Myth about winning 1965 War

[Med911]

Re: Myth about winning 1965 War

Seperated from West Pakistan??? You do realise East Pakistan was 'home ground'??

Before the war Army said they will fight to the end, never surrender.....and then they surrendered. A lot of excuses don't justify their performance.

How did it 'withstand the assault'?? they surrendered!

PAF has always been professional and is respected internationally. The same cannot be said for Pak Army.

East Pakistan was no longer home ground. The Pak Army was surrounded by a hostile civilian population, armed rebels, and the Indian Army on all sides. At that point, you essentially had Pakistan Army fighting in a foreign territory.

All armies and all nations say they will fight to the end and never surrender. There has never in the history of humanity, ever been an army or a nation that said we will only fight until we can and then we will surrender. Name me one nation that has ever said they are fighting to surrender.

I dont see how you can in all sincerity, not understand the circumstances faced by the Pak Army in what was then East Pakistan. Just look at a map for god sakes. Where would they even retreat too if the had to? Could the Pakistan Air Force have given them air cover? Could the Navy have played a role? They cant look to Bengalis for support obviously... I boggles the mind, that someone could fault the Pak Army for its defeat considering all the problems that were at hand. And should the entire Army have commited themsevles to fighting to death? Why? It would have been suicide. The supply chains were already overstretched, and they obviously have no reinforcements on the way.. The govt in West Pakistan is obviously going to have to contend with the possibility of the Indians attack on the Western border, so they have to retain enough troops there..

Really, I think its a ridiculous to use 1971 as a benchmark for the quality of the Pakistan forces. It was not a fair fight by any means. Indians would have done the same had they faced the same situation.

Im talking about 1965, where we actually had the capacity to defend ourselves and weren't surrounded. You do realize that the Pak Army repulsed much of the Indian advances into West Pakistan, even taking Indian territory in the process...

Im sure if we dug deep enough we could find reason to criticize the PAF as well. We just like to critisize the Army because its in the forefront and its the most visible and most vocal...

[Med911]

Re: Myth about winning 1965 War

@phoenixdesi

sarkar, his last paragraph was in reference to 65 war not 71 … hence “withstood the assault”

Thanks for pointing that out… Someone here seems to have a real chip on their shoulder in regards to the Pak Army.

[Med911]

Re: Myth about winning 1965 War

Ok, my mistake. My posts refer to the 71 war where Pak Army got trounced.

This is a simple fact.

There are facts behind the facts... Would you consider it a fair fight if you had to fight a boxer blindfolded and one hand tied behind your back? And when they say you were "trounced," would that fight be a fair assesment of your boxing ability in general ?

[Sachaydino]

Re: Myth about winning 1965 War

Sach, operations Gibraltar and Grand Slam were tactically flawed (which no one should question based on India's response). However, the response was met with a stiff resistance from our side with an unmatched unity and fervor. We stood up to aggression to an enemy which outnumbered us heavily. Some of the hallmarks of the war were Operation Dhwarka, the heroics of PNS Ghazi (kali devi as the indians called it), MM Alam's records or the famous tank battle of Chawinda (largest tank battle since WW2 in which Pakistan put forth a graveyard of Indian tanks). Yes, the economic factor played in and the war drained both countries but at least we preserved our existence in the face of an enemy that was meant to capture at least one of our primary cities. I would count that as a victory in my books for the good guys (us) :) A big salute to our soldiers who laid down their lives, the ones that survived to tell the tales of glory and the unmatched support and morale of the civilians during this time.

I agree what you are saying, I was the witness of this war. That's not I am talking about. Who started the war, why and what was achieved? Nothing but Pakistan lost best men in the war, economy went down the drain never recovered to such state and it paved way to another war which was disastrous for Pakistan. Pakistan did not achieve anything from this war was the major point in the argument, in the end Pakistan was a loser. Generals who planned 'Operation Gibraltar " was faulty without doing any homework particularly when people of Kashmir were not ready for such action and those generals underestimated India then.

[Sachaydino]

Re: Myth about winning 1965 War

@Med911

East Pakistan was no longer home ground. The Pak Army was surrounded by a hostile civilian population, armed rebels, and the Indian Army on all sides. At that point, you essentially had Pakistan Army fighting in a foreign territory.

In 1965 the same people whom you are considering the hostile civilian population were supporting Pakistan army. What happened after 6 hears, that the same people became hostile. Just read the history. Anyway Pakis are experts in distorting the facts, is main point in the news article at post #1](http://www.paklinks.com/gs/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1) .

[Sachaydino]

Re: Myth about winning 1965 War

The traitorous souls like you can only dream! The dastards Taliban and BLA terrorists are getting what they deserve, your kind is more than welcome to taste the same medicine. Try separating an inch from Pakistan.

India wanted to claim Lahore and Sialkot in 1965, not Bangladesh, so explain how exactly Pakistan lost the war terribly when Indian General's dream of having breakfast in Lahore was blown up in the air?

It is very difficult to accept decency from a nut case. India did not want Lahore or Sialkot or any part of Pakistan. It was always Pakis who surrender and give more than half of Pakistan to India in a tray. :)

[Doppleganger]

Re: Myth about winning 1965 War

People forget pattonagar from the same war that had Chawinda. it was a draw with everyone going back to ceasefire line, so move along chauvinists. There is internet out there for the unbiased.

I would consisder the 47-48 war a 'win' since india had the military advantage, yet Pakistan still kept azad kashmir even if poonch and srinagar were not taken in the end.

Gilgit area Scouts revolted on their own and that region also asked to merge with pakistan after few months of independence.

Now that is victory!!!

[Med911]

Re: Myth about winning 1965 War

@Sachaydino

In 1965 the same people whom you are considering the hostile civilian population were supporting Pakistan army. What happened after 6 hears, that the same people became hostile. Just read the history. Anyway Pakis are experts in distorting the facts, is main point in the news article at post #1](http://www.paklinks.com/gs/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1) .

I dont know what happened. But whatever did happen, wasn’t auspicious for the country or the Army.

1971, the Bengalis WERE hostile toward the country. The majority were at least, whatever the reason was. That is a fact I think. If that werent the case, there would still be an East Pakistan today.

Im not trying to distort anything here. I cant distort Geographical facts. East Pakistan’s only border is with India and the sea. East Pakistan is separated from West Pakistan by over a thousand miles of India.

Note: Im talking specifically about the loss in 1971, not what Pakistan did or did not do that caused the situation to arise in the first place. Just specifically to the military loss in and of itself.

Honest self-reflection is important and admirable I think, but sometimes your assessment of yourself can be sympathetic to your own side without being dishonest or disingenuous. Clearly Pakistan lost in 1971, but again, given the circumstances, we cannot attribute the loss to lack of fighting capacity or use it as a benchmark by which to judge the Pak Army.

[Med911]

Re: Myth about winning 1965 War

It is very difficult to accept decency from a nut case. India did not want Lahore or Sialkot or any part of Pakistan. It was always Pakis who surrender and give more than half of Pakistan to India in a tray. :)

Obviously they didn't want to keep Lahore or Sialkot. Americans didnt want to keep Baghdad or Kabul, but that wasnt the point. Indians obviously wanted something, otherwise they wouldn't have sent their soldiers across the border towards these cities. I dont think all those armed soldiers and tanks were sent over the border for lunch in some Lahori restaurant.

And clearly the Pakistanis didnt simply give it to them as you claim they always do, otherwise the Indians wouldnt have been forced to retreat.

And again 1971, i dont think they had choice but to surrender. There were no reinforcements, supply lines were cut, there was no place to retreat to... Unless you expect all those soldiers to sacrifice their life for a territory which they by then had clearly lost, there is no point in continuing the fight.

[boota]

Re: Myth about winning 1965 War

I agree what you are saying, I was the witness of this war. That's not I am talking about. Who started the war, why and what was achieved? Nothing but Pakistan lost best men in the war, economy went down the drain never recovered to such state and it paved way to another war which was disastrous for Pakistan. Pakistan did not achieve anything from this war was the major point in the argument, in the end Pakistan was a loser. Generals who planned 'Operation Gibraltar " was faulty without doing any homework particularly when people of Kashmir were not ready for such action and those generals underestimated India then.

I wasn't there when it happened. but could you discuss who instigated this war? who were the planners of this operation gibralter? who got assurances from US that india won't cross the borders? who sent a cipherd messages through turkish embassy that india was preparing an attack on 6th. who didn't bother to inform the concerned parties about the message?

and above all is it all true? or just made up stories?

[jasos]

Re: Myth about winning 1965 War

@Sachaydino

It is very difficult to accept decency from a nut case. India did not want Lahore or Sialkot or any part of Pakistan. It was always Pakis who surrender and give more than half of Pakistan to India in a tray.

u k india main poodeenay k bagh hotey thay jin ki muhabat mein u kia say kia ho giay :cobra:

waisey u k bay ghairat bhuto ka buhat bara hath tha is tray mein aor woh punjabi naheen tha

waisey u jitni bhi angrizi bolo rahna tum nay paki he hay angraiz nahen ban jao gey

#katha_angraiz](http://www.paklinks.com/gs/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=katha_angraiz)

[Sachaydino]

Re: Myth about winning 1965 War

@jasos

waisey u k bay ghairat bhuto ka buhat bara hath tha is tray mein aor woh punjabi naheen tha

u ki khoprhri m sirf Bhutto gussa howa hay. jin gernelon ne yeh karnama kar dekhaya yo ki khorhri se woh bahir hain. zara yo ki khoprhi par kuch dhaday bharsao ke kuch yaad aaiay

[Jolie]

Re: Myth about winning 1965 War

It is very difficult to accept decency from a nut case. India did not want Lahore or Sialkot or any part of Pakistan. It was always Pakis who surrender and give more than half of Pakistan to India in a tray. :)

You are just being stupidly stubborn and everyone can see that. 1965 is the discussion point here but you keep harking about 1971 war because you have nothing else to back up your point. You are a typical Army hating Jiyala who is obsessed with lying to with pin 1971 war defeat on Army because it helps dilute the role of ZAB in bringing the war.

If Indians never wanted Lahore then why did they send their Army there? Why did they open up another front at Chawinda and Sialkot? Yes to distract Pak Army and isolate Lahore.

If Pak Army was so weak and useless, what stopped India Army from capturing Lahore and imposing a 'terrible defeat' you are dreaming about.?

1965 will always be remembered as battle of Lahore. It was the symbol of Pakistan.

[ehsan]

Re: Myth about winning 1965 War

It is very difficult to accept decency from a nut case.** India did not want Lahore or Sialkot or any part of Pakistan**. It was always Pakis who surrender and give more than half of Pakistan to India in a tray. :)

Yeah right they just crossed the border to see Shalimar gardens in Lahore and return to their own border after a day out in Lahore. Also by mistake their tanks headed towards Sialkot in their hundreds when they actually were going to a repair shop near the border for the six monthly service. You are quite right.

[Jolie]

Re: Myth about winning 1965 War

People forget pattonagar from the same war that had Chawinda. it was a draw with everyone going back to ceasefire line, so move along chauvinists. There is internet out there for the unbiased.

I would consisder the 47-48 war a 'win' since india had the military advantage, yet Pakistan still kept azad kashmir even if poonch and srinagar were not taken in the end.

Gilgit area Scouts revolted on their own and that region also asked to merge with pakistan after few months of independence.

Now that is victory!!!

The most neutral consensus had always been that war was a draw, with Pakistani side claiming moral victory for successfully defending itself against a much powerful enemy.

Now suddenly we have a breed of trolls who suddenly want to call 1965 a 'terrible defeat'. Yes, 1971 was a terrible defeat because you lost a chunk of your country but how was 1965 was a defeat when Indians failed to achieve their objectives of capture your key city?

Take a trip down the Indo-Punjab border, and are you telling me if Pak Army was so weak and useless, and India being 7xs their size, they would not have captured all those villages and towns if they so could?

[Shak]

Re: Myth about winning 1965 War

The most neutral consensus had always been that war was a draw, with Pakistani side claiming moral victory for successfully defending itself against a much powerful enemy.

Now suddenly we have a breed of trolls who suddenly want to call 1965 a 'terrible defeat'. Yes, 1971 was a terrible defeat because you lost a chunk of your country but how was 1965 was a defeat when Indians failed to achieve their objectives of capture your key city?

Take a trip down the Indo-Punjab border, and are you telling me if Pak Army was so weak and useless, and India being 7xs their size, they would not have captured all those villages and towns if they so could?

Apnay log hee hamari izat pe thookthay hain no wonder noone respects us internationally when we ourselves are hell bent on stripping away pride from ourselves or demonising the sacrifices made by our brave soldiers.

[kchughtai]

Re: Myth about winning 1965 War

wasn't it ZAB's public stance post Tashkent Declaration that a war won in battlefield was lost on the table?

[mo293]

Re: Myth about winning 1965 War

You are just being stupidly stubborn and everyone can see that. 1965 is the discussion point here but you keep harking about 1971 war because you have nothing else to back up your point. You are a typical Army hating Jiyala who is obsessed with lying to with pin 1971 war defeat on Army because it helps dilute the role of ZAB in bringing the war.

If Indians never wanted Lahore then why did they send their Army there? Why did they open up another front at Chawinda and Sialkot? Yes to distract Pak Army and isolate Lahore.

If Pak Army was so weak and useless, what stopped India Army from capturing Lahore and imposing a 'terrible defeat' you are dreaming about.?

1965 will always be remembered as battle of Lahore. It was the symbol of Pakistan.

Bhai whom are you trying to reason with ???

[Doppleganger]

Re: Myth about winning 1965 War

The most neutral consensus had always been that war was a draw, with Pakistani side claiming moral victory for successfully defending itself against a much powerful enemy.

Now suddenly we have a breed of trolls who suddenly want to call 1965 a 'terrible defeat'. Yes, 1971 was a terrible defeat because you lost a chunk of your country but how was 1965 was a defeat when Indians failed to achieve their objectives of capture your key city?

Take a trip down the Indo-Punjab border, and are you telling me if Pak Army was so weak and useless, and India being 7xs their size, they would not have captured all those villages and towns if they so could?

Well, Indians didn't know the "love" of US for Pakistan. From what I have read which could be wrong as well, Pakistan had used up 80% of their weapons while India had 80% still in reserve. If only india knew and prolonged the war, the war would have ended in Pakistan and I don't know if Pakistanis in cities were too fond of urban warfare. Pakistan didn't have the extensive canal network then that it did make (lesson of 1965) so now a pattonagar would be arjunagar if India crossed into Pakistan. Of course, tactical nukes and ballistic missiles have cooled down any real action.

[Doppleganger]

Re: Myth about winning 1965 War

In 1965, it was close to 70-80% (erring on the later) when it came to punjabis in army, so lets not be all chawal and quote 2007 statistics.

The "thigna" bengalis finally got a East Bengal Regiment that was actually bengali by 1969-70? but that was too little too late and it probably was detrimental when they eloped with pakistani weaknesses in air defense and army positions to india in 1971.