Learning from the 1965 War

A quick historical recap of the '65 war

Ahmad Faruqui

Pakistani soldiers fought with gallantry and distinction in 1965, even though they deserved better generals. The Pakistan Navy kept the sea-lanes open against a much bigger enemy. But it was the PAF that excelled in all respects

In December 1964, New Delhi absorbed Kashmir into the Indian Union. Sensing that the Indian military had begun a massive programme of rearmament after its humiliation at the hands of the People’s Liberation Army in 1962, Pakistan’s then-foreign minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, convinced President Ayub Khan that a ‘now or never’ window of opportunity had opened up to reactivate the liberation struggle in Kashmir.

Ayub initially rejected Bhutto’s plan to infiltrate irregular fighters into Kashmir, fearing that it would place Pakistan’s survival at stake. But after witnessing the Pakistan army’s successful performance in the Rann of Kutch in April, he changed his mind. While in New York for medical treatment toward the end of his life, he would confide to G W Choudhury that this was his worst presidential decision. However, in the summer of 1965, he talked about how ‘Hindu morale would not stand a couple of hard blows at the right time and place.’

Operation Gibraltar, named after Tariq bin Ziad who conquered Spain in the year 711 with 10,000 Moroccans, was launched on August 5/6. Seven thousand fighters crossed the ceasefire line (as the Line of Control was then known) in Kashmir with a simple mission: spark a wild fire in the Vale of Kashmir and bring to a satisfactory conclusion the unfinished business of partition. But it was soon evident that the fighters were insufficiently trained in guerrilla warfare and were in no condition to lead a revolt against Indian rule.

On August 7 the irregulars attacked Kargil, which would gain notoriety 34 years later. By mid-August, they had roused the ire of the Indian army and Pakistan was forced to commit regular troops to keep the fight from dying out. By August 21, the Indian forces had routed the irregulars and by the end of the month, most of them had been killed or captured. The situation was eerily similar to President Kennedy’s fiasco in the Bay of Pigs in 1961, when the US landed 1,400 Cuban exiles on Cuba’s south coast, hoping to trigger a revolt against Fidel Castro. In two days of fierce fighting, 114 were dead and 1,200 captured. A chastened Kennedy called off the attack.

At this point in history, Ayub too had the opportunity to call off the dogs of war. Instead, he chose to up the ante. Switching metaphors from Islamic history to the card game of bridge, the Pakistan army launched Operation Grand Slam on September 1. The objective was to capture Akhnur within 72 hours, cutting off India’s line of communication with Srinagar and forcing it to the negotiating table. The first stop along the way, Chamb, was taken in a day, as Indian forces withdrew under the weight of the Pakistani offensive. Four Indian Air Force (IAF) Vampires brought in to stop the onslaught were shot down by the PAF, leading to the withdrawal of 128 Vampires from the IAF line-up.

Then the attack stalled and Pakistan’s General Headquarters changed commanders in the heat of battle, allowing the Indian army to re-gird its defences of Akhnur. On September 5, General Musa, the Pakistani army chief, impatiently told his troops, ‘You have got your teeth into him. Bite deeper and deeper until he is destroyed.’ However, Akhnur was to remain a town too far for the Pakistan army.

On September 6, the Indian army launched a three-pronged attack on Lahore. This came as a shock to Ayub, since Bhutto had convinced him that India was not in a position to risk a war of unlimited duration against Pakistan. Bhutto had argued that Pakistan had relative military superiority against India, and while the latter might wage a general war of limited duration, it would not be along the Punjab frontier.

Pakistani army units successfully fought off the Indian attack by blowing up 70 bridges along the BRB canal. As the front stabilised, Pakistan launched a counter-offensive on September 10 in Khem Karan with its mailed fist, the 1st armoured division. Unfortunately, the sophisticated Patton tanks raced ahead of their supporting infantry units. Soon they found themselves bogged down in sugarcane fields near the village of Asal Uttar, where the Indians had breached a canal that did not exist on Pakistani maps. Indian hunter-killer teams armed with jeep-mounted recoilless rifles took out 40 Patton tanks in one day. On September 11, Pakistan’s vaunted 4 Cavalry ceased to exist, effectively dashing Islamabad’s hopes of winning the war.

Next, India opened up another front around Sialkot. Pakistan’s 6th Armoured Division fought tenaciously and with tactical skill, blunting the Indian offensive. However, it was running out of fuel and its 155 mm howitzers were put on a daily ration of five rounds per gun. The soldier in Ayub knew the game was over and he began to seek a diplomatic solution to the conflict.

The people of Pakistan, who had been expecting an imminent victory over India, listened in disbelief as a ceasefire was announced over Radio Pakistan on September 23. Ayub visited the US in December and was told by President Johnson that the special relationship between the two countries was over. In January Ayub signed the Tashkent Agreement, which restored the pre-war boundaries and provided no new mechanism for resolving the Kashmir dispute.

Pakistani soldiers fought with gallantry and distinction in 1965, even though they deserved better generals. The Pakistan Navy kept the sea-lanes open against a much bigger enemy. But it was the PAF that excelled in all respects. On one day it shot down 11 IAF fighters. In a single encounter, Squadron Leader M M Alam shot down five IAF Hunters in less than two minutes over Sargodha. It is no wonder that John Fricker chose to entitle his history of the air war the “Battle for Pakistan,” no doubt inspired by the Battle for Britain waged by the Royal Air Force during the Second World War and designed to evoke Winston Churchill’s effusive comment, ‘Never have so many owed so much to so few.’

For Pakistan, the war produced a bitter harvest. Ayub and Bhutto presumed that Kashmir was ripe for an uprising, and that Indian forces in the state — which numbered five infantry divisions — would be unable to hold out against a single Pakistani division. Worse, they presumed that India would not launch a counter attack along the international border. Their erroneous presumptions resulted in some 25,000 men being killed or wounded on both sides. Ayub lost his job because of this war. Worse, the war triggered insecurities in East Pakistan that ultimately led to its secession in 1971.

Dr Ahmad Faruqui is an economist and author of “Rethinking the National Security of Pakistan”. He can be reached at [email protected]

link

an excellent article- contrary to all the brain washing we get in Pakistan. At University, I had a bet with my Indian friend as both of us claimed victory in '65. So we went through old newspapers (Times of London) in a Library and I was shocked to find that Pakistan actually started it ! Also apparently pakistan should have won it with their technology but didn't.

*"...The soldier in Ayub knew the game was over and he began to seek a diplomatic solution to the conflict.

The ** people of Pakistan, who had been expecting an imminent victory over India*, listened in disbelief as a ceasefire was announced over Radio Pakistan on September 23."

In fact many of them are still living in Denial. One doesn't need to go anywhere but do a search on 1965 on this forum itself to know that. They still think that India started the WAR.

^ asif: Before the Simla agreement, the LOC was an armistice line, now an armistice line implies a state of war in that disputed area already exists. India crossed an International border when it made a push for Lahore. there is a difference, crossing an international border is an act of war.

Zakk - Ever heard of Operation Gibraltar and Operation Grandslam ? Do you think they were 'act of war' ??

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Asif_k: *
Zakk - Ever heard of Operation Gibraltar and Operation Grandslam ? Do you think they were 'act of war' ??
[/QUOTE]

Did they involve attacks across an international border between two countries, or a violation of the internationally recognised sovereign land of another country? I think not.

Operation Gibraltar involved infiltration of irregular forces across an armistice line (a line that, as Zakk mentions, is not a border of any kind).

Furthermore, these forces were not infiltrated into an internationally recognised (UN recognised) part of India - they were sent into a disputed zone, a region that was by international recognition (Un recognition) neither a part of Pakistan nor a part of India. Indian sovereignty was not violated by these forces.

Operation Grandslam involved an attack by regular infantry forces with tank support within this disputed zone, ie not within India.

India's response, by contrast, was to violate an internationally recognised border and infringe upon the recognised sovereign territory of another country. THAT was an act of war.

Mad Scientist - Operation Gibralter & Grandslam were act of War, YES/NO ?

Hypothetically speaking, If India Attacks Azad Kashmir, Will that be an act of war, YES/NO ??

India and Pakistan have been involved in regular skirmishes in different locations all over the border and LoC ever since they came into existence. In 1964-65 too there were the Runn of Kuchh skirmishes and some in Kashmir. But it was India who actually put a whole division’s strength on the Lahore Burki area during the night between 5-6 Sep 1965. My Grand father was in the Pakistan Army then and he was there. that very area where India attacked with its full strength in a surprise presumed wipe-out blow, was ironically the very area where they met the heaviest resistance throughout the 17 day long war. The news papers of the day that ppl say present the true picture and negate popular history also state the way Indian generals Arora etc had planned to host a feast at govt college Lahore on the night of 6 sep 1965. They were so confident that they’d meet no resistance that they even provided the BBC with false footage of Indian buses running through Lahore roads which BBC aired for a few hrs but then realizing the absurd mistake took off air. It was the Burki area where Major R. Aziz Bhatti Shaheed was positioned and he played a key role in the defense of Lahore. He was martyred on 10 Sep and later awarded the Nishan-I-Haider. There is no doubt that the Pakistan armed forces taught India quite a lesson and it's wrong to say that the war was won by India. at the end of the war Pakistani forces were more inside indian territory than indian were inside Pakistan. If the defender at the end of the fight has a foot on the attackers chest, which do we call a winner!? India has always been the Goliath and Pakistan will eventually turn out to be David because despite all our internal problems and issues, we have no evil intentions like India.
And sure in modern days the wars are always put to an end on the table among the leaders and not in the battlefield among the solders. It's foolish to say that; "...running out of fuel and its 155 mm howitzers were put on a daily ration of five rounds per gun. The soldier in Ayub knew the game was over and he began to seek a diplomatic solution to the conflict." because if Pakistan was running out of resources at the end of 2 weeks, India would surely have run out of hers if not at the end of 4 weeks then atmost at the end of 6 weeks. Why then wrongly try to adulterate facts and the truth by trying to establish and imply India was winning and that India didn't need a diplomatic solution or that India would have survived.
I dont know the exact date and name of the reporter but I read somewhere that the Time magazine reported in an article in Sep 1965 that the Pakistani forces though a fraction of the Indian, were giving the enemy extraordinary tough resistance. One can't deny that the Pakistani forces and their heroes fought with extreme valour and scared the crap out of the enemy. Even today let no enemy of Pakistan be under the impression that Pakistan is incapable of defending its territory. We have the will and passion to rip every enemy's throat.

Pakistan started war...so what...it has all the right to beat the hell out of Indians....they are occupied forces. And regardless of who won this war.....one thing is for sure...that Indians came to know that Pakistanis have the spirit which hindus lack. Thats why they are working on spying, sattellites and smart war equipments to defeat the enemy without facing him.

PAKISTAN ZINDABAD

:p

http://www.pakalert.net/articles/war_chronology.asp

The link above is a nice web site that gives the details of the India-pak conflict from a Pak point ov View.

That should rest the case for all the guppies.