The Lies in Pakistani History - The Myth Victory of 1965 War

[pir_Rokhan]

Re: The Lies in Pakistani History - The Myth Victory of 1965

@pir-rokhan
i have read some of your posts, it seems you are on some kind of mission. Your main focus is pakistan and its evils. its not a bad idea but let me tell you pakistani pashtuns are fully aware of evils of pakistan but still they consider pakistan their country and are not thinking about independence.

Jodigul: I dont know whether you are Pukhtoon or not however you better talk for yourself. Do not talk on behalf of the whole Pakhtuns. Pashtuns still havent lost "ghairat" to sell their "Pakhto" to your Punjabi masters.

The news of today is that Punjab took actions against Pukhtoons in Lahore. Previoulsy CM Punjab had already asked Taliban not to attack Punjab.[meaning doing whatever they want in other parts of Pakistan specially Pakhtunkhwa sparing punjab]. Sindh govt had already refused to accept the IDP's. Balochistan is already in flames due to the military operations of the occupation forces of Punjab.

So over and above that when these aggressors , occupiers , looters and plunderers find devils's advocate like you and others and that too for free ,imagine how happy they will be. So enjoy the slavedom of Punjab till the Punjabi army gets inside your house and desecrates the sanctity of your home, I opt to raise my voice of rebellion and freedom against injustice and oppression in your beloved country. And please do whatever you can to save this Punjabi empire. I am on the opposite side till my last breath.

[Dinosaur Khan]

Re: The Lies in Pakistani History - The Myth Victory of 1965

^I already know that

Balach independence movement is clear and directional.

while pashtuns are stagnant and are not motivated to have a separate country. Those pashtuns who have taken arms against governament are ones known as talibans are also not interested in pashtunism, they want change within country of pakistan.
similarly many pashtuns r joining tabligh. evem ANP is not anti-pakistani.
dont u think people like u r failing?

[pir_Rokhan]

^I already know that

Baluch independence movement is clear and directional.
While Pashtuns are stagnant and are not motivated to have a separate country. Those Pashtuns who have taken arms against government are ones known as Talibans are also not interested in pashtunism; they want change within country of Pakistan.
Similarly many Pashtuns r joining tabligh. Even ANP is not anti-Pakistani.
Dont u think people like u r failing?

Well if Pakistan assures respect ,autonomy,united province for Pashtuns,preservation of pashtun culture,heritage,development in the pashtun areas and respectable treatment to Pashtuns then I do not have any problem with Pakistan. Anyway it was a part of Afghanistan in the past.Secondly the only ethnic group which has visible and credible presence in the whole Pakistan is no other than Pashtuns, be it in Sind, Balochistan , Punjab or Kashmir.No other nationality is prevalent all over Pakistan.
so my intention is to raise a voice for the rights of Pakhtuns, if its within Pakistan then no problem but its conditional.

Unfortunately the state power structure, the history, the polices and the institutions in Pakistan show us that it does not seem to be possible. And more than Pashtuns,Baloch and Sindhi freedom fighters, Pakistan’s military - being the most corrupt institution and Taliban (an ex-ISI terrorist wing), are responsible for the future balkanisation of Pakisatn.

So for Pashtuns and other oppressd nations in Pakistan ,it is like when your enemy is desperate about committing suicide you don’t disturb your enemy.Pashtuns are peaceful,secular ,anti secatarian people.The religosity in Pashtuns is a concocted phenomenon to use their might against foreign invaders due to their freedom loving nature.The military ,which is meant for this purpose,is more into power politics ,making real estate and encouraging sectarianism than dafegaurding the country.

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

Well if Pakistan assures the respect,autonomy,united province for Pashtuns,cutlure,heritage,development and respectable treatment to Pashtuns then I do not have any problem with Pakistan. Anyway it was a part of Afghanistan in the past.Secondly the only ethnic group which has visible and credible presence in no other than Pashtuns be it in Sind, Balochistan or Punjab or Kashmir.

That sounds very logical. For that, the following are mandatory:

• - All the Pashtun areas of Pakistan ('NWFP,' 'FATA' and north Balochistan) should be merged into a single province called Pashtunkhwa, Afghania or whatever name the inhabitants prefer.
  
  
• - Pashto should be made the official language of that said province.
  
  
• - Pashto should be taught in schools, it should be the language of our courts and signboards (govt. and non-govt.) should be in Pashto, English and Urdu. Pashto should also be made one of the languages in which university-level exams can be taken.
  
  
• - Our heroes (Bachaa Khan, Khushal Khan, Wali Khan, etc) must not be maligned in our history books.
  
  
• - Pashto literature, movies, plays, etc should be promoted at the provincial level at the very least.
  
  
• - There should be a public holiday once a year dedicated to Pashtun culture and heritage.
  
  
• - Pashtuns should get their due share of resources especially considering that they provide the whole country with electricity.
  
  
• - Pashtuns should have complete provincial autonomy.
  
  
• - Pashtuns should have the option of deciding the destiny of their province.
  

And there are more that don't come to my mind right now....

[Indian tiger]

Hi,

This is from a neutral source, Also Chuck Yeagers, if you already dont know is the greatest among the world war 2 heroes, was the first person to break the sound barrier and is one of the most respected pilots of modern aviation history

Gen. Chuck Yeagers (yes, the one who broke the sound barrier), who 'refereed' the 1971 war and flew up and down the region collecting wreckage of IAF aircraft shot down by the PAF. One of the greatest pilots of all times, Here is what he says in his autobiography,

"the Pakistanis scored a three-to-one kill ratio knocking out 102 Indian jets and losing 34 of their own. I am certain about the figures because I went out several times a day in a chopper and counted the wrecks below. I counted wrecks, documented them by serial numbers, identified the components such as engines and rocket pods"


USA - Aviation week & space technology - December 1968 issue.

"For the PAF, the 1965 war was as climatic as the Israeli victory over the Arabs in 1967. A further similarity was that Indian air power had an approximately 5:1 numerical superiority at the start of the conflict. Unlike the Middle East conflict, the Pakistani air victory was achieved to a large degree by air-to-air combat rather than on ground. But it was as absolute as that attained by Israel."

UK - Air International - November - 1991

" the average PAF pilot is almost certainly possessed of superior skills when compared with, say, an average American pilot. As to those who are rated above average, they compare favourably to the very best "

Encyclopaedia of Aircraft printed in several countries by Orbis publications - Volume 5

"Pakistan's air force gained a remarkable victory over India in this brief 22 day war exploiting its opponents weaknesses in exemplary style - Deeply shaken by reverse, India began an extensive modernisation and training program, meanwhile covering its defeat with effective propaganda smoke screen."
Let me tell you that you are definitely not the brightest Pakistani around.

Check the following

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.

TIME magazine reported that India held 690 mi2 of Pakistan territory while Pakistan held 250 mi2 of Indian territory in Kashmir and Rajasthan. Additionally, Pakistan had lost almost half its armour temporarily. The same article stated that -
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.

Devin T. Hagerty wrote in his book "South Asia in world politics" –
The invading Indian forces outfought their Pakistani counterparts and halted their attack on the outskirts of Lahore, Pakistan's second-largest city. By the time United Nations intervened on September 22, Pakistan had suffered a clear defeat.

In his book "National identity and geopolitical visions", Gertjan Dijkink writes –
The superior Indian forces, however, won a decisive victory and the army could have even marched on into Pakistani territory had external pressure not forced both combatants to cease their war efforts.

An excerpt from Stanley Wolpert's India,summarizing the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, is as follows:
In three weeks the second Indo-Pak 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.

In his book titled The greater game: India's race with destiny and China, David Van Praagh wrote–
India won the war. It gained 1,840 square kilometers of Pakistani territory: 640 square kilometers in Azad Kashmir, Pakistan's portion of the state; 460 square kilometers of the Sailkot sector; 380 square kilometers far to the south of Sindh; and most critical, 360 square kilometers on the Lahore front. Pakistan took 540 square kilometers of Indian territory: 490 square kilometers in the Chhamb sector and 50 square kilometers around Khem Karan.

Dennis Kux's "India and the United States estranged democracies" also provides a summary of the war.
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.

"A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947" by Robert Johnson mentions –
India's strategic aims were modest – it aimed to deny Pakistani Army victory, although it ended up in possession of 720 square miles of Pakistani territory for the loss of just 220 of its own.

An excerpt from William M. Carpenter and David G. Wiencek's "Asian security handbook: terrorism and the new security environment" –
A brief but furious 1965 war with India began with a covert Pakistani thrust across the Kashmiri cease-fire line and ended up with the city of Lahore threatened with encirclement by Indian Army. Another UN-sponsored cease-fire left borders unchanged, but Pakistan's vulnerability had again been exposed.

English historian John Keay's "India: A History" provides a summary of the 1965 war –
The 1965 Indo-Pak war lasted barely a month. Pakistan made gains in the Rajasthan desert but its main push against India's Jammu-Srinagar road link was repulsed and Indian tanks advanced to within a sight of Lahore. Both sides claimed victory but India had most to celebrate.

Uk Heo and Shale Asher Horowitz write in their book "Conflict in Asia: Korea, China-Taiwan, and India-Pakistan"–
Again India appeared, logistically at least, to be in a superior position but neither side was able to mobilize enough strength to gain a decisive victory.


BTW, Chuck Yeager was the drinking partner of your Yahya Khan and he was commenting on the 71 war as he was the defence attache of Washington at Islamabad during that period. His own plane was blown to bits by an Indian Navy pilot who was posted with the Indian Air Force then. He would later become the Chief of Indian Navy. He even guided PAF war planners and according to his own colleague, took part in the operations too. Link to that article is below and it's written by a fellow American diplomat who served with him and was his superior at Islamabad. Chuck Yeager also said that he individually counted the wreckage of each and every plane. He was also interrogating IAF pilots shot down over Pakistan.

The right stuff in the wrong place - Chuck Yeager's crash landing in Pakistan

The right stuff in the wrong place - Chuck Yeager's crash landing in Pakistan | Washington Monthly | Find Articles at BNET

Pakistan lost more men and materials than India did. It launched 1965 to capture Kashmir. It failed. That's why Kashmir is still with India. Your objectives were not met and you lost. 1965, 1971, 1999, 1984 (Siachen) - India won every conflict and it always will, no matter whether we drink cow piss and you guys keep dousing yourselves in Camel dung and mullah chants.

[pir_Rokhan]

Despite all these claims, Pakistan lost the 1965 war [and all others].

You are a supporter of Punjabi occupation and army totalitarian rule in Pakistan and now you are using another fake id . You have been doing this dirty job with multiple ids for example Credere, Talal , and now as Indian_Tiger.

Let me give you a reference of authentic marterial writen by an ex army person himself to know the reality of fake history with which Punjabis elite has been polluting the minds of the youth to maintain their military empire.


India Pakistan Wars-1947 to 1971-A Strategic and Operational Analysis
ISBN No - 978-0-557-51984-2

[Indian tiger]

For Pir Rokhan

Dear Pir,

This is Indian Tiger. This is the first time I have logged in and if you read my post correctly, it will show you I have tried to prove that Pakistan did not actually win the war. I am Indian, get my IP checked. I am writing from New Delhi. Well not exactly Delhi proper but Noida, a suburb. And it hurts me when some one calls me anything but an Indian but specially if some one calls me Pakistani.

I quoted Dinosaur Khan but I don't know how to put the quote mark. So it reads like his post at the beginning. You should read from where it says:
"You are definitely not the brightest Pakistani around...


Here is another link that shows how Pakistan fudged even the 1965 Air War.

IAF defeated PAF in 1965 War

In truth, we have beaten them in every conflict.

1965, they tried to take Kashmir. It is still with us.

1971, they tried to **** with us again. So we split them into two and took the highest number of prisoners since World War II- 93,000.

1984 - We led an airborne commando operation and took the entire Siachen Glacier.

1988 - Pakistani SSG (special forces), led by Musharraf personally, tried to take Siachen. Our regulars were good enough to beat the **** out of them and capture some of the lower posts too. We hold them till date.

1999 - They ****ed with us in Kargil and when we started pounding the **** out of them, they ran back. Even refused to accept bodies. Indian Muslim soldiers buried more than 250 Pakistani soldiers with full military and religious honour.

We will **** them every time they mess with us. They know this. That is why India has a no first use policy for nukes but they openly say that they can nuke us if they are cornered or defeated in a conventional war.

Hope this clarifies

best
Tathagata (This is my name, it's one of the names of Lord Buddhha, founder of Buddhism)

[Indian tiger]

Reply to Dinosaur Khan

PIR, IF YOU READ THIS, THIS IS WHERE MY POST STARTS FROM. I AM PASTING IT HERE AGAIN.

Let me tell you that you are definitely not the brightest Pakistani around.

Check the following

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.

TIME magazine reported that India held 690 mi2 of Pakistan territory while Pakistan held 250 mi2 of Indian territory in Kashmir and Rajasthan. Additionally, Pakistan had lost almost half its armour temporarily. The same article stated that -
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.

Devin T. Hagerty wrote in his book "South Asia in world politics" –
The invading Indian forces outfought their Pakistani counterparts and halted their attack on the outskirts of Lahore, Pakistan's second-largest city. By the time United Nations intervened on September 22, Pakistan had suffered a clear defeat.

In his book "National identity and geopolitical visions", Gertjan Dijkink writes –
The superior Indian forces, however, won a decisive victory and the army could have even marched on into Pakistani territory had external pressure not forced both combatants to cease their war efforts.

An excerpt from Stanley Wolpert's India,summarizing the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, is as follows:
In three weeks the second Indo-Pak 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.

In his book titled The greater game: India's race with destiny and China, David Van Praagh wrote–
India won the war. It gained 1,840 square kilometers of Pakistani territory: 640 square kilometers in Azad Kashmir, Pakistan's portion of the state; 460 square kilometers of the Sailkot sector; 380 square kilometers far to the south of Sindh; and most critical, 360 square kilometers on the Lahore front. Pakistan took 540 square kilometers of Indian territory: 490 square kilometers in the Chhamb sector and 50 square kilometers around Khem Karan.

Dennis Kux's "India and the United States estranged democracies" also provides a summary of the war.
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.

"A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947" by Robert Johnson mentions –
India's strategic aims were modest – it aimed to deny Pakistani Army victory, although it ended up in possession of 720 square miles of Pakistani territory for the loss of just 220 of its own.

An excerpt from William M. Carpenter and David G. Wiencek's "Asian security handbook: terrorism and the new security environment" –
A brief but furious 1965 war with India began with a covert Pakistani thrust across the Kashmiri cease-fire line and ended up with the city of Lahore threatened with encirclement by Indian Army. Another UN-sponsored cease-fire left borders unchanged, but Pakistan's vulnerability had again been exposed.

English historian John Keay's "India: A History" provides a summary of the 1965 war –
The 1965 Indo-Pak war lasted barely a month. Pakistan made gains in the Rajasthan desert but its main push against India's Jammu-Srinagar road link was repulsed and Indian tanks advanced to within a sight of Lahore. Both sides claimed victory but India had most to celebrate.

Uk Heo and Shale Asher Horowitz write in their book "Conflict in Asia: Korea, China-Taiwan, and India-Pakistan"–
Again India appeared, logistically at least, to be in a superior position but neither side was able to mobilize enough strength to gain a decisive victory.


BTW, Chuck Yeager was the drinking partner of your Yahya Khan and he was commenting on the 71 war as he was the defence attache of Washington at Islamabad during that period. His own plane was blown to bits by an Indian Navy pilot who was posted with the Indian Air Force then. He would later become the Chief of Indian Navy. He even guided PAF war planners and according to his own colleague, took part in the operations too. Link to that article is below and it's written by a fellow American diplomat who served with him and was his superior at Islamabad. Chuck Yeager also said that he individually counted the wreckage of each and every plane. He was also interrogating IAF pilots shot down over Pakistan.

The right stuff in the wrong place - Chuck Yeager's crash landing in Pakistan

The right stuff in the wrong place - Chuck Yeager's crash landing in Pakistan | Washington Monthly | Find Articles at BNET

Pakistan lost more men and materials than India did. It launched 1965 to capture Kashmir. It failed. That's why Kashmir is still with India. Your objectives were not met and you lost. 1965, 1971, 1999, 1984 (Siachen) - India won every conflict and it always will, no matter whether we drink cow piss and you guys keep dousing yourselves in Camel dung and mullah chants.

[pir_Rokhan]

Dear Pir,

This is Indian Tiger. This is the first time I have logged in and if you read my post correctly, it will show you I have tried to prove that Pakistan did not actually win the war. I am Indian, get my IP checked. I am writing from New Delhi. Well not exactly Delhi proper but Noida, a suburb. And it hurts me when some one calls me anything but an Indian but specially if some one calls me Pakistani.--------

Pakistan lost more men and materials than India did. It launched 1965 to capture Kashmir. It failed. That's why Kashmir is still with India. Your objectives were not met and you lost. 1965, 1971, 1999, 1984 (Siachen) - India won every conflict and it always will, no matter whether we drink cow piss and you guys keep dousing yourselves in Camel dung and mullah chants.

Indian Tiger
I corroborate your point of view fully. I have been saying this since long to the Pakistanis. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Contrary to Pakistanis, I trust Indians due to their professional dedication.

By the way, welcome to Afghan community.

Dinosaur Khan [Luffy] is a Pashtun with inclinations towards Pakistanism [unfortunately]. I let him [and a few others] beat his drum. Time will teach everyone the bitter truth.

[pir_Rokhan]

During 20 plus years of my life I didnt hear any voice of separation from Pakistan in Pashtun dominated areas.Even the taliban were aiming to implement their brand of Shariah, they were not seeking separation, they wanted to take over the whole of Pakistan.

You did not hear it but be assured you will "see" it in the future.

Taliban were and are a blackmailing tool used by the Pakistani ISI for the west in order to milk it and for the India to put [atificial] pressure over her. Taking over Pakistan was and is not their job. Yes they will "disturb" the whole Pakistan as the fission reaction seems to be out of control.

[Michin Khel]

I am sorry for my comments as dinosaur....lag malomato kami wa

[KhalsaWarrior]

Well actually the 1965 war was kind of a draw. India did manage to gain the upper hand after being taken in surprise by Op. Gibraltar but it wasnt a decisive victory. It was opportunity lost by both sides.

[Indian tiger]

To Khalsawarrior, Pir and Luffy

Hi there,

Yes, 1965 was not a decisive victory but in war victors and losers are often determined by whether the aggressor was able to fulfill his/her objectives. In Vietnam, US lost 58,000 lives, the Viet Cong lost millions but still the US lost. Ditto in Afghanistan viz-a-viz the Soviets. Pak launched Gibraltar to take control of Kashmir. It failed in its objective. Today's LOC is the same as pre-1965 Ceasefire Line as it was called then.

Luffy, I might be Indian but I am ready to acknowledge our govt's shortcomings. We have been not transparent on many issues but even your own govt has muddied the waters. Your govt created a national security state and that is responsible for today's situation. Islamabad sold itself to the highest bidder soon after independence and the US bought you out. Today, you are dependent on them for everything. Your govt first thought they would take Kashmir by war fought with superior arms from the US. Yes, superior arms. Your air force had radars in 1965, we had none and depended on manual spotting. It failed and in the process Pakistan got mauled. Then you created the policy of bleeding India by inflicting thousand cuts. Your govt thought that will drain both Indian economy and willpower. It has failed too and today, in Kashmir Valley, you find no Kashmiri militants. All the groups LeT, JuM are Pak Punjabi fighter-infested. So were the men who attacked Mumbai. India became economically reliant from its first day and created the NAM movement. We made sure that we did not have to depend on anyone for steel, cement, fertiliser and other pillar essentials. When Bhutto came to power, he realised that Nehru, Indira and Nasser of Egypt left very little space for Bhutto to claim leadership status. Pak was viewed as a client state of the US where as we had an independent foreign policy even though we were allies of the Soviet Union. In terms of our defence, we were naive till 1962, when China gave us a rude awakening. Our Ordnance factories used to manufacture kettles and cloth hangars then. But we shaped up quickly and today, have one of the most battle-hardened, best trained and mobile fighting
forces under the Sun. And till date, we have one of the best hardball foreign policy specialists in the world. I will give you an example. During Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush begged us to send our troops who were more hardened, trained and suited for desert and mountain warfare. They asked for division size deployments in fighting roles. We gave them nothing but still got the Nuke deal through.

Your govt is fighting for the US and getting paid for it. More shame today it is fighting its own people and letting the US bomb its territory. All these Taliban elements, like the Jehadi terror groups in Kashmir, were propped up by ISI. Your Army Chief Qayani still treats them as "strategic assets" in his own words. Your govt and Army have divergent interests and threat perceptions.
The Pak Army is happy that the US is still giving them arms that they can use against India. However, what your country needs is economic development so that youths get jobs and don't fall prey to terror propaganda in the name of Holy Jehad. In your country, nearly all resources from industries, factories and real estate are owned by the Army. Your retired generals have multi-million dollar apartments in London where as our retired generals live in two-bedroom flats and drive basic Suzuki cars. Your media is vitriolic, I can give you five Pak TV channel links which talk openly about nuking India. In India, channels can't dream of making such irresponsible statements.

We also have problems. We have a small group of Hindu fundamentalists too. But they can only dream of coming to power. They don't even constitute 0.5 per cent of our people. Our bigger problem is poverty, under-development, disease eradication, spreading healthcare and education etc. These are the same problems Pakistanis and for that matter Afghans face. We must work together for peace, development and a safe neighbourhood for our children to grow up. Let the White Race not decide our fate and lead us to war. Look at them. France and Germany fought so many bloody battles in their Alsace-Lorraine. Today, it is an unmanned border and you can't even see a sentry. It took them the horrors of World War II to realise that fighting does not help. let's not pass through the same test. Let's unite: Indians, Pakistanis, Afghans, Chinese, Bangladeshis, Nepalese, all people of the East, Africans, Latinos and claim our rightful place of dignity in this world. I am a writer and I write frequently in India and abroad to make an impact. We can all do our bit by talking to people. We have many religions but we all bleed red and have the same composition.
The only way we can make things happen if we are patriots and not nationalists.

take care and best

Tathagata