Re: Myth about winning 1965 War
No. The crap and lies taught to young generation about the history has really **** up Pakistan. Why Pakis could not become one nation because of the lies and betrayal by the dictators.
Pakistan was then cut-off from the world even China refused to help. According to following report Pakistan suffered heavy loses and India took more than double of of the Pakistani territory. Pakistan lost half of the armor in this war with in a few weeks of war. Book written by an ex ISI general was forfeited by the army to hide the facts from Pakistani public.
Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 - CSS Forums
There have been only a few neutral assessments of the damages of the war, some of the neutral assessments are mentioned below:-
According to the United States Library of Congress Country Studies:
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..[41]**
**TIME magazine analyzing the conflict,[42] reported that India held 690 Mi2 of Pakistan territory while Pakistan held 250 Mi2 of Indian territory in Kashmir and Rajasthan, but had lost half its armour.
Cut off from U.S. and British arms supplies, denied Russian aid, and severely mauled by the larger Indian armed forces, Pakistan could continue the fight only by teaming up with Red China and turning its back on the U.N. … India, by contrast, is still the big gainer in the war. Shastri had united the nation as never before.
**
**An excerpt from Stanley Wolpert’s India,[43] summarizing the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, is as follows:
In three weeks the second IndoPak 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.
**
Dennis Kux’s “India and the United States estranged democracies” also provides a summary of the war.[44]
Although both sides lost heavily in men and materiel, 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.
On September 22, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed a resolution that called for an unconditional ceasefire from both nations. The war ended the following day. The Soviet Union, led by Premier Alexey Kosygin, brokered a ceasefire in Tashkent (now in Uzbekistan), where Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and Pakistani President Ayub Khan signed an agreement to withdraw to pre-August lines no later than February 25, 1966. The ceasefire though, was criticized by many hardliners and laymen alike in Pakistan who, relying solely on official reports and Pakistani media, believed that the leadership had surrendered military gains. Pakistan State’s reports had suggested that their military was performing admirably in the war - which they blamed as being initiated by India - and thus the Tashkent Declaration was seen as having forfeited the gains.[45] Some recent books published by Pakistani authors, including one by ex-ISI chief titled “The Myth of 1965 Victory”,[46] allegedly exposed such Pakistani fabrications about the war, but were bought out by Pakistan Army to prevent its sale because it was “too sensitive”.[47][48]