What had actually happened?
Many believe its an attack by India, which was well defended.
Other believe Pakistan compelled India to do that.
Apart from the claims who won and who lost (because for me wars never bring victories), I just wanted to know what had happened and what was the role of international community especially Muslim countries.
Re: 6th September 1965 - A neutral perspective
The technicalities and the realities of the war are different.
From a purely legal perspective, India was the first country to attack across an internationally recognised border. One could (and I do) argue that this meant that India started the war.
On the other hand, the Indian attacks across the border was provoked by a Pakistani tank attack across the cease-fire line in Kashmir which went quite deep into Indian-Occupied Kashmir.
Pakistan was caught by surprise by the Indian escalation - they did not believe that India would escalate the conflict outside of the internationally recognised disputed zone, in the same way that India had not escalated the war in 1948 outside of Kashmir.
Honestly, I have to concede that it was a strategically brilliant move by India to escalate. If it had worked there would have been no negative consequences at all.
What happened is that the Indian escalation was pushed back, Pakistan counter-attacked into India, India defeated the counter-attack, and Pakistan was pushed back into Pakistan, and Pakistan then accepted external settlement because Pakistan's military was close to running out of supplies and Pakistan was happy to return the status quo.
Other Muslim countries provided Pakistan with ammunition and stood by to offer military material. However, they were reluctant to provide much overt help as both Pakistan and India were subject to UN embargoes during the conflict.
Re: 6th September 1965 - A neutral perspective
War started in sept but the match was struck way back with the Rann of Kutch issue which was a disputed territory. India gained control of the territory and Pakistani patrols began patrolling in territory controlled by India in January 1965, which was followed by attacks by both countries on each others posts on 8 April 1965. In June '65 the British PM, Harold Wilson persuaded both countries to end hostilities and set up a tribunal to resolve the dispute. The verdict, which came later in 1968, saw Pakistan awarded 350 square miles (900 km²) of the Rann of Kutch, as against its original claim of 3,500 square miles (9,100 km[SUP]2[/SUP]).
After the successful infiltration/patrol/attacks by the Pakistanis in the Rann of Kutch , Ayub Khan thought of doing something similar in Kashmir cos he believed that Indian Army would be unable to defend itself against a quick military campaign because of the loss to Chins in '62. He believed that local Kashmiris would support the Pakistanis . So Operation Gibralter was conceived in Aug '65. Unfortunately for the Pakistanis, the infiltrators were soon discovered and their presence reported to Indian Army by local Kashmiris. The assumed support did not manifest in '65. Indian Army captured three important mountain positions 8 km into Pakistan-Occupied -Kashmir. On Sept 1st , Pakistan launched Operation Grand Slam to capture Akhnoor in Jammu. India crossed International Border on sept 6th marking the official start of war.
Re: 6th September 1965 - A neutral perspective
The technicalities and the realities of the war are different.
From a purely legal perspective, India was the first country to attack across an internationally recognised border. One could (and I do) argue that this meant that India started the war.
On the other hand, the Indian attacks across the border was provoked by a Pakistani tank attack across the cease-fire line in Kashmir which went quite deep into Indian-Occupied Kashmir.
Pakistan was caught by surprise by the Indian escalation - they did not believe that India would escalate the conflict outside of the internationally recognised disputed zone, in the same way that India had not escalated the war in 1948 outside of Kashmir.
Honestly, I have to concede that it was a strategically brilliant move by India to escalate. If it had worked there would have been no negative consequences at all.
What happened is that the Indian escalation was pushed back, Pakistan counter-attacked into India, India defeated the counter-attack, and Pakistan was pushed back into Pakistan, and Pakistan then accepted external settlement because Pakistan's military was close to running out of supplies and Pakistan was happy to return the status quo.
Other Muslim countries provided Pakistan with ammunition and stood by to offer military material. However, they were reluctant to provide much overt help as both Pakistan and India were subject to UN embargoes during the conflict.
I read somewhere that some Muslim countries took side of India. Is it true?
Re: 6th September 1965 - A neutral perspective
lols at British PM. Did they ever acknowledged that this war game between two countries was actually a gift by them while leaving subcontinent. 
BTW, Whats the story behind Runn of Katch?
Re: 6th September 1965 - A neutral perspective
I read somewhere that some Muslim countries took side of India. Is it true?
yes Malaysia and Egypt. Pakistan broke relations with Malaysia after the war. On the other hand Indonesia and Iran openly supported Pakistan.
Re: 6th September 1965 - A neutral perspective
As for the war india crossed the International border at wagah in the early hours of 6 September with a view to capture Lahore and relieve the pressure from Kashmir sector. They had realized that a full fledged war would stretch Pakistan army and force it to defensive positions. They succeeded in that but were unable to capture Lahore. In the end it was a drawn war.
Re: 6th September 1965 - A neutral perspective
As for the war india crossed the International border at wagah in the early hours of 6 September with a view to capture Lahore and relieve the pressure from Kashmir sector. They had realized that a full fledged war would stretch Pakistan army and force it to defensive positions. They succeeded in that but were unable to capture Lahore. In the end it was a drawn war.
What about the BBC reports saying that Indian army reached near Lahore gymkhana? Did British played any role to resolve the dispute?
Re: 6th September 1965 - A neutral perspective
What about the BBC reports saying that Indian army reached near Lahore gymkhana? Did British played any role to resolve the dispute?
They were quoting Indian reports. I was in Lahore and 14 miles from Wagah border, the Indians were not to be seen anywhere near my house let alone Lahore gymkhana. They never crossed the BRB canal, which is 7 miles form the border and the canal was specifically made for this purpose. My house was 14 miles from the border. Gymkhana would have meant that they would have been deep into center of Lahore. No way, I was in Lahore for the whole war they were no where near Lahore.
Re: 6th September 1965 - A neutral perspective
Not sure about the situation regarding Lahore. But I remember reading that the Indian 3rd Jat regiment, had crossed the Ichogil canal and capturedthe town of Batapore/Jallo Mur on the west side of the canal but the higher commanders had no information of 3 Jat’s capture of Batapore and misleading information led to the command to withdraw from Batapore and Dograi to Ghosal-Dial due to counter offensive by the Pak army with the help of its airforce. Dograi was eventually recaptured by 3 Jat on 21 September, for the second time but after a much harder battle due to Pakistani reinforcements.
India atleast reached till there for sure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brig.Hari_Singh_at_Barkee_Capture.jpg
Not sure how close to the International Border this place is.
Re: 6th September 1965 - A neutral perspective
yes Malaysia and Egypt. Pakistan broke relations with Malaysia after the war. On the other hand Indonesia and Iran openly supported Pakistan.
Iran and pakistani regimes were pretty chummy till the Iranian revolution and under the Shah. It was only in the 1990s during the rise of Taliban that they found themselves on the opposite ends of the playground with Pakistan supporting the Taliban and Iran in favour of the NA. Though have improved now, i am not sure if it has reached or exceeded the pre-taliban levels of relationship.
Re: 6th September 1965 - A neutral perspective
Not sure about the situation regarding Lahore. But I remember reading that the Indian 3rd Jat regiment, had crossed the Ichogil canal and capturedthe town of Batapore/Jallo Mur on the west side of the canal but the higher commanders had no information of 3 Jat's capture of Batapore and misleading information led to the command to withdraw from Batapore and Dograi to Ghosal-Dial due to counter offensive by the Pak army with the help of its airforce. Dograi was eventually recaptured by 3 Jat on 21 September, for the second time but after a much harder battle due to Pakistani reinforcements.
BRB canal which I am talking about is at Jallo morh. Pakistan made that canal for defence purposes and so they don't fight at wagah but contain the Indians at BRB canal. So yes the Indians came in 7 miles from Wagah but that was deliberate.
Re: 6th September 1965 - A neutral perspective
I have heard totally opposite to what u just written here 
Re: 6th September 1965 - A neutral perspective
What did you hear Waleed? Source?
Re: 6th September 1965 - A neutral perspective
What did you hear.
Re: 6th September 1965 - A neutral perspective
read post 12 above.
Re: 6th September 1965 - A neutral perspective
My mother told me that that Indians crossed BRB canal and then we attacked them.....I will confirm from her once again though
Re: 6th September 1965 - A neutral perspective
Rann of Kutch is a salty marshland situated in Gujarat’s Kutch and Sindh of Pakistan. The tribunal which I mentioned reached a verdict in 1968 which saw Pakistan getting 10% of its claim of 9,100 square kilometres (3,500 sq mi). The majority of the area thus remained with India but there is still an ongoing border dispute regarding Sir Creek. The creek, which opens up into the Arabian, divides the Kutch region of Gujarat with the Sindh province of Pakistan. The long-standing dispute hinges in the actual demarcation “from the mouth of Sir Creek to the top of Sir Creek, and from the top of Sir Creek eastward to a point on the line designated on the Western Terminus”. From this point onwards, the boundary is unambiguously fixed as defined by the Tribunal.
Pakistan lays claim to the entire creek as per paras 9 and 10 of the Bombay Government Resolution of 1914[SUP]](Sir Creek - Wikipedia)[/SUP]signed between the then Govt of Sindh and the ruler of the princely state of Kutch. India sticks to its position that the boundary lies mid-channel as depicted in another map drawn in 1925, and implemented by the installation of mid-channel pillars back in 1924 and Thalweg Doctrine in International Law. The law states that river boundaries between two states may be, if the two states agree, divided by the mid-channel. Though Pakistan does not dispute the 1925 map, it maintains that the Doctrine is not applicable in this case as it only applies to bodies of water that are navigable, which the Sir Creek is not. India rejects the Pakistani stance by maintaining the fact that the creek is navigable in high tide, and that fishing trawlers use it to go out to sea. Another point of concern for Pakistan is that Sir Creek has changed its course considerably over the years. If the boundary line is demarcated according to the Thalweg principle, Pakistan stands to lose a considerable portion of the territory that was historically part of the province of Sindh. Acceding to India’s stance would also result in the shifting of the land/sea terminus point several kilometres to the detriment of Pakistan, leading in turn to a loss of several thousand square kilometres under UN convention of law of the sea.
It also does not help that much of the region is rich in oil and gas below the sea bed, and control over the creek would have a huge bearing on the energy potential of each nation. So nobody wants to give it up.
Re: 6th September 1965 - A neutral perspective
My mother told me that that Indians crossed BRB canal and then we attacked them.....I will confirm from her once again though
They tried to cross the canal and might have done at one or two places but were beaten back and all the bridges were blown up. Main point is that they never made any headway beyond the BRB canal.
Re: 6th September 1965 - A neutral perspective
Yeah may be yes our forces pulled them back
