Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1965/Archive 2

Changes and edits
Added a bit about Battle of Chawinda, the largest battle of the war is not even mentioned.

Also the part about Ist Armoured at Asal Utter has been fixed. The First was clearly defeated at that battle, but it was not "disintergrated" as suggested, it transferred to Chawinda and fought at near full strenght, its arrival was probably the turning point of that battle.

I see it has been reverted again. Idleguy apparently thinks that the battle of Chawinda is not hhistorically correct. Maybe he should tell that to Poona Horse. Also The article mentionsthe ridiculous assertion that Ist Armoured was destroyed. It was not and would transfer to Chawinda sector, where its arrival was the turning point of the battle. The link I gave, which Spartian and Idleguy seem so eagar to delete is a Pakistani link true, but it is one which was critical of the PA handling of said battle, indeed it is labled "A Comedy of High Command Errors".

Reverting to old topic.

I was reading this article, and came to the images halfway through. Their corresponding captions seem to be mislabelled. "Destroyed Patton Tank" - Those are M4 Sherman tanks, not Patton tanks. The M60 Patton tank is very different. I changed the names, but changed them back upon reading "The Indian Army destroyed over 100 Patton Tanks and eventually the place was named Patton Nagar in Pakistan." I think this should be evaluated for truth; the M60 Patton tank was deployed for the first time in Vietnam, and that was in 1965 as well, so I highly doubt the tanks would already have been exported for use by other countries in the same year. I think it should be looked into, maybe? Uncreative 06:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

i think this whole article is a opinionated article.....its obvious that the creator of this article is indian. Pakistan won that war and the indians just cant accept that......we wooped them......they are in denial.......obviously this person is uneducated and believes anything their little india tells him or his mommy. PAKISTAN BEAT YOU.....FACE IT


 * Actually the reverse would be true. Please read sources thoroughly before jumping to conclusions. Idleguy 02:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

and once again its funny how your sources COMPLETELY agree with your "opinions" and "statements"..........


 * Fyi, out of the 12 references listed under "Sources and external links" half (6 nos.) are from Pakistani authors, 3 from neutral publishings and the remaining 3 from Indian sources. In the notes section too, 2 are from Pakistan, 2 from third parties and only 1 from a pro-Indian site.


 * This count proves that a large portion of this article's sources are from Pakistan based authors and yet some continue to dispute the very history of the subcontinent! Idleguy 02:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

VICTORIES!!

one must considerably give credit for victory to pakistan...though it had more damage than india, pakistan managed to defeat an army that crossed in.......as the indians said "we will have morning chai in lahore", which did not happen. india attacked pakistan and pakistan retaliated, even if the war had continued and pakistan might have suffered a loss, lahore would still have NOT been taken....
 * Pakistan initiated the war through Operations Gibralter and Grand Slam in the hopes of wresting Kashmir from India. It did not succeed and instead suffered a counter attack from the Indian army which almost resulted in the loss of its second largest city. Pakistan with an army half the size of India's lost more troops and equipment and felt the pinch of loss more than India did. It is not easy to hypothesize as to who would have won the war had it gone on, but quite clearly the mere fact that Pakistan's one and only ambition in initiating the war remained unattainable should give you a sense of who did or didn't "win" the war. AreJay 03:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Those who fail to learn from history are condemend to repeat it. Instead of analysing the war for all the shortcomings and failures in Pakistan, they chose to portray a censored version of the whole war to their populace, giving perceptions of a so called "victory within grasp" attained by their army only to be "denied by the politicians". The result of such rosy paiting of the past proved costly just half a decade later. How soon we forget the lessons of history. --Idleguy 05:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

no matter such, india started the war by crossing the IB and thus started the war as an invader......pakistan was able to resist an enemy occupation and drew the indians back.......india's failure to accept defeat is just another symbol of its long progressed hypocrisy and denial
 * A total pigheaded unwillingness to look facts in the face may help salvage what is left of the battered ego, but even this didn't help with the two thumping losses that ensued for Pakistan in 1971 and in Kargil. AreJay 02:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Arejay;

1.Pakistan broke India in two peices in 1947 partition,

2. Pakistan Captured 2/5 of Kashmir in 1947/8, a defeat for india

1962 Communist Chines defeat India and take Aksai Chin

3. Nehru accepted a Un mandated Ceasfire in 1965, Stalemate

(Remember this is a stalemate and UN ceasfire that Nehru accepted with a much smaller state with a geographical disadvantage)

4. 1971 Civil war, a defeat for pakistan

5. 1998 6 Nuclear tests match 5 indian tests

6. 1999 Mujahedeen supported by pak capture kargil in indian territory, no pak territory lost,.

All this whilst pakistan is 1/10 the size of india and army 1/2 of india, not mentioning the geographical disadvantage to pakistan, pakistan has defended itself well by all counts, Indians have a totally battered ego, theyve had thier country partitioned, lost kashmir, lost aksai china and shamelessly accepted a ceasefire in 1965 with a much smaller state, as for 1971 lets not overlook the bengali contribution, and kargil? pakistan didnt loose any territory, it was india that lost kargil,


 * Your points have done little but accentuate my earlier point that Pakistan picks and chooses what part of which point it likes to bring to the table while conveniently attemping to hide those things that make it look bad. First, Pakistan didn't break India in two. Pakistan as a country didn't exist...how could it break anyone or anything if it didn't even exist as an entity? How is Pakistan capturing 2/5th of Kashmir a defeat for India? Kashmir was a soverign country when Pakistan invaded it. If Pakistan captured 2/5th of the region, then India captured 3/5ths didn't it?? Yes, India lost the war in 62 to China. What does this even have to do with Pakistan?? Fourth, Nehru didn't accept any mandated ceasefire. He was dead before the war even occured. As for Kargil, Pakistan didn't lose its territory because its prime minister rushed to beg Bill Clinton to broker a ceasefire with India, failing which Pakistan would have been dismembered by India...again. I don't really know what to make of your argument that the Indians have a battered ego...such comments will be met with a derisive chuckle if mentioned to Indians. I don't mind if whole facts are presented, but to present half-truths to promote the same politico-military propaganda makes no sense. However, this is an encyclopedia and not a forum for either you or me to engage in rhetorical bravado. It's best if we just agree to disagree and work to improve the quality of this article and similar articles on Wikipedia. Regards AreJay 00:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"First, Pakistan didn't break India in two. Pakistan as a country didn't exist...how could it break anyone or anything if it didn't even exist as an entity?"

See pakistan in the mind of many indians it still doesnt exist, alot of them like yourself like to burry thier head in the sand and pretend its not there, 'if i cant see it, its not there' kind of logic. Now you are denying the partition, hey thats nice it might might make you feel better and help you sleep better but pakistan was also partitioned in 1971 so they both share something in common? :) Besides last time I checked Pakistan was independent a day before India so one could argue that India was actually partitoned from pakistan.,

"How is Pakistan capturing 2/5th of Kashmir a defeat for India? Kashmir was a soverign country when Pakistan invaded it."

Pakistan only liberated kashmir after a despotic, dictator called harry singh chose acession to india, that accession was contested by pakistan because kashmir went to india on the basis of one man, not very democratic eh? So only after this did pakistan go into kashmir thus legally if Indians have faith in this 'acession' it was legally indian territory which pakistan took 2/5 away from india, So either the accession was false and Indians say it was false, or they say that it was legal and legimitimate and admit they lost 2/5 of kashmir to little pakistan, afterall why does india call azad kashmir, pakistan occupied kashmir? we must be occupying/liberating whatever you believe should have ALL been your piece of land,

"If Pakistan captured 2/5th of the region, then India captured 3/5ths didn't it??"

yes you got 3/5 of what legally if you believe that accession of harry singh should ALL IE 5/5 be part of India, so you lost 2/5 of land, ie 5/5 (entire kashmir) - 2/5 (azad kashmir) = 3/5 Indian kashmir get it? YOU LOST 2/5 of kashmir,. Ie the area you call Pakistan occupied kashmir.,

"Yes, India lost the war in 62 to China."

Thats real big of you to admit it.

"Fourth, Nehru didn't accept any mandated ceasefire. He was dead before the war even occured."

Sorry my mistake, it wasnt nehru, but still India accepted a un mandated ceasefire with a smaller country with half the army of india and at a geographical disadvantage, its like Russia signing a UN mandatated ceasefire with belarus after a war and agree to ceasefire, quite embarrasing for a country that had an advantage in conventional military wont you agree?

"As for Kargil, Pakistan didn't lose its territory because its prime minister rushed to beg Bill Clinton to broker a ceasefire with India, failing which Pakistan would have been dismembered by India...again."

Stick to facts please, Kargil is on Indian side of LOC, no missions into pakistan were lauchned the entire operation was on the indian side of the LOC, pakistan lost zero territory, its not like we lost 2/5 of kashmir and call the war a victory., and as for dismemberment i dont think so, 1999 was very different from 1971, hint nuclear weapons,.

"It's best if we just agree to disagree and work to improve the quality of this article and similar articles on Wikipedia. Regards "

I completely agree!


 * From your lengthy (and mildly amusing) theories in trying in vain to explain that losing 3/5th of Kashmir is a big achievement, I understand that you are just unable to digest the simple fact: India holds most of Kashmir to this day. Cheers --Idleguy 10:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Addendum: I wouldn't be too surprised if you extended this "theory" of yours to Siachen Glacier talk page and come to the conclusion that losing 2/3 of the glacier gaining a third of the glacier (as you put it) is also a "considerable victory" for Pakistan.--Idleguy 10:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Idleguy;

From your lengthy (and mildly amusing) theories in trying in vain to explain that losing 2/5th of Kashmir is a big achievement that aswell to newly formed smaller country, I understand that you are just unable to digest the simple fact: India holds most of Kashmir to this day but this portion of indian kashmir also includes Ladakh which is not contested, so the actual area of kashmir that we are talking about is the indian kashmir minus the ladakh and non-muslim areas,. So once you subtract the non-muslim areas from indian kashmir you will see that your ratio of 3/5 actually is smaller than 2/5 of pakistans portion,.


 * Lol, you do seem to come up with interesting (though flawed) equations to justify Pakistan's loss. Technically, India would be the newly formed country not pakistan which became independent a day earlier. And your belief that Pakistan was a smaller nation during the first war also holds no water. I'll explain why. While Pakistan today (sans East Pakistan) might be a smaller country, it certainly wasn't that small as you make it out to be just after independence. Remember, that Hyderabad (with its huge land area and population) among other major princely states were not part of India when the First Kashmir War broke out, in effect putting the geographic size of both wings of Pakistan just about equal to an India that wasn't fully integrated politically. So your assumption that Pakistan was small in 47 is based on the current day scenario and not on historical accuracy. See Political integration of India on this matter.


 * Also it is quite ironical that you should say that "Ladakh which is not contested" when Pakistan's official map clearly shows Ladakh as "Indian Occupied Kashmir" and only a few years back, the kargil war was fought. I should remind you - in case you don't know Kashmir geography - that Kargil is in Ladakh. Hmmm. And it wasn't me who barged into the talk pages and made a laughable statement "Pakistan Won Because It Captured 2/5 Of Kashmir", a statement that's more like an oxymoron. --Idleguy 11:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

":Lol, you do seem to come up with interesting (though flawed) equations to justify Pakistan's loss."

lol it seems to me your trying to justify your losses of kashmir in 1947/8, 2/5 of it to a country smaller and an army 1/2 the size, dont worry if i was you i would do the same, Then you shamlessly accept a ceasefire in 1965, btw it was india that went running to the UN and begged the USSR to try and get a ceasefire, :)

"And your belief that Pakistan was a smaller nation during the first war also holds no water. I'll explain why. While Pakistan today (sans East Pakistan) might be a smaller country, it certainly wasn't that small as you make it out to be just after independence. Remember, that Hyderabad (with its huge land area and population) among other major princely states were not part of India when the First Kashmir War broke out, in effect putting the geographic size of both wings of Pakistan just about equal to an India that wasn't fully integrated politically."

Can you prove that claim with data? I beg to differ, pakistan has always been the smaller country no doubt about it, even if you do claim that areas like Hydrabad, goa, sikkim were not part of india, there are still areas of pakistan such as kalat, gwadar etc that werent part of pakistan yet, So I challenge you to either you back up your false statement that both 'in effect putting the geographic size of both wings of Pakistan just about equal to an India that wasn't fully integrated politically.' I think youve just crossed the line of intellectual dishonesty there, its common knowledge that pakistan was and still is much much smaller than india in both area and population. :)

"So your assumption that Pakistan was small in 47 is based on the current day scenario and not on historical accuracy. See Political integration of India on this matter."

Can you please prove that the areas of india during the first and second indo pakistan wars was equal or less in area and population than pakistan? statistics?? Please do not use incorrect statistics, faulty science and outright falsification in an attempt to "debunk" your own claims.

":Also it is quite ironical that you should say that "Ladakh which is not contested" when Pakistan's official map clearly shows Ladakh as "Indian Occupied Kashmir" and only a few years back, the kargil war was fought. I should remind you - in case you don't know Kashmir geography - that Kargil is in Ladakh"

There are many areas in indian kashmir that are dominated by non-muslims, indeed there are even some non-muslims in pakistan kashmir especially hunza which is home to kalash kafirs, Even if you were to subtract the area of hunza from pakistani kashmir and subtract the non-muslim areas from indian kashmir, the pakistan muslim portion of it all would still be larger than the indian held muslim areas of kashmir,

"And it wasn't me who barged into the talk pages and made a laughable statement "Pakistan Won Because It Captured 2/5 Of Kashmir", a statement that's more like an oxymoron."


 * ) I think the idea of indian democracy is laughable, 'worlds largest democracy' that rules by force? if India is a democracy why not let the people choose if they want to be part of india, Thats where Indian democracy falls on its head, indeed the very raison d'etre of a secular, democratic india has gone,. Besides, Can you please tell me who won? did india win? nope it lost a large chunk of kashmir, which according to the acession that indians use to legitimize thier occupation means that ALL OF KASHMIR is part of india, not just the meagre 3/5 that youve been left with, Besides our reasons for calling Indian kashmir occupied are simple, its not because its our land under indian occupation, its kashmiri land that is under indian occupation and until a referendum promised to them by your politicians is held and thier future is decided by the kashmiri people themselves, pakistan will refer to the region has IOK.


 * I requested that we put rhetoric behind us, but aparently that doesn't work for you. Oh, you think the idea of Indian democracy is laughable? What other tidbits to democracy can citizens of a country that has a history of being ruled exclusively by despots share with us? Oh please, do tell, I'm on tenderhooks. And for your claim that India didn't exsist and that Pakistan was partitioned to form India....the last time I checked, it was called British East India, not British East Pakistan. I never claimed Pakistan dosen't exsist...I said it didn't exsist. Allow me to clue you in on a little secret of the English language. Doesn't = present tense. Didn't = past tense. As for your rhetorical recreation of history, let me just say that two can play that game. I'm not going to be bothered to respond to each of these so-called points, because this is a total waste of my time and effort. AreJay 12:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

PAKISTAN CLEARLY WON THIS WAR!!!!

AND WHAT STICKS IN MY MIND IS THE CLAIM BY THE INDIANS WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TEA IN LAHORE LOL!!!!!!! LIKE THAT WAS GONNA HAPPEN!!!! INDIA WITH ITS OUT OF CONTROL POPULATION HAS THE GREATER SOLDIERS BUT YET IT STILL SEEM TO LOSE THIS WAR AND THE 1947! JUST SHOWS THE SUPERIORITY OF THE PAKISTANI FORCE!!

KASHMIR IS OCCUPIED BY INDIA! OCCUPIED ILLEGALLY AND ONE DAY INSHALLAH IT WILL BECOME AZAAAD THE DAY ISLAM AND MUSLIMS WILL PREVAIL IN THE WORLD AND HOPE IT IS IN YOUR LIFETIME SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THE ERRORS IN YOUR WAY!!! AMEEN!

Dream On ... (Saraths 13:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC))

Some of the stuff is just amusing...I wonder if it is due to fanaticism or just done on purpose.

1. Pakistan won the war??? From all the sources that i have read, Pakistan not only lost the war, but was about to be annihilated. Admitting historical facts does not in any way make you any less of a patriot.

2. If you learn your history, you'll know that Kashmir is part of India, as a result of the decision made by the ruler of Kashmir. I wonder how that translates to "occupied illegally". So what is this about "azad?"

3. I have a lot of respect for muslims, the same as those who practice any other religion, but some around here show borderline fanaticism (a very thin line that leads to terrorism).

If Pakistan actually stopped training and supporting terrorists, and if India is willing to talk about all the conflicts including Kashmir, the world would be a much better place...but unfortunately, it seems to go around in a circle. Thanks to both countries having nuclear weapons, another war would have no victor. Pakistan would be completely destroyed if that happens, but the destruction in India would be great as well, as it should be obvious regarding a nuclear war. The solution is simple, but stubborness prevails.

defeat, utter defeat (or close enough)
pakistan got humiliated in front of the entire international comminity. in other words, they got their buts kicked. lahore was on the verge of being captured, then 71. 1 half down. wouldnt it be nice to have a world with no pakistan (should be soon enoguh i hope) RastaDUCKY 23:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)