Why has Pak lost against India every time?

[Adux]

Honourable Sword's comments are strange !

1. Just because there were refugees in West Bengal, is justification enough for sending infiltrators and then helping them with armed invasion with the aim of breaking the breaking the country in two?

2. Justification for 'Police Action in Hyderabad' is stranger still. Just because you surround a smaller country by land, it is ok to occupy it !

3. Plebecite is ok in Junagadh but not OK in Kashmir because it does not suit India. Despite the fact that India agreed to a plebecite in Kashmir at the UN.

4. It is also Ok for India to go back on its promise of giving a special status to Kashmir. ( that why Sh Abdullah spent years in prison).

Additionally, someone mentioned that partial victory was against the forces of the Raja. Kindly read your history carefully. Raja's forces were defeated and on the point of collapse against the tribesmen. It was only after the Indian Army landed in Kashmir that Quaid e Azam ordered PA to support the Mujahideen in Kashmir and 1948 war ensued.

There is another sore point. It came out in the UN that instrument of accession was signed a day after the Indian forces actually landed in Kashmir and there was a possibility that Raja may have acceded under duress! However India claimed that the Raja was in Jammu; the winter capital, and therefore could not be reached any earlier.

Let us face it; Might is always Right. Once you get yourself in a strong enough position, to hell with all the previous agreements. Thats how Whites in US took over most of the Amerindian lands and Israel has annexed the West Bank and Golan Heights

It is because of this fruitless debate, I had noted no point in discussing rights and wrongs of the past. Countries always justfy their actions and the other party is always in the wrong. Let us just stick to the topic.

sir,

By the time Indian Army landed the Azad Kashmir(Azad Kashmir) was already under pakistani forces, so basically Indian Army stopped any further advancement of your forces from there on...

Adu

 

[blain2]

sir,

By the time Indian Army landed the Azad Kashmir(Azad Kashmir) was already under pakistani forces, so basically Indian Army stopped any further advancement of your forces from there on...

Adu

I do not think this is entirely correct. The Pakistani units were actually disallowed by the then C-in-C PA Gen Frank Messervy from moving into the Kashmir area altogether. The tribals were the ones who were in the Pakistani part of the Kashmir. If by Pakistani forces you mean the tribals then its ok. None of the regular Pakistani units were involved at the point when IA was airlifted into Kashmir.

 

[Adux]

I do not think this is entirely correct. The Pakistani units were actually disallowed by the then C-in-C PA Gen Frank Messervy from moving into the Kashmir area altogether. The tribals were the ones who were in the Pakistani part of the Kashmir. If by Pakistani forces you mean the tribals then its ok. None of the regular Pakistani units were involved at the point when IA was airlifted into Kashmir.

hiya there blain2,

I have never seen that anywhere, anyways if i do take your point, that PK forces came in late, yet they were not able to get any significant ground from the IA, therefore a victory over IA is a moot point. And it is not verified by any neutral sources..

cheers

Adu

 

[blain2]

hiya there blain2,

I have never seen that anywhere, anyways if i do take your point, that PK forces came in late, yet they were not able to get any significant ground from the IA, therefore a victory over IA is a moot point. And it is not verified by any neutral sources..

cheers

Adu

Hey mate,

Messervy was canned by the Pakistani government for exactly that. His point was that being appointed by the crown (Pakistan was still subservient to the crown at that time), he could not allow his forces to go up against the Indian Army.

There was no victory as such (I do not think I said that anywhere). Pakistani forces eventually established positions on the AK part of the region and Indians on the other side and this is where things stand.

 

[Adux]

Hey mate,

Messervy was canned by the Pakistani government for exactly that. His point was that being appointed by the crown (Pakistan was still subservient to the crown at that time), he could not allow his forces to go up against the Indian Army.

There was no victory as such (I do not think I said that anywhere). Pakistani forces eventually established positions on the AK part of the region and Indians on the other side and this is where things stand.

hiya

thanks for the reply dude, that was niaz who claimed it was partial victory,we might disagree i believe it was a stalemate. It all depends on what IA's objectives were, if it was to push back PA's troops from gilgit and Northern areas they failed, if it was to hold ground on the status quo on which they entered battle with the J&K forces, they won.
PA's objective was to liberate the whole of the valley.

a very neutral view, critical to both sides..
http://www.hrsolidarity.net/mainfile.php/1999vol09no10/1920/[/url]

i was lookin at couple of other links though neutral had their major references given to indian publications which states, the whole first kashmir war might have been visioned by british officers in the Pakistan Army. have u heard or know somethin about this version

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947

cheers
Adu

 

[blain2]

hiya

thanks for the reply dude, that was niaz who claimed it was partial victory,we might disagree i believe it was a stalemate. It all depends on what IA's objectives were, if it was to push back PA's troops from gilgit and Northern areas they failed, if it was to hold ground on the status quo on which they entered battle with the J&K forces, they won.
PA's objective was to liberate the whole of the valley.

a very neutral view, critical to both sides..
http://www.hrsolidarity.net/mainfile.php/1999vol09no10/1920/[/url]

i was lookin at couple of other links though neutral had their major references given to indian publications which states, the whole first kashmir war might have been visioned by british officers in the Pakistan Army. have u heard or know somethin about this version

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947

cheers
Adu

I think we failed in our attempts to gain Srinagar simply because the Pakistani troops were not able to get to the area and instead, the tribals busied themselves with looting and pillaging the valley instead of solidifying their control over the city and the airport. I believe it was a stalemate as neither side succeeded in getting all of it which is what they ask for now.

 

[Adux]

I think we failed in our attempts to gain Srinagar simply because the Pakistani troops were not able to get to the area and instead, the tribals busied themselves with looting and pillaging the valley instead of solidifying their control over the city and the airport. I believe it was a stalemate as neither side succeeded in getting all of it which is what they ask for now.

do you have any information on the last link which states british officers encouraged war with india.

Adu

 

[blain2]

do you have any information on the last link which states british officers encouraged war with india.

Adu

I really think the British actually sat out of this one. This was one of the reasons that the British were replaced from most key appointments by the Pakistani officers over the next 3 years or so.

I have read in different accounts about the stances of the British officers and they were not in the mood for the two countries to go at it. So this excerpt above surprises me and actually sounds like a wayward comment to gain sympathy by stacking up odds (by suggesting that there were British officers who planned the invasion or operations.) I have a hard time believing it to be very honest.

I also want to point out that in my personal reading and talking about Kashmir with many a serving and retired officers, this point has never come up...its always the same complaint that the British were less than accomodating including the CinC when it came to Kashmir.

 

[sword9]

The point I was trying to make was simply that there has been no shortage of encounters where either side has received a mauling from the other....

1965 was full of such see-saw encounters.

it goes to my point about using the term "rout" which you used rather casually without realizing what a "rout" really would be...
In the Indo-Pak context, no war has ended in a rout since the two countries became independent. So your claim of "when IA wants to rout, it routes", holds no factual standing...just a slogan and I would like to leave it at that.

That is your perspective.

Functioning at what strength?

The Indian 1 Armd Bde in Pillora-Chawinda was a regt bde:-
Poona Horse
Hudson Horse
16 Cav

Total tank losses: Destroyed – 29, damaged and repaired (after the war) – 41
Out off approx 135 – 180 tanks (incl 62 Cav)

So was the Pakistani 1 Armd Div. after taking a beating at Assal Uttar (albeit understrength at that point in time)...the issue is simply a matter of trusting these sources and the veracity of these sources...

Without doubt it would have been under-strength with losses equivalent to 2 x armd regiments (97 tanks). Only your 4th & 5th armd brigades took part in the fighting, 3 armd bde was never used.

…you seem to have a problem with my numbers by calling them improbable

It not consistent with what force levels PA was facing in Pillora-Chawinda, the 120 figure seems uncorroborated. If you feel it is correct, please do provide me with a reference.

but on the other hand you do not back your rebuttal with anything factual except by points such as "when 1 Armd Bde was functioning even after the war with over 70% of their tanks." Who says 70%?

I provided you with figures and book references. Now minus 29 tanks from IA’s 1st Armd bde orbat of approx 135 tanks (assuming 55 tanks per regt incl war wastage reserves), and you can get the percentage.

An Indian source probably or you came up with the number yourself..in either case, I guess this is the problem with having discussions of the sort...you cant buy my sources and arguments, yet what you accuse me of is the exact same thing you are guilty of, which is to prove something to me beyond the shadow of doubt...I have quoted my sources, you can do the same and we would end up exactly where we started off....in any case, lets continue....

If Chawinda had something like ‘Patton Nagar’, it would have been easier to believe.

The issue is not about who was an idiot and who was not. The Pakistani units in East Pakistan "surrendered", which is quite different from getting beaten into submission on the battlefield or running away (which is what a "rout" would be).

What is the difference? The loss was swift.

Many a reasons...but not the place to delve into the details of those here. A good ref. would be Maj Gen Hakeem Arshad Qureshi's "The 1971 Indo-Pak War: A Soldier's Narrative" from a military standpoint as to why the units surrendered.

I’ll try and get my hands on it. In our sub-continent wars are seldom lost because the troops did not fight, but due to poor commanders. We have seen the results first hand, in 1962, of what damage an idiot can do.

Whatever! If you did not claim anything then this whole inane discussion would not be taking place. At least own up to the claims made in this thread.

The claim is based on the overall result of the conflict.

Why are you going off on a tangent? I am stating the facts and obstacles that were facing the PA and not discussing the responsibility or the cause of the revolt....IA and GoI had plenty to do with turning them into who they became.

No it is related and the most pertinent aspect that assisted in the creation of Bangladesh. The obstacles were self made and we used it to our end. The assistance to MB started much later, the massacres in March 1971 and the flow of refugees started before that.

The MB was used to tire the PA and Op Cactus Lily was planed for winter to neutralize the Chinese (the snow blocked passes prevented PLA activity).

Well if I quote from a Pakistani source, its harder for you to swallow it simply because I know for a fact that they will not tally well with your numbers...

Not really, I have gained great insight into the history of my battalion from Pakistani sources. Both good and unpalatable aspects are revealed.

also while I am on this topic, what does Lt Gen Gul Hassan have to say about the Pakistani losses since you quoted his book as one of your sources?

I do not have a personal copy of his book with me, and I quoted form the notes that I have taken on the collective reading of books on the subject. But give me a day or two and I shall get back to you on this.

 

[sword9]

Honourable Sword's comments are strange !

niaz, I hope you are not a lawyer. These lawyers have the habit of addressing their counterparts with the suffix "honourable", when they actually want to say "@$%*" Lol...

1. Just because there were refugees in West Bengal, is justification enough for sending infiltrators and then helping them with armed invasion with the aim of breaking the breaking the country in two?

As I said that was used as an excuse.

2. Justification for 'Police Action in Hyderabad' is stranger still. Just because you surround a smaller country by land, it is ok to occupy it !

As you staed it yourself - thats "real politik".

3. Plebecite is ok in Junagadh but not OK in Kashmir because it does not suit India. Despite the fact that India agreed to a plebecite in Kashmir at the UN.

Junagadh, was less comlicated and not strategic. J&K is strategic - there lies the difference.

4. It is also Ok for India to go back on its promise of giving a special status to Kashmir. ( that why Sh Abdullah spent years in prison).

It still has special status and rights, and much more that the other eastern part of that lies with you.

Additionally, someone mentioned that partial victory was against the forces of the Raja. Kindly read your history carefully. Raja's forces were defeated and on the point of collapse against the tribesmen. It was only after the Indian Army landed in Kashmir that Quaid e Azam ordered PA to support the Mujahideen in Kashmir and 1948 war ensued.

That is where our (i.e Indian) views digress. The Waziristan/ NWFP tribesmen were used and commanded by PA officers, they were used as a cover for the real intention of capturing Kashmir.

Prior to that, an economic blockade was used to choke the Valley, and coerce the Raja to acceed to Pakistan, since all road communication to the Kashmir Valley was via Pakistan. Followed by raids on border towns, to disperse the State Forces, and then the invasion on 20 October 1947.

These same tribesmen were used again in 1988 (under command Osama bin Laden) to do a lot of dirty work in Baltistan.

There is another sore point. It came out in the UN that instrument of accession was signed a day after the Indian forces actually landed in Kashmir and there was a possibility that Raja may have acceded under duress!

One cannot say for certain, but since Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw was there during the signing, one knows that the instrument was signed in Srinagar. Nehru and the congress was full of lawyers, and sticklers for following the law, besides Mountabattan would have to be shown the document at the time of despatch of Indian troops to the valley on 27th October.

However India claimed that the Raja was in Jammu; the winter capital, and therefore could not be reached any earlier.

As per FM Sam Maneckshaw, it was Srinagar, however, he is coming out with a book, that is to be published after his death, which may clear a lot of cobwebs.

Let us face it; Might is always Right. Once you get yourself in a strong enough position, to hell with all the previous agreements. Thats how Whites in US took over most of the Amerindian lands and Israel has annexed the West Bank and Golan Heights

Might is always right - was'nt that why the Kashmir status was forced by a miliatry solution from Pakistan? And was'nt that why Op Gibralter was launched?

It is because of this fruitless debate,...

Debates are never fruitless, as I am sure you must have watched the old black n white movie "12 angry men". Dialogue is a must.

I had noted no point in discussing rights and wrongs of the past.

Does'nt that matter.

Countries always justfy their actions and the other party is always in the wrong. Let us just stick to the topic.

Reality does not change, Hitler, Stalin and Tojo will always remain wrong even to their own people. Issues becomes more clear when viewes are cold clinical and are not clouded by emotions.

 

[sword9]

I have never seen that anywhere, anyways if i do take your point, that PK forces came in late, yet they were not able to get any significant ground from the IA, therefore a victory over IA is a moot point. And it is not verified by any neutral sources..

Adux,
blain2 is right. The PA regular army had put quite a resistance in Uri, Zoji La, and later at Naushera. They could not recapture any lost ground because of other issues. Besides we too were not allowed to press on and the Kashmir question was put up to the UN, at that time IA was in Kotli (though not in a very secure position).

 

[niaz]

Hon Sword9,

No I am not a lawyer. I am a Chemical Engineer by profession. I just don't believe in personal insults. One can disagree without being disagreable. May be the effect of my having lived in UK for too long!

 

[solid snake]

I think because PA never learns from it's mistakes.
PA has built a delusion of invincibility around itself.
It always overestimates itself & underestimates IA.
Pakistani population is brainwashed from childhood and from their Pak studies.
PA runs the Army- which is fine,since this is what an army is supposed to do. BUT it also runs the Government, the Economy, the biggest Real Estate Business, schools, factories. It's (retired & serving officers) are head of all the corporations, and the civilians are treated like 2nd class citizens.

I have not read a single post in this thread except this one, so take my reply in that context. I think that it is infact the Indians who are brainwashed to believe that they have won every war between the two countries. Sure, you guys won in 71', but I take issue with your claims of victory in the rest. I won't comment about 47 and 65 since there was nothing about those that could tip the verdict India's way. I think Kargil was not as big a disaster as it is made out to be. We lost lots of brave sons of Pakistan, but the conflict showed Pakistanis that our army is capable of occupying Indian controlled territory. We did not use our Air Force to give them ground support, which I think was a major reason why it turned out the way it did. But rest assured my Indian friend, Pakistan's military is fully capable of giving you a run for your money if their is ever a conflict in the future. Not to mention I'll be going back to Pakistan to kick some enemy *** if it comes to it :army:

About the Army running the government, the whole situation in Pakistan is way too convoluted for an outsider to understand. Sure, you can say we don't have full democracy, but if like me you have grown up watching your country plundered and humiliated by a civilian government, yet respected and showered with praise under the military, you begin to wonder if whats happening now isn't for the best. For democracy to work, I think society needs to be at a certain maturity level, and (in my opinion) Pakistan has not reached that level yet. Also, having diversity helps and Pakistan is severely lacking in minorities and thus in tolerance for an opposing view point, which fails a prerequisite for democracy.

Just my two cents. :flag:

 

[niaz]

Hon members, I came across this articles in the Daily News. It is about Siachin and in a way related to this thread.

Siachen: some facts

The recent secretary-level talks between the two foreign secretaries of Pakistan and India aimed at de-escalating and demilitarising Siachen is a conscious effort towards solving a problem and requires bold initiative from both sides. Siachen came to world prominence when in April 1984 the Indian army carried out a clandestine operation codenamed 'Meghdoot'. Pakistan got wind of it through a mountaineering advertisement appearing in an Indian magazine showing Siachen as part of India.

The mountains to the north of the glacier are the watershed between Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent. Whoever owns the glacier controls the Shyok and Nubra valleys as well as the region bordering China. Indians occupied two passes, Sia La and Bilfond La. The third pass, Gyong La, remained under Pakistani control. This pass overlooks both the Shyok and Nubra river valleys and Indian access to glacier from Leh district.

The Indian army controls Siachen heights holding to the tactical advantage of high grounds, but the Pakistan Army is much better off since it occupies a smaller portion of the glacier and the defence of the complete glacier hinges upon the area under Pakistani control. The road-head from Pakistan side is just 20 kilometres, whereas on the Indian side the road-head is 80 kilometres. Therefore India has to maintain its troops by an extensive and costly air effort. Since the Indian army is at a higher elevation, it suffers from a much higher attrition rate. Cost-wise, Pakistan spends about Rs15 million a day or Rs5.4 billion a year. On the other hand, the deployment of seven battalions at a glacier costs India Rs50 million a day, which comes to in excess of Rs18 billion a year.

The above comparison is made to remove the myth perpetuated by Indian claims that it is at an advantageous position and to give a clear message that negotiating at Siachen should not be seen to be Pakistan's weakness.

The Siachen dispute dates almost back to the first war between the two neighbours in 1948. At that time, the conflict culminated in the establishment of a cease-fire line (CFL). It ran north and northeast along the international border between Pakistan and India until the point NJ 9842 on the map near the Shyok river at the base of the Saltoro range (an offshoot of the Karakoram). Following the Tashkent agreement Pakistan drew a straight line to the north from NJ 9842 up to the Karakorm pass near the Chinese border.

India never contested this claim of Pakistan, which is cartographically correct. In 1984, it however drew the same line towards the northwest from NJ 9842 along the watershed line of the Saltoro range. The fact is that India occupied Siachen in violation of all previous agreements reached between the two countries. It is also interesting to note that while the world made much about Kargil, India's violation and de facto occupation was never made into an issue.

India seems to be suffering from a severe trust deficient with Pakistan and finds it hard to agree to resolve a dispute over a 110 kilometres-long glacier though finds no problem in announcing its intention to settle all territorial disputes with China.

Abid Latif

Rawalpindi


http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=33632

 

[vnomad]

Pakistan got wind of it through a mountaineering advertisement appearing in an Indian magazine showing Siachen as part of India.

Indian maps always showed Siachen as a part of India.

Since the Indian army is at a higher elevation, it suffers from a much higher attrition rate.

The IA this year estabilished a new record. No casualties. If the Siachen brigade commander is to be believed, the IA has mastered the art of surviving on the glacier. Unless the ceasefire was to stop casualties, if any, would remain in single figures. The IA brass has been so vocal about Siachen just so this fact can enter the heads of the political leadership in New Delhi - the IA is NOT bleeding in Siachen.

Cost-wise, Pakistan spends about Rs15 million a day or Rs5.4 billion a year. On the other hand, the deployment of seven battalions at a glacier costs India Rs50 million a day, which comes to in excess of Rs18 billion a year.

The ratio is the same as the ratio of the Indian military budget to that of Pakistan's. India can afford just as much (or as less) as Pakistan.

India never contested this claim of Pakistan, which is cartographically correct. In 1984, it however drew the same line towards the northwest from NJ 9842 along the watershed line of the Saltoro range.

Siachen wasn't a factor back then so contesting Pakistan's claim was never considered. Indian maps never showed the line moving north-west from point NJ 9842.

The fact is that India occupied Siachen in violation of all previous agreements reached between the two countries. It is also interesting to note that while the world made much about Kargil, India's violation and de facto occupation was never made into an issue.

Violation of what? Siachen was never accepted by India as Pakistani territory.

India seems to be suffering from a severe trust deficient with Pakistan and finds it hard to agree to resolve a dispute over a 110 kilometres-long glacier though finds no problem in announcing its intention to settle all territorial disputes with China.

India is prepared to move back as long as the present territories under Indian control are recognised by Pakistan as Indian and demarkated.