Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1965/Archive 4

Edit below this line
Or preferably use the 'new section tab' on the page top to post your message. AshLin (talk) 10:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

1965 Escalation prebellica Una lettera declassificata di Dipartimento di Stato degli Stati Uniti che conferma l'esistenza delle centinaia di " infiltrators" nella condizione indiana di Jammu e del Kashmir. Datato durante gli eventi che funzionano fino alla guerra 1965. Dal divisorio dell'India britannica in 1947, il Pakistan e l'India sono rimanere nel conflitto sopra parecchie edizioni. Anche se il conflitto del Kashmir era l'edizione predominante che divide le nazioni, altre dispute del bordo sono esistito, specialmente sopra il Rann di Kutch, una regione sterile nella condizione indiana del Goudjerate. Quando Junagadh, una precedente condizione principesca, era stato integrato in India, di cui il principe musulmano ha voluto unire il Pakistan. Il 20 marzo 1965 e più successivamente nell'aprile 1965, combattendo ha scoppiato fra l'India ed il Pakistan nel Rann di Kutch dovuto la provocazione intenzionale dagli ultimi [6]. Inizialmente facendo partecipare la polizia di frontiera da entrambe le nazioni, la zona disputata presto ha testimoniato le schermaglie intermittenti fra il countries' forze munite. Nel giugno 1965, il Primo Ministro britannico Harold Wilson ha persauso con successo sia i paesi per concludere le ostilità che installare un tribunale per risolvere la disputa. Il verdetto, che è venuto più successivamente in 1968, ha veduto che il Pakistan ha assegnato 350 miglia quadrate (900 chilometri di ²) del Rann di Kutch, in confronto al relativo reclamo originale di 3500 miglia quadrate. [7] Dopo il relativo successo nel Rann di Kutch, il Pakistan, nell'ambito della direzione del General Ayub Khan, ha creduto che l'esercito indiano non potesse difendersi contro una campagna militare rapida nel territorio disputato del Kashmir poichè i militari indiani avévano sofferto una perdita in Cina in 1962. [8] Il Pakistan ha creduto che la popolazione del Kashmir fosse generalmente scontenta con la regola indiana e che un movimento di resistenza potrebbe essere bruciato da alcuni sabotatori d'infiltrazione. Il Pakistan ha tentato di bruciare il movimento di resistenza per mezzo di un'infiltrazione segreta, funzionamento codenamed Gibilterra [9] che gli infiltrati pakistani presto sono stati scoperti, tuttavia, la loro presenza segnalata dai Kashmiris locali ed il funzionamento concluso in un guasto completo. Il Pakistan ha sostenuto essere interessato dai tentativi dell'India di assorbire il Kashmir - una condizione esatta dal Pakistan come " disputed", nell'unione indiana. La base per questo reclamo era l'applicazione degli articoli 356 e 357 della costituzione indiana che permettono che il presidente dell'India dichiari President' regola di s nella condizione. La guerra Il 5 agosto 1965 fra 26.000 e 33.000 soldati pakistani ha attraversato la linea di controllo vestita come locals del Kashmiri intestati per varie zone in Kashmir. Forze indiane, capovolte fuori dal popolo locale, attraversato la linea di fuoco di cessazione il 15 agosto. [8] Inizialmente, l'esercito indiano ha incontrato considerevole successo, bloccante tre posizioni importanti della montagna dopo una diga prolungata dell'artiglieria. Per la fine di agosto, tuttavia, entrambi i lati hanno avuti progresso relativo; Il Pakistan aveva realizzato i progressi nelle zone quale Tithwal, Uri ed il punzone e l'India avévano bloccato il passaggio di Pir del Haji, otto chilometri in Kashmir Pakistan-occupato. Il 1° settembre 1965, il Pakistan ha lanciato un contrattacco, denominato Gran Slam del Operation, con l'obiettivo per bloccare la città vitale di Akhnoor a Jammu, che avrebbe diviso le comunicazioni ed avrebbe tagliato gli itinerari di rifornimento alle truppe indiane. Attacando con un rapporto in modo schiacciante delle truppe e dei carri armati tecnicamente superiori, il Pakistan ha fatto i guadagni contro le forze indiane, che erano grandi perdite non preparate e sofferte interferite. L'India ha risposto denominando nella relativa aeronautica per smussare l'attacco pakistano. Il next day, Pakistan ha ripagato, le relative forze indiane e basi aeree attacate aeronautica sia nel Kashmir che nel Punjab. India' la decisione di s per aprire il teatro dell'attacco in Punjab pakistano ha forzato l'esercito pakistano riassegnare le truppe agganciate nel funzionamento difendere il Punjab. Gran Slam di funzionamento quindi venuto a mancare, poichè l'esercito del Pakistan non poteva bloccare Akhnoor; si è trasformato in in una delle svolte decisive nella guerra quando l'India ha deciso di alleviare la pressione sulle relative truppe nel Kashmir attacando il Pakistan più ulteriormente verso il sud. Lt. Colonna Hari Singh del India' la cavalleria di s diciottesima che propone la parte esterna una stazione di polizia pakistana bloccata (Barkee) a Lahore District.India ha attraversato la frontiera internazionale sulla parte anteriore occidentale il 6 settembre, contrassegnando un inizio ufficiale della guerra. [10] Il 6 settembre, la quindicesima divisione di fanteria dell'esercito indiano, sotto il maggiore il General Prasad del veterano della seconda guerra mondiale, ha combattuto un contrattacco voluminoso dal Pakistan vicino alla banca ad ovest del canale di Ichogil (canale di BRB), che era un bordo de facto dell'India e del Pakistan. Il General' l'entourage in se di s ambushed ed è stato costretto a fuggire il suo veicolo. Un secondo, questo volta riuscito, tentativo di attraversare il canale di Ichhogil è stato fatto sopra il ponticello nel villaggio di Barki, appena ad est di Lahore. Questi sviluppi hanno portato l'esercito indiano all'interno della gamma dell'aeroporto internazionale di Lahore. Di conseguenza, gli Stati Uniti hanno invitato un cessate il fuoco provvisorio per permettere che evacui i relativi cittadini a Lahore. Tuttavia, il contro attacco pakistano ha preso Khem Karan dalle forze indiane che hanno provato a deviare l'attenzione dei pakistani da Khem Karan tramite un attacco a Bedian ed ai villaggi adiacenti. La spinta contro Lahore ha consistito della prima divisione di fanteria di sostegno dai tre reggimenti del carro armato della seconda brigata corazzata indipendente; hanno avanzato rapidamente attraverso il bordo, raggiungente il canale di Ichhogil (BRB) entro il 6 settembre. L'esercito pakistano ha tenuto i ponticelli sopra il canale o ha fatto scoppiare quelli che non potrebbe tenere, efficace arrestandosi affatto più ulteriormente di avanzamento dagli indiani su Lahore. Un'unità del reggimento indiano di Jat, il Jat 3, inoltre aveva attraversato il canale di Ichogil ed aveva bloccato [11] la città di Batapore (MUR di Jallo nel Pakistan) dalla costa Ovest del canale. Lo stesso giorno, una contro offensiva che consiste di una divisione corazzata e della divisione di fanteria di sostegno dall'aeronautica Sabre del Pakistan ha forzato la quindicesima divisione indiana per ritirarsi al relativo punto di partenza. Anche se il Jat 3 ha sofferto gli incidenti minimi, la massa del danno che è preso dalle munizioni ed immagazzina i veicoli, gli più alti comandanti non ha avuta informazioni di 3 Jat' il bloccaggio di s di Batapore e di informazioni ingannevoli ha condotto all'ordine ritirarsi da Batapore e da Dograi alla Ghosal-Manopola. Questo movimento ha portato il disappunto estremo [12] aLt-Colonna Desmond Hayde, un CO del Jat 3. Dograi finalmente è stato ripreso dal Jat 3 il 21 settembre, per la seconda volta ma dopo una battaglia molto più dura dovuto i rinforzi pakistani. Carri armati pakistani distrutti o abbandonati dello Sherman e di Patton su esposizione vicino a Khem Karan. Circa 97 carri armati pakistani si sono distrutti o bloccato stati dall'India durante la battaglia di Asal Uttar. [13] [14] l'8 settembre 1965, un'azienda della fanteria chiara di 5 Maratha è trasmesso stata per rinforzare un alberino a Munabao - un villaggio strategico delle polizie munito il Ragiastan (RAC) circa 250 chilometri da Jodhpur. Il loro riassunto era semplice. Per per tenere l'alberino e mantenere Pakistan' battaglioni della fanteria di s dal sorpasso dell'alberino alla baia. Ma alla collina di Maratha (in Munabao) - poichè l'alberino ora christened - l'azienda indiana potrebbe riuscire a mala pena a contrastare l'attacco intenso per 24 ore. Un'azienda di 3 protezioni con la batteria pesante del mortaio 954 ordinata per rinforzare l'alberino di RAC a Munabao potrebbe non raggiungere mai. L'aeronautica pakistana strafed l'intera zona ed inoltre aveva colpito un treno ferroviario che viene da Barmer con i rinforzi vicino alla stazione ferroviaria della strada di Gadra. Il 10 settembre, Munabao è caduto nelle mani pakistane e gli sforzi per bloccare il punto strategico non sono riuscito [15]. I giorni che seguono il 9 settembre, entrambi i nations' le formazioni di premiere sono state dirette nelle battaglie disuguali. India' divisione corazzata di s prima, identificata il " orgoglio del Army" indiano;, lanciato un'offensiva verso Sialkot. La divisione si è divisa in due poli, è stata forzata indietro dalla sesta divisione corazzata pakistana a Chawinda ed è stata costretta a ritirarsi dopo la sofferenza delle grandi perdite di quasi 100 carri armati. I pakistani hanno continuato il loro successo lanciando la conclusione di funzionamento, che ha respinto gli indiani lontano. Similmente, Pakistan' l'orgoglio di s, la prima divisione corazzata, ha spinto un'offensiva verso Khem Karan, con l'intenzione per bloccare Amritsar (una città importante nel Punjab, in India) ed il ponticello sul fiume Beas a Jalandhar. La prima divisione corazzata pakistana mai gli non ha reso il passato Khem Karan, tuttavia e per la fine della disposizione del 10 settembre disintegrata dalle difese della quarta divisione indiana della montagna a che cosa ora è conosciuto come la battaglia di Asal Uttar (significato di Lit. - " Answer" reale;, o equivalente più adatto di inglese - " Response" adattantesi;). La zona è stato conosciuta come ' Patton Nagar' (Città di Patton), a causa di grande numero dei carri armati pakistani Noi-fatti di Patton. Circa 97 carri armati pakistani si sono distrutti o abbandonato stati, con soltanto 32 carri armati indiani ha distrutto o danneggiato. La prima divisione corazzata pakistana meno quinta brigata corazzata dopo è stata trasmessa al settore di Sialkot dietro sesta divisione corazzata del pakistano dove esso didn' la t vede l'azione come la sesta divisione corazzata era già in corso divisione corazzata dell'indiano di percorso di prima che era superiore ad esso nella resistenza. La guerra capo per un impasse, con entrambe le nazioni che tengono il territorio dell'altro. L'esercito indiano ha sofferto 3.000 morti del campo di battaglia, mentre il Pakistan ha sofferto 3.800. L'esercito indiano era in possesso di un ² da 710 miglia (1.840 chilometri di ²) del territorio pakistano e l'esercito del Pakistan ha tenuto un ² da 210 miglia (545 chilometri di ²) del territorio indiano. Il territorio occupato dall'India era pricipalmente nei settori fertili di Sialkot, di Lahore e del Kashmir, [16] mentre i guadagni pakistani della terra erano soprattutto del sud in deserti di fronte a Sindh e nel settore di Chumb vicino al Kashmir nel Nord. [17] Guerra aerea

1971 Il conflitto Indo-Pakistani è stato scintillato dalla guerra di liberazione della Bangladesh, un conflitto fra i pakistani ad ovest tradizionalmente dominanti ed i pakistani orientali di maggioranza. [4] La guerra di liberazione della Bangladesh ha dato fuoco dopo l'elezione dei 1970 pakistani, in cui la lega pakistana orientale di Awami ha vinto 167 di 169 sedi in Pakistan Orientale ed ha assicurato una maggioranza semplice nella Camera delle 313 sedi del Majlis-e-Shoora (il Parlamento del Pakistan). Lo sceicco Mujibur Rahman del capo della lega di Awami ha presentato i sei punti al presidente del Pakistan ed ha rivendicato la destra formare il governo. Dopo il capo del Pakistan la gente Party, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, rifiutato per rendere il premiership del Pakistan a Mujibur, il presidente Yahya Khan denominato i militari, dominati da West Pakistanis per sopprimere il dissenso [12] [13]. Gli arresti della massa dei dissidenti hanno cominciato ed i tentativi sono stati fatti di disarmare i soldati e la polizia pakistani orientali. Dopo che parecchi giorni dei colpi e dei movimenti di mancata cooperazione, il basso incrinato militare pakistano su Dacca sulla notte del 25 marzo 1971. La lega di Awami banished e molti membri sono stati fuggiti nell'esule in India. Mujib è stato arrestato sulla notte del 25-26 marzo 1971 circa al 1:30 a.m. (secondo le notizie del Pakistan radiofonico il 29 marzo 1971) ed è stato preso nel Pakistan ad ovest. Il 27 marzo 1971, Ziaur Rahman, un maggiore ribelle nell'esercito pakistano, ha dichiarato l'indipendenza della Bangladesh a nome di Mujibur [14]. In aprile, i capi esiliati della lega di Awami hanno formato un government-in-exile in Baidyanathtala di Meherpur. I fucili di Pakistan Orientale, una forza parlamentare, defected alla ribellione. Una truppa dei civili, il Mukti Bahini del guerrigliero, è stata formata per aiutare l'esercito della Bangladesh. India' partecipazione di s alla guerra di liberazione della Bangladesh L'esercito del Pakistan ha condotto un genocidio diffuso contro la popolazione del bengalese del Pakistan Orientale, [15] mirata in particolare alla popolazione indù di minoranza, [16] [17] conducente a circa 10 milioni [16] Pakistan Orientale fuggire [delle 18] genti e prendere rifugio nelle condizioni indiane vicine. [15] [19] il bordo orientale dell'Pakistan-India è stato aperto per concedere a rifugiati il riparo sicuro in India. I governi del Bengala, di Bihar, di Assam, di Meghalaya e di Tripura ad ovest hanno stabilito gli accampamenti di rifugiato lungo il bordo. La pletora risultante di rifugiati pakistani orientali impoveriti ha disposto uno sforzo intollerabile su India' la s già ha sovraccaricato l'economia. [17] Il General Tikka Khan ha guadagnato il soprannome ' Macellaio di Bengal' dovuto le atrocità che diffuse ha commesso. [7] General Niazi che commenta le sue azioni ' celebre; Sulla notte fra il General Tikka del 25 e 26 marzo 1971 impressionante. La notte pacifica si è trasformata in un momento di lamentarsi, di gridare e di bruciatura. Il General Tikka ha lasciato liberamente tutto a sua disposizione come se attaccando un nemico, non trattando con la sua propria gente disorientata e fuorviata. L'azione militare era un'esposizione di crudeltà rigida più spietata di i massacri a Buchara e Bagdad da Chengiz Khan e dal General Tikka di Halaku Khan…… hanno ricorso all'uccisione dei civili e di una politica bruciacchiata della terra. I suoi ordini alle sue truppe erano: ' Voglio la terra non la gente… ' Il General principale Farman aveva scritto in suo diario della tabella, " La terra verde del Pakistan Orientale sarà red" verniciato;. È stata verniciata rossa da Bengali blood.' [20] Il Governo Indiano nazionale ha fatto appello a ripetutamente alla comunità internazionale, ma a non riuscire a trarre tutta la risposta fuori, appoggio totale espresso di Indira Gandhi del Primo Ministro [di 21] il 27 marzo 1971 del suo governo per la lotta di indipendenza della gente del Pakistan Orientale. La direzione indiana sotto il Primo Ministro Gandhi ha deciso rapidamente che era più efficace da concludere il genocidio prendendo i provvedimenti muniti contro il Pakistan che dare semplicemente il rifugio a coloro che lo ha fatto attraverso agli accampamenti di rifugiato. [19] Gli ufficiali di esercito di Pakistan Orientale ed i membri esiliati dell'intelligenza indiana immediatamente hanno cominciato usando questi accampamenti per il reclutamento e l'addestramento dei guerriglieri di Mukti Bahini. [22] India' aggancio ufficiale di s con il Pakistan Obiettivo Illustrazione che mostra le unità militari ed i movimenti di truppa durante i funzionamenti nel settore orientale della guerra. Entro novembre, la guerra è sembrato inevitabile; un'accumulazione voluminosa delle forze indiane sul bordo con il Pakistan Orientale aveva cominciato. Inverno in attesa militari indiani, quando la terra più asciutta porterebbe ai funzionamenti più facili ed i passaggi Himalayan sarebbero chiusi da neve, impedicendo qualsiasi intervento cinese. Il 23 novembre, Yahya Khan ha dichiarato una condizione dell'emergenza in tutto del Pakistan ed ha detto la sua gente di preparare per la guerra. [23] Sulla sera del 3 dicembre domenica, circa al 5:40 PM, [24] l'aeronautica pakistana ha lanciato un colpo preventivo su undici aerodromi in India nordoccidentale, compreso Agra che era a 300 miglia (480 chilometri) dal bordo. Durante questo attacco il Taj Mahal è stato cammuffato con una foresta dei ramoscelli e dei fogli ed è stato coperto con tela da imballaggio perché il relativo marmo ha emesso luce come un falò bianco nella luce della luna. [25] Questo attacco preventivo conosciuto come il funzionamento Chengiz Khan, è stato ispirato dal successo del fuoco israeliano di funzionamento nella guerra di sei giorni Arabo-Israeliana. Ma, diverso dell'attacco israeliano alle basi aeree arabe in 1967 che hanno coinvolto tantissimi aerei dell'israeliano, il Pakistan ha pilotato non di più di 50 aerei in India e non è riuscito ad infliggere il danno progettato. [26] Di conseguenza, le piste indiane sono state perforate e reso non funzionale per parecchie ore dopo l'attacco. [27] In un indirizzo alla nazione sulla radio che la stessa sera, il Primo Ministro Gandhi ha giudicato i colpi di aria mentre una dichiarazione di guerra contro l'India [28] [29] e l'aeronautica indiana ha risposto con i colpi di aria iniziali quella molto notte che sono stati ampliati agli attacchi aerei di rappresaglia voluminosi la mattina prossima. [30] Ciò ha contrassegnato l'inizio ufficiale della guerra Indo-Pakistani di 1971. Il Primo Ministro Gandhi ha ordinato la mobilizzazione immediata delle truppe ed ha lanciato l'invasione completa. Le forze indiane hanno risposto con un'aria, un mare e un assalto coordinati voluminosi della terra. L'aeronautica indiana ha iniziato le sortite di volo contro il Pakistan dalla mezzanotte e rapidamente ha realizzato la superiorità di aria. [4] [25] l'obiettivo indiano principale sulla parte anteriore occidentale era di impedire il Pakistan entrare nel terreno indiano. Non ci era intenzione indiana di conduzione della tutta l'offensiva principale in Pakistan ad ovest. [24] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.31.211.113 (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Indian Propaganda
This article gives one sided views of the war, and is biased against Pakistan. I am guessing that this was written by some hardcore Indian nationalists, who fabricate history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.248.2 (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * this artical is not reality it is just propaganda effort by indians as usual.all the pictures here in the article are of indian army and no picture is about pakiatan army, this is one proof of indian propagand. Article is showing indian point of view only. facts and figures are surprisingly wrong specially about tanks,land captured and aircrafts. I REQUEST FROM ADMINISTRATORS OF THIS SITE PLEASE VERIFY THE DATA BEFORE UPLOADING SPECIALLY ABOUT HISTORY AND IT SHOULD BE FROM NEUTRAL SOURCE.
 * AWAIS AHMAD from PAKISTAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.68.102.22 (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not the job of the administrators to verify the data on this article, it is your job. If you don't like the "Indian propoganda", you should counter it by editing the page with factual info from reliable sources. Why are you whining about propoganda if you can't be bothered to help fix it? If you do want to fix the article then sign up for an account and start working on it (leave me a message if you need help).
 * --Hj108 (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Those who feel that this article is filled with "Indian propaganda", feel free to add information provided that it is backed with credible, verifiable and neutral sources. As far as I can see, almost all the sources in this article right now meet that criteria. --Nosedown (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * our fellow wikipideans from Pakistan often raise objections on Neutrality IMO their Biased education is to blame for that. I will quote a line from blog a Pakistani News Reporter. This will answer why Pakistanis have a biased thinking or have an education biased against india "The public was led to believe that India had launched a ‘surprise attack’ on Pakistan, and that ‘Hindu India’ would be taught a lesson. Thus the armed forces had full public support." you can read more here . cheers. http://mehmal.blogspot.com/2007/09/myth-of-september-6-1965.html --dBigXray (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you not see the picture of captured Pakistani Tanks ?? Please load any other pictures that you have to make a balanced case hey i hav got lots of pictures of 1965 and 1971 wars bt can anyone help me as to how to load them???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.1.206 (talk) 07:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

bias use of pictures only inidan pictures or did india fight it self ?
-ther bias use of pictures , -bias in naming location of conflict -kutch skimish need its own section as the 2 secound indopakistani conflict commnly refers to the fight over kashmir most sources do not talk about the kutch conflcit - the reliable sources will be added soonMughalnz (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC) thanks


 * You are welcome to add Pakistani pictures of the war, as long as they are wiki acceptable Saroshp (talk) 04:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with you Mughalnz, all the bias I see is in the text. Let me know if you need help with adding info from reliable sources.--Hj108 (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Picture for the Campaign box
It would nice to have a picture in the campaign box, please suggest pictures that are neutral, so that we do not have POV arguments all over again Saroshp (talk) 01:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. How about a picture of a Pakistani surrender? That should do nicely according to most, if not all, the editors around here. After all, neutral point of view doesn't apply to India/Pakistan topics.--Hj108 (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How about taking your sarcasm some place where it will be appreciated? Saroshp (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not looking for people to appreciate it.
 * How about a map of the region, with major battles marked on it.--Hj108 (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * map is a good idea. Hj108 I appreciate your acknowledging the 'surrender' of pakistani dream of 'liberating' kashmir.  a great picture of pakistani surrender exists in the article on Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 if you wish to satisfy your need to see a picture of  Pakistan surrenderingWikireader41 (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Map is not bad idea, at least until we find a NPOV pic that we can all agree upon :). I am all for it! Saroshp (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your superiority complex compels you to type nonsense, Wikireader41, so I'll just ignore you.--Hj108 (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * but I am keeping my eyes wide open for people like you Hj108. I am glad you acknowledge your own inferiority complex and ability  to be ignorantWikireader41 (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for proving my point.--Hj108 (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Montage will be appropriate. As it gives both sides an opportunity. Like its in WWI and WWII articles. Make a montage and put it i the info box.

REgards
 * الله أكبر Mohammad Adil  11:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Cold War
Please, could someone tell me if this conflict may be included in the Cold War main strategies, or was it "just" a nacionalist/terriorialist conflict? Did EUA and USSR influence activelly the results of the war?

By what the text says, EUA was indeed against the conflict and suspended the access to weapons to both sides. Thanks. --189.62.106.209 (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Starting of the War:-
First line on under the heading "The War". it says "On August 15, 1965, Indian forces crossed the border and launched an attack on the territory of Kashmir administered by Pakistan."

But the source say different.

It states "On August 5, 1965 between 26,000 and 33,000 Pakistani soldiers crossed the Line of Control dressed as Kashmiri locals headed for various areas within Kashmir. Indian forces, tipped off by the local populace, crossed the cease fire line on August 15". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue-blood-warrior (talk • contribs) 14:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is a joke
No only does it fail to cite sources in many cases, and heavily cites indian sources, it flat out lies when quoting sources. For example, on aircraft losses, for "indian claims" it cites the "Official History of the 1965 War". On page 271 of that source (page 28 of the PDF), the number of Indian COMBAT losses is given as 59. The article, citing that source says "30 losses including 19 accidents". Is this meant to be funny? Someone please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.227.188 (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We need more people like you to edit the article and help fix it. Obviously some editors of certain nationalities only want certain versions of the truth shown, or none at all. Until those sorts of editors grow up and/or more guys like you volunteer to help, that's just the way it's going to be around here.--Hj108 (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * yeah we sure could use some more POV pushers from "Loseristan".Wikireader41 (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikireader41, in that case can you please explain why this article cannot even accept official indian government sources. I can provide several independent mainstream sources, however, I have better things to do than get into an edit war on wikipedia and there are clearly more immature Indian "editors" like you on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.227.188 (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Another great example I found: The article cites the Library of Congress with a broken link. However when you actually go to the Library of Congress Country Studies, the "quote" is nowhere to be found.

This is what the report actually says about the war: Go to: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/intoc.html, and goto the section "Experience of Wars". I cannot give a direct link, because the LOC uses temp URLs for its queries. (emphasis added by me -- not part of orignal text). "The Indian gains led to a major Pakistani counterattack on September 1 in the southern sector, in Punjab, where Indian forces were caught unprepared and suffered heavy losses. The sheer strength of the Pakistani thrust, which was spearheaded by seventy tanks and two infantry brigades, led Indian commanders to call in air support. Pakistan retaliated on September 2 with its own air strikes in both Kashmir and Punjab. THE WAR WAS AT A POINT OF STATELMATE when the UN Security Council unanimously passed a resolution on September 20 that called for a cease-fire. New Delhi accepted the cease-fire resolution on September 21 and Islamabad on September 22, and the war ended on September 23. The Indian side lost 3,000 while the Pakistani side suffered 3,800 battlefield deaths. The Soviet-brokered Tashkent Declaration was signed on January 10, 1966. It required that both sides withdraw by February 26, 1966, to positions held prior to August 5, 1965, and observe the cease-fire line agreed to on June 30, 1965." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.227.188 (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Pakistanfanforeva, 8 May 2010
Please let me put some photos about this war on the article.

Pakistanfanforeva (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Upload the pictures first, and then request that they be added to the article. Uploading images.  Chzz  ►  23:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Outlook
M.A.R 1993 (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC) your entire article seems to be promoting vandalism, and here its just a small edits are being questioned? In the article Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965 only one sided review have been presented while real causus belli of the conflict have not been presented. Why the conflict started? who started it is completely neglected. Only the word " AFTER" the war has been used. What about during the war. The economic troubles are used to describe the net result. If it is to be taken into account what about the WW1 when American economy suffered a huge setback after the war? The WW1 ended in a armistice/ceasefire. Do we say Triple allied (Central powers) won the war? Definitely the factors about the war fought on the ground is considered. If it is considered in this case then the quality of the content of this article can be improved.


 * I think you did not read the article properly. The casus belli has already been provided in summary and Pre-war escalation section which was Operation Gibraltar and it's follow up Operation Grand Slam. The results and ceasefire is stated in the Infobox and Ceasefire section. The Aftermath section in this article just like the Aftermath sections of WW1 and WW2 contains the economic, political and civilian effects of war as well as changes in military might of nations involved.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 04:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

M.A.R 1993 (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC) I hope that you didn't understand what i wanted to say. Pre-war escalation didn't started from April 1965. What about when Indian Union rejected the UN proposals of holding a plebiscite in the state? What when Indian union forcefully annexed the state in 1957? after which the mass unrest broke out in the state in which up till now 1,00,000 Kashmiris had become a target of brutality. Their right of self-determination was snatched away. Operation Gibraltar was a net result of this reaction in a way. 33,000 insurgents which crossed CFL in August 1965 were from Azad Kashmiri forces and not from Pakistani forces. As it was practically impossible for Pakistan of donating such a huge amount of its soldiers from total infantry strength of 1,01,000 soldiers while 33,000 fighting in Kashmir, 50,000 in Sialkot and 25,000 in East Pakistan while others fighting in sub-ordinate theaters. According to UN and India these remained in the valley till October 1965 doesn't make sense.
 * What are you trying to say? Can you please elaborate with citations? Whatever have been written in the article are with proper sources. And, please, sign your comments after your writings. Thanks.Shovon (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to say that Operation Gibraltar started as a reaction from Kashmiris with aiding from Pakistan just like Operation Jackpot started in East Pakistan as a reaction to Pakistani crack down with aiding from India. Regarding the killings and denying of holding a plebiscite ( gateway to Operation Gibraltar) some neutral backed sources are: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/10472065.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/10518267.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/find_out/guides/world/india-pakistan_conflict/newsid_2004000/2004838.stm The above mentioned are a picture of fresh killings. Now related to 1965 war: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/142823.stm There are many more but right here these are sufficient. Now regarding infantry strengths: http://middleeast.about.com/od/pakistan/a/second-kashmir-war.htm http://real-politique.blogspot.com/2008/11/five-week-war-caused-thousands-of.html

Now about the Pakistani soldiers dressed as Local Kashmiris. Well some of the points might be covered up in the above links. Rest you can consult John Fricker's Battle for Pakistan " Towards the Liberation of Kashmir" for further details. While regarding territorial losses i had given them but they had been reverted: http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=MP25AQAACAAJ&dq=Our+Indo+Pakistan+history+by+Kh.+Haye&hl=en&ei=Yug1TKLOAYuUrAfqqczQAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=XM5oZYYvEmYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+War+of+the+Twins&hl=en&ei=2-g1TLxfg5esB87hudkD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false Note that these are also given in chp, ( In support of Army) Battle for Pakistan, John Fricker. I hope that is enough. Casus belli of Operation Gibraltar must also be given. Thank youM.A.R 1993 (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * All refrences that you have provided are either blogs or news articles dated form late 1990's to present date citing rare law and order problems of past decade with no relation to 1965 war. There is no basis in your theory of linking up the war with United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 passed 2 decades before the war in 1948. The next thing you would say is this war took place because Pakistan invaded kingdom of Kashmir in 1947 or that it took place because India was partioned in 1947 which in turn according to took place because British conqured India. Such baseless assumptions are useless here and wikipedia does not work on imaginations of a person.
 * Also I would like to point out that it was Pakistan and not India who did not withdraw troops fas required by United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 thus forcing India to distance itself from holding a plebiscite in the state.


 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1766582.stm
 * Finally law and order problems like the one in Kashmir recently are presentin various countries including Pakistan and do not generally result in war.

--UplinkAnsh (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7918173.stm
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4652882.stm
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7993352.stm
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7517528.stm
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4099740.stm
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/188644.stm

I think you didn't read the blogs properly. The toublesome situation in Kashmir in not started now and its linkage is definitely with the War because war never starts in a way that one night you sleep and your neighbor starts the war next day. The troublesome situation in Balochistan can be used in the article where we are discussing Balochistan issues. Here we are discussing Kashmir issue and it is Second Kashmir War and not Second Balochistan War. And Operation Gibraltar didn't started as your article states that one night insurgents woke up and moved into Kashmir valley. It was the reaction of Kashmiris to Indian aggression. Read this fully: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/142823.stm M.A.R 1993 (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I would repeat for the last time that self-published sites and blogs are counted as unreliable by wikipedia WP:RS standards as they could have by any person wanting to distort truth for personal reasons. So unless you could provide a reliable source stating "1965 war took place as Resolution 47 was not met", there no need to explain what you think personally.


 * Also Operation Gibraltar was definately not spontaneous but a planned military operation by Pakistani Military Dictatorship of the time based on doctored intelligence reports but failed as the operation did not gain support of Kashmiri population. These reviews by various Pakistani government and military officials as well as reviews by netural sources and pakistani media all of which accept that Kashmiris did not support Operation Gibraltar or 1965 War and Pakistan was fooled into the war by a handful of local politicans.

--UplinkAnsh (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.tribuneindia.com/2005/20050603/main2.htm
 * http://story.malaysiasun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/303b19022816233b/id/284377/cs/1/
 * http://www.dawn.com/2005/09/06/nat2.htm
 * http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/globalization/kashmir.pdf

First three references are not neutral so there is no need to consider them according to your theory which you have given earlier. Am i right? Now about the fourth neutral source. My friend, my argument is still supported. Haven't you read these line: "His great-grandson, Maharaja Hari Singh, could not decide whether to join India or Pakistan upon independence in 1947, so the state remained “independent” for over two months. Under attack, the maharaja elected to join India in exchange for military aid. Kashmir’s accession to India was contested by Pakistan. This accession was to be provisional, contingent upon popular approval. However, no plebiscite was conducted." and these lines: "The Security Council asked India and Pakistan to refrain from aggravating the situation, then passed resolutions in August 1948 and January 1949 to enforce a cease-fire, requiring the contestants to withdraw their forces and ordering a plebiscite. Both the UN and Pakistan have consistently demanded a plebiscite since 1949 (and Nehru agreed in 1947 to hold one), but India has refused for fear of losing the vote among the predominantly- Muslim population, using Pakistan’s reluctance to withdraw its forces and the US decision to supply arms to Pakistan in 1954 as an excuse for reneging."

These were the reasons behind Operation Gibraltar no doubt started by Pakistan, and these must be mentioned. Thank you. M.A.R 1993 (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am waiting for reliable sources from your side. Wikipedia works on reliable refrences and not on what you read at school. So if you do not have refrences stop dicussing about what you think, on wikipdia as wikipedia is not a dicussion fourm. There are other sites for such dicussions. The yale reference that you quoted, it cleatly states that "With a short, sharp attack in August 1965, Pakistan tried to instigate a mass uprising to take control of the Kashmir Valley. However, the local population refused to cooperate with the infiltrators." and not "It was the reaction of Kashmiris to Indian aggression" which you had said earlier. Clearly the Operation was entirely Pakistani one and Kashmiris did not supported it.
 * Also all sources that I stated are reliable according to WP:RS. The first one is Indian, malaysiasun and yale.edu are netural and dawn is Pakistani. Most quote Pakistani officals giving the Pakistani side of story as well. However if you still do not consider them reliable enough, it's your choice to remain ignorant and I am not here to convience you. The fact is they would considered reliable by other editors who have proper knowledge of wiki policies, and that is all that I care about.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying these lines from school but these lines which i mentioned above are from your reference of yale.edu article. If you read it fully then your questions might be removed. If you add these points which i described in my last paragraph from Your yale.edu reference to your article then the point of dissension can be removed.I hpoe that you respect your own source or not? M.A.R 1993 (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The things you mentioned are occur in the "Orientation" topic of "Kashmir Conflict" and so could be added in Kashmir Conflict article but not here. The para relating to 1965 states clearly the reason for the war to be "In 1965, convinced of widespread dissatisfaction in Kashmir, Pakistani leaders sought to forment rebellion" which could be added.
 * Please note Kashmir Conflict is necessary but not sufficient condition for the 1965 War. What you have been trying to say is much similar to saying Armstrong landed on moon because Earth has moon. Clearly if earth did not have moon Armstrong would not have landed on it, but the actual reason for his landing was Russian lead in space race. Similarly if Kashmir Conflict would not have been there then clearly the war would not have taken place but the reasons because of which the two nations actully fought were wrong intelligence received by Pakistani leaders and their planning and execution of Operation Gibraltar. Moreover Kashmir Conflict itself took place and is alive because of multiple reasons including Indian partion and creation of Pakistan, Pakistani Invasion of Kashmir in 1947, Pakistan not pulling out it's troops and eventually the one which you are trying to add(India not holding plebiscite), anyone of which if had not occured, would have resulted in the Kashmir Conflict being settled. So if you still want to add your point, that is in "Kashmir Conflict" article, then Pakistan's fault of Invading an independent nation in 1947 thus starting the conflict in the first place and not pulling it's troops should also be mentioned as Pakistan is equally at fault if not more for Kashmir Conflict.

--UplinkAnsh (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

AUTHOR IS NOT NEUTRAL !!
MY DEAR MR AUTHOR !

I FOUND A LACK OF INFORMATION IN UR MIND REGARDING THIS WAR ....FIRST OF ALL THIS WAR WAS NOT STARTED BY PAKISTAN ...IT WAS STARTED BY INDIA IN MID NIGHT WITHOUT INTIMATION AND PAKISTAN ARMY FOUGHT WELL AND DEFEATED HIS ENEMY BY HUMILIATING .....17 DAYS WAR WAS FOUGHT BETWEEN CHAWINDA. BATALIK SECTOR, CHUMB JORIYA SECTOR , ATARI SECTOR AND WAHGA BORDER ....AND BAD LUCK OF PAKISTAN THAT SOME MIS GUIDENCE ACCURED FRM HEAD QUARTERS ...OTHER WISE PAK ARMY WOULD HAVE PENETRATED LUDHYANA AND CALCUTTA WITH A SMALL RESISTENCE ....I HAVENT SEEN SUCH A COWERED NATION WHO RAN TO UN TO SAVE THEM FROM PAK ARMY"S JAWS ...THERE ARE MANY OTHER FACTS WHICH I CAN OPEN ...BUT I ONLY WANTED TO CLEAR UR MIND REGARDING PAKISTAN AND ITS ARMY ....

NEXT TIME MAKE A COMPLETE VIEW BEFORE WRITING ANY ARTICLE REGARDING MY MOTHER LAND !

BEST REGARDS ,

AN ORDINARY PAKISTANI ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.89.131.141 (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * cool story bro.
 * Now, do you have any reliable, neutral sources which support this story of yours? Jonny555 (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Best use of "cool story bro" ever. :P

Dear 'Ordinary Pakistani', you're free to edit the article with reliable neutral sources. But for heaven's sake please spare us the horror of your caps lock! Tigerassault (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

PAKISTAN DEFNSE DAY!?
Can u guys stop fighting about the neutrality of this whole page......and goto the pakistan defnse day page......and edit that like MASSIVELY coz that page has been written by a 100th grader or something

it not only has grammatical errors but also sounds cheezy! (my comment also contains grammatical errors :-S)

as far as the neutrality is concerned....EDIT IT!!!!!!!!

hmmmm and i guess the war was not started by pakistan by sending troops into kashmir and india to cite similar pages.....we can not say japan entered world war 2 after 1939 but japan went to war with china in 1937....and thats considered the beginning of world war 2 in many countries of the region......(well its very much disputed)

so put that in a disputed origin of war or something.......but its not pakistan in the context that it started the hostilities!! and i think that point has been made pretty clear here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.250.38 (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Khaanpk, 25 October 2010
The four wars fought between indo-pak was 1947 war, 1965 war, 1971 war and the kargil war.

Indo- Pakistan War took place between Pakistan and India in April 1965 to September 1965. It is also known as Second Kashmir War that was fought between Pakistan and India over the uncertain region of Kashmir. The Operation Gibraltar began by Pakistan; it was designed to penetrate the forces into Jammu and Kashmir to rapid an rebellion against rule by India. This war continues till five week which in result caused thousands of causalities on both sides. Among all the wars fought for Kashmir this war was one of the largest gatherings of troops in Kashmir since partition of British India

The Azad Kashmir war n 1948 was fight between Pakistan and India in which Pakistan acquired approx. 84K sq.km of Jammu and Kashmir and nearly one million people under its control. The 1965 war began in April 1965 and ends in September 1965. . The Indo-Pak war in 1965 Pakistan army successfully defend their country. Although India claim that 1965 war was a war on level i-e 50-50 no one wins nor lose but still Pakistan got victory in this war. In 1999 the Kargil war takes place between India and Pakistan on clashed in Kashmir again. Finally the major success was taken place by Pakistan in Kargil war 1999. In kargil war Pakistan army destroyed Indian army. Pakistan army was in minority with respect to Indian army, the ration of Pakistan army with Indian army war 1:30 but Pakistan mujahedeen fight with India and finally got victory.

The eastern wing of Pakistan is more populated than the western one. Since independence the political power rested with western elite. The great human tragedy recitation in former East Pakistan was taken place in 1971.

Indo- Pakistan War took place between Pakistan and India in April 1965 to September 1965. It is also known as Second Kashmir War that was fought between Pakistan and India over the uncertain region of Kashmir. The Operation Gibraltar began by Pakistan; it was designed to penetrate the forces into Jammu and Kashmir to rapid an rebellion against rule by India. This war continues till five week which in result caused thousands of causalities on both sides. Among all the wars fought for Kashmir this war was one of the largest gatherings of troops in Kashmir since partition of British India Alam is well-known for his actions during the Indo-Pakistan War of 1965 when he was posted at Sargodha. During this war he was involved in various dogfights while flying his F-86 Sabre fighter. Pakistani sources claim that he downed nine Indian fighters, six of them Hawker Hunter fighters of the Indian Air Force, in air-to-air combat. It is also claimed that, in one mission, 5 Indian fighters were downed in less than a minute by Alam,[2][3] which explains his score with a special aiming and firing technique he developed.[4] Alam's confirmed kills are as follows:

6 September 1965, 1× Hawker Hunter Squadron Leader Ajit Kumar Rawlley, No. 7 Sqn, KIA near Tarn Taran. 7 September 1965, 3× Hawker Hunters Squadron Leader Onkar Nath Kacker, No. 27 Sqn, POW Squadron Leader Suresh B Bhagwat Flying Officer Jagdev Singh Brar, No. 7 Sqn, KIA, near Sangla Hill. September 16, 1965, 1× Hawker Hunter Flying Officer Farokh Dara Bunsha, No. 7 Sqn, KIA, near Amritsar. The Pakistan Air Force figures have been disputed by Indian sources which award Alam with four kills. They attribute one of the loss of Sqn Ldr Onkar Nath Kacker's aircraft to booster failure.[5][6] They also claim that gun camera footage of Alam's kills is yet to be made public and therefore some of the kills cannot be confirmed.[7 The long-standing border disputes, communal tensions, and conflict over the question of Kashmir flared up in a full-scale war between India and Pakistan in September 1965. The War of Rann of Kutch

Skirmishes at the Rann of Kutch flared up almost accidentally in the Spring of 1965, and India and Pakistan found themselves drawn into the first of their two undeclared wars.

The dispute goes back to the days of the British rule in India. The Rann was the bone of contention between the princely state Kutch, and the British Indian province of Sindh.

When British India was partitioned, Kutch acceded to India and Sindh to Pakistan. The issue was inherited by these two states along some 3,500 sq. miles of territory. From January 1965 onwards, border incidents became frequent. By all accounts the Indian forces were badly defeated in the Kutch area by the Pakistan army.

At the Commonwealth Conference in Britain, the British Prime Minister Harold Wilson successfully persuaded both India and Pakistan to sign an agreement on June 30 to resolve the dispute. Failing to do so bilaterally, a tribunal was set up to resolve this dispute. This tribunal announced its verdict on February 19, 1965. It gave 350 sq. miles in the northern part to Pakistan and the rest of the Rann area to India. At the Commonwealth Conference in Britain, the British Prime Minister Harold Wilson successfully persuaded both India and Pakistan to sign an agreement on June 30 to resolve the dispute. Failing to do so bilaterally, a tribunal was set up to resolve this dispute. This tribunal announced its verdict on February 19, 1965. It gave 350 sq. miles in the northern part to Pakistan and the rest of the Rann area to India. The War in Kashmir Events in Kashmir were also moving towards a climax. The Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri added more fuel to the fire by taking steps to absorb Kashmir further into the political body of India and stated that the Kashmir problem occupied a secondary place in successful relations between India and Pakistan.

The application of articles 356 and 357 of the Indian Constitution to the Kashmir State which enabled the President of India to establish Presidential Rule in Kashmir and legislate, there was an effort to amalgamate Kashmir completely into the Indian Union. Sheikh Abdullah, the Kashmiri leader took extensive foreign tours to enlist international support for the Kashmir cause. But he was arrested and the Kashmir Legislative Assembly adopted the Constitutional Amendments Bill on March 30, providing: 1. The Sardar-i-Riyasat would henceforth be known as Governor and would be appointed by the President of India instead of being elected by the local assembly.

2. The Prime Minister would be styled as a Chief Minister, as in the states of the Indian Union.

The Kashmiri people called for an all out war against Indian imperialism and established a National Government of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. In a spillover effect, Azad Kashmir became increasingly restive. The Indian army made a series of new moves across the ceasefire line with her regular armed forces. The Lahore Offensive At 3:00 AM on September 6, 1965, without a formal declaration of war, Indians crossed the international border of West Pakistan and launched a three-pronged offensive against Lahore, Sialkot and Rajasthan. There was a fierce tank battle on the plains of Punjab. The domestic Indo-Pak conflict transformed into an international conflict and raised Super Power concerns.

The U. S. suspended military supplies to both sides during the Indo-Pak War. Both the Soviet Union and the United States took a united stand to curtail the conflict within the boundaries of the Sub-continent from escalating into a global conflict. China threatened to intervene and offered military support to Pakistan. It was to keep China away from this conflict that both the Soviet Union and the United States pressured the U. N. to arrange for an immediate ceasefire.

Khaanpk (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. THanks, Stickee (talk)  12:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

a totally biased article with no autheticity
this artcle is totally made by a pro-indian admin. which is totally incorrect.india has been glorified while pakistan has been thrashed.wikipedia is just a murder of history.its entirely made by zionists and hindus.this article holds no water at all and is sheer indian propaganda to re-write the history.my crticism r:-(1)pakistani advance in chummb-jurian secter hasent been written properly.the capture of chummb,kalait,dharoti,chuk bhagwan,kasrana,thewa,pallanwalan and jurian by pak army is not given,alonge with the 30 miles advance figure.the abondaning of 20 amx-13 tanks and 2 field regts of artt. by the indian army at jurian is not given.(pics available).(2)the battle of chawinda isnt told properly and figures r not given of the number of indian tanks destryed,india accepts 120 tanks destroyed while according to a pakistani estimate 200 were destroyed and captured(pics available).the retreat of indias 1 corp and 1st armd div in sialkot secter is not given.(3)battle of lahore is improperly discused.indian 15 divs failed assault on wagah on 6 sep. is not given which was blunted by 6 sabres and 15 divs was subsequently thrown back by a pak brigade.maj gen niranjan prasad left behind his historical jeep which is not shown.battle of burki where maj raja aziz bhattis(nishan e haider) company halted an entire indian brigade for 5 days till 11 sep. is not given.battle hudiara in which a single pak company halted an entire indian brigade for 9 hrs is not given, all india radio itself praised the pak defences at hudiara.moreover indian armys 21 failed assaults across the brb canal/ichogil canal is not given.(4)battle of kasur is not given in which pak's 11 div threw back with heavy losses the indian 4 mt div.the surrender of an indian battalion in khemkaran is not given.battle of asal uttar is highly glorified,it was never a befitting answer.india only parked 70 tanks while claimed 97 tanks destroyed and captured.moreover asal uttar was never equal to chawinda as in chawinda a single tank regt.(25 cavalry under lt.col.nisar ahmad khan)crushed an entire indian armd div(1 arm div)while in asal uttar india had an armd brigd. to halt two pak armd brgds as the third one never took part and was sent to sialkot secter.pakistan recaptured all lost territory infront of sialkot as india's 1 corp retreated but india's 4 mt.div. never recaptured khemkaran despite fool hardy attacks and an indian battalion of sikhs also surrendered in the attack,which is also not given.(5)pakistani gains in sulemanki secter r not given(videos available).(6)pakistani gains in rajistahan r not given including munabao,kishengargh fort and a chain of forts captured by pak army(vids and pics available).(6)operation dwarka has been shrouded in propaganda the indian radar station at dwarka was completely destroyed in a 1 hr mission.indian navy never retaliated.(6)indian warships not taking part in the war just cuz they did not want an excalation in the war while pak navy was blasting at indian shores is hilarious.instead it was pns.ghazi tat had laid siege to bombay harbour and no indian warship cud ever come out.(7)the capture of 2 indian merchent ships by pakistan navy is not given.(8)PAF's attacks on pathankot and kalaikunda in which 24 IAF warplanes were destroyed r not given.PAF's straffing of indian army logistics and an ammunition train comming from barmer is not given.the destruction of kathua bridge is not given.the destruction of an ammunition train by sq ldr butch is not given.7 sep. 1965 on the date of which PAF shotdown 11 IAF warplanes is not given(almost all wreckeges were shown).(8)maj naseer ullah baburs single handed capture of 175 indian soldiers in kashmir is not given(for which naseer got the SJ). over and all this article is totally pro-indian,holds no water is worth not to be read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.83.14 (talk) 06:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. Can you provide some reliable sources? And, please, use some coherent English sentences. Shovon (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

what do indians mean by the word sources?
i hav said wat i had to say. find the sources for urself. there r many newspapers of the time telling abt indian retreats,defeats and heavy losses. moreover i hav a whole load of pictures of 1965 war with me bt i dnt know how to post them.they r a good source.moreover the names of the towns and villages captured r also an excellent source. and in the end u hav nothing to do with the coherency or accuracy of my english sentences.its a common indian excuse tat i hav commonly come across,whenever an indian gets bogged down he shouts"u pakis grammer is so bad!",which means he has nothing to throw forward anymore and is owned up in the argument. thus extract the material frm my words this is a millitary page not ur english grammer learning page,no need to change the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.219.247 (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all it is not clear to read the shorthand writing. Please write legibly.Thisthat2011 (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * our fellow wikipideans from Pakistan often raise objections on Neutrality IMO their Biased education is to blame for that. I will quote a line from a Pakistani BLogger. This will answer why Pakistanis have a biased thinking or an education biased against india "The public was led to believe that India had launched a ‘surprise attack’ on Pakistan, and that ‘Hindu India’ would be taught a lesson. Thus the armed forces had full public support." you can read more here . cheers. http://mehmal.blogspot.com/2007/09/myth-of-september-6-1965.html --dBigXray (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Territory caputred
Recently persistent POV pushing has been going on the article regarding territory captured in the war. I would here state that this matter has already been discussed on talk page of article by editors of both sides and it was agreed that only neutral sources would be used to determine territory captured. Read archives of information. There is no need to enter boastful or non-boastful values given by both sides to the amount of territory captured, since is not so hard to find multiple independent reviews by neutral organizations and individuals.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The section heading says "Neutral assessment". Putting Pakistan Govt.'s claims under that section is not justified. If you want to put it in the article, put it under the "Pakistani Claims" section. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point, I'll look later or you can be bold. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for resolving dispute. I am adding both claims under pakistani and indian subheads. Check it out. M.A.R 1993 (talk) 10:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Should the source not be backed up by reliable secondary source according to WP:PSTS since the source is a primary one??--UplinkAnsh (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:PSTS says, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully . All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." In this case, the notability criteria does not arise, no interpretations are being drawn using the primary source material and the figure has been quoted "as it is" in the article with a note that "as per the claims of the publisher of the primary source material .... this is the figure". So, no secondary or tertiary sources are required to back-up the claim. Shovon (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The Pakistani Perspective
HI, is this complete section completely POV pushing and copy paste from website? My own posts are deleted because of secondary reliable source constraints.Thisthat2011 (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed it, and invited the IP editor in question to discuss their changes here - I hope they do so. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request for Air Losses
The aircraft losses section cites sources, but then LIES about what those sources actually state. For example, under Indian Claims please go to the Bharat-Rashak link and look at it: it says 75 IAF losses (out of which 13 were accidents). Similarly the "Official Indian History" link puts IAF COMBAT losses at 59 aircraft (page 28 of the PDF). Since changing it will cause a useless edit war, I would like to form a consensus here first. Please click on the sources already cited and see what they say. Under "Indian Claims", the article should read: 75/59 IAF aircraft losses, 43 PAF aircraft losses. Any objections? 202.70.150.18 (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S.: The two sources do not contradict each other -- The 75 figure includes 13 accidents, and 3 civilian aircraft -- making it 59 military aircraft lost in combat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.70.150.18 (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Strength of armed forces of Pakistan and India
I have edited the armed forces strength of both pakistan and India from verifiable sources such as War Despatches by Lt.Gen Harbaksh Singh,Official History of 1965 war chapter 1 which refers from the The Military Balance, 1964-65, IISS, 'London.so it can be taken as neutral assessment. I could not find any Pakistan Book which gives troop strength of Pak armed forces(iHav read only ahukat riza 1965 war book).I would request both Indian and Pakistani editors to find a pakistan source giving the troop strength of both nations.Regards Panzerkampf1990 (talk) 05:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 119.153.35.248, 22 August 2011
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/6/newsid_3632000/3632092.stm

119.153.35.248 (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Topher385 (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)