

• According to the Office of the Historianwithin the U.S Department of State:[137]

Conflict resumed again in early 1965, when Pakistani and Indian forces clashed over disputed territory along the border between the two nations. Hostilities intensified that August when the Pakistani army attempted to take Kashmir by force. The attempt to seize the state was unsuccessful, and the second India-Pakistan War reached a stalemate.

Anything to further Indian propaganda. I can also selectively quote Western sources, but it won’t prove anything.

Fact: India invaded Pakistan.

Fact: Pakistan successfully repulsed Indian invasion.

Pakistan’s objectives were achieved.

 

[Lincoln]

We were just coming out of defeat by Chinese in 1963 war. Pakistan took advantage of our low moral and our unpreparedness but because of international pressure you had to agree to ceasefire and end war. Tashkent declaration overseen by Russia put both of us back to 1949 line of control and to give up all conquered areas. So, we were back to square one but it cemented our suspicions and hardened our stance to teach you guys a lesson. In one sense it was prelude to a real war in 1971 where you actually lost half your country.

You are clearly misinformed about the conditions of Tashkent declaration. As per the Tashkent declaration were to pull back to PRE CONFLICT LINES, which is pre-August, not back to 1949 line of control. Furthermore, as per the Tashkent declaration; the nations would not interfere in each other's internal affairs. Therefore, India went back on it's agreement in 1971, the more you know.

It is my belief that the Army deemed it okay to send 90,000 soldiers to the then East Pakistan keeping in sight the agreement.

Although 1971 War was, well, a war, I wouldn't call it a 'Real War' because it didn't head on test the resilience of Pakistan like the 1965 War did, and India got its answer from that! One side had 90,000 soldiers while the other had a many times larger army, easier logistic routes, ammunition, multiple resources in their homeland at disposal. It was virtually impossible for Pakistan to wage a war against India from East Pakistan as most of Pakistan's tanks, aircrafts, air bases, stashes and so on were located in West Pakistan. And if you ask me, I think the Independence of Bangladesh was a blessing in disguise, good riddance : )