RIAZ HAQ WAR 1965

Haq's Musings
http://www.riazhaq.com/2016/09/who-won-1965-war-
india-or-pakistan.html
Riaz Haq writes this data-driven blog to provide
information, express his opinions and make comments
on many topics. Subjects include personal activities,
education, South Asia, South Asian community, regional
and international affairs and US politics to financial
markets. For investors interested in South Asia, Riaz has
another blog called South Asia Investor at
http://www.southasiainvestor.com and a YouTube video
channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkrIDyFbC9N9evX
Yb9cA_gQ
Sunday, September 11, 2016
Who Won the 1965 War? India or Pakistan?
How did Gurdaspur, an overwhelming Muslim majority
district of Punjab, end up in India?

What was its significance for Kashmir? What role did

Nehru and Abdullah play in Kashmir prior to the war of
1965?
Front Page of Australia's Leading Newspaper on Sept 11,
1965

Who started the India-Pakistan War in 1965? What was

Operation Gibraltar? Why did Pakistan initiate Operation
Gibraltar?
Why did India cross the international border to attack
Lahore and Sialkot on Sept 6, 1965?
What was India’s strategy? What was Pakistan’s
strategy?
Did either country succeed in achieving its objectives in
1965? Did the 1965 war make India get a tighter grip on
Kashmir?

Viewpoint From Overseas host Faraz Darvesh discusses

these questions with panelists Ali H. Cemendtaur and
Riaz Haq (www.riazhaq.com)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_VAqyClS-0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_VAqyClS-0&t=5s
[Did India beat Pakistan in the 1965 war?]
=============
15 comments:

Singh said...
Historian Akbar Zaidi admits Pakistan lost terribly
during 1965 war against India

http://www.indiasamvad.co.in/special-stories/historian-
akbar-zaidi-admits-pakistan-lost-terribly-during-1965-
war-against-india-6545
September 11, 2016 at 10:33 AM

Riaz Haq said...

Singh: "Historian Akbar Zaidi admits Pakistan lost
terribly during 1965 war against India"
If one has to choose between Akbar Zaidi, a Pakistani
historian with no inside knowledge of the 1965 war, and
YB Chavan, the Indian defense minister with deep inside
knowledge of the 1965 war, I would always go with YB
Chavan for authenticity and accuracy. Read excerpts of
"1965 War: The Inside Story" by RD Pradhan.

http://www.riazhaq.com/2013/09/inside-story-
pakistan-army-at-gates-of.html
September 11, 2016 at 10:34 AM

Singh said...
wow a Pakistani trusting a Hindu over a war analysis
den his fellow Muslim brother. Whole time you dislike
Hindus and now you referring to him for his analysis.
Kinda ironic
September 11, 2016 at 10:35 AM

Riaz Haq said...

Singh: "wow a Pakistani trusting a Hindu over a war
analysis den his fellow Muslim brother. Whole time you
dislike Hindus and now you referring to him for his
analysis. Kinda ironic"

Wrong! My analysis has nothing to do with religion and

everything to do with the knowledge and expertise of the
people being quoted. In this instance YB Chavan and RK
Yadav know a lot more of the facts than Akbar Zaidi.
September 11, 2016 at 10:37 AM
Avish D. said...
lol..Sheikh Abdullah Was imprisoned by none other than
but Karan Singh...hahaha..sir atleast get your facts
straight before appearing in a talk show...it was later that
Nehru was told abt this whole issue...BTW Sheikh
Abdullah was nehru's chaddi buddy. lol
September 11, 2016 at 10:39 AM

Riaz Haq said...

Avish: "lol..Sheikh Abdullah Was imprisoned by none
other than but Karan Singh...hahaha..sir atleast get your
facts straight before appearing in a talk show...it was
later that Nehru was told abt this whole issue...BTW
Sheikh Abdullah was nehru's chaddi buddy. lol"

Read "Nehru: A Contemporary Estimate by Walter

Crocker". He talks about Nehru's imprisonment of
Abdullah.

"Speaking of Nehru's imprisonment of Shaikh Abdullah,

(Arnold) Toynbee has said, "It is more blessed to be
imprisoned for one's ideals than to imprison other
people, incongruously, in the name of the same of he
same ideals. Nehru lived to have both experiences".

https://books.google.com/books?
id=hQ8p4XTRZgEC&pg=PT64&lpg=PT64&dq=nehru+imp
risoned+abdullah&source=bl&ots=tNjgAbbCUx&sig=XlE7
d1XrBI3uE4o-
28pDdmaGy98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiI9_qG64fPA
hUJ32MKHRcDA-YQ6AEIQTAG#v=onepage&q=nehru
%20imprisoned%20abdullah&f=false
September 11, 2016 at 10:47 AM

Raaz said...
‫ار ہماری تھرڈ ورلڈ کی جنگوں میں وہ جیتے ہیں جن کا اسلحہ ہوتا ہے‬

‫وہ لوگ اپنا اسلح بیچ کے پیسے کھرے کر لیتے ہیں لوگ ہمارے مر جاتے ہیں‬
‫ہم سمجھتے ہیں کہ ہم جیت گئے‬

‫جنگیں ان کی ہوتی ہیں جن کا اسلحہ بھی اپنا بنایا ہوا ہو اور لوگ بھی ان کے اپنے ہوں پالننگ بھی انکی اپنی ہو‬

‫پاکستان انڈیا نہ تین میں نہ تیرہ میں‬

September 11, 2016 at 1:52 PM

Anonymous said...
What was the final outcome of 65 war? Practically
nothing! Pakistan was not able gain any territory
permanently. Interestingly 71 war was more conclusive.
It changed map of Pakistan for good.
September 13, 2016 at 1:18 PM

Jamshed said...
Is the aim of the Pakistani incursion in 1965 to capture
Kashmir ? Pakistan did not get Kashmir so that answers
the question.
September 13, 2016 at 10:49 PM
Riaz Haq said...
#India swiftly rejects #UN request for a visit to the
disputed territory of #Kashmir. #KashmirUnrest #Modi

http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-india-un-kashmir-
20160913-snap-story.html

India on Tuesday rejected a request by the United

Nations’ human rights chief for a visit to gather
information on the disputed territory of Kashmir, where
security forces have been accused of using excessive
violence in trying to quell unrest.

Zeid Raad Hussein, the U.N. high commissioner for

human rights, called for “access that is unconditional to
both sides of the Line of Control,” the boundary between
India and Pakistan that runs through Kashmir.

Speaking to the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva,

Hussein said his request was granted by Pakistan, which
accuses Indian forces of human rights violations in the
Himalayan territory that the countries have skirmished
over for seven decades.

“I believe an independent, impartial and international

mission is now needed crucially and that it should be
given free and complete access to establish an objective
assessment of the claims made by the two sides,”
Hussein said.

In the main government hospital in Srinagar, the

summer capital of Indian-administered Kashmir, more
than 800 people have been treated for eye injuries
caused by the pellets, which are made of metal and
encased in a thin rubber coating. Many of them have lost
at least partial eyesight.

The violence continued Tuesday when two people were

killed, including a 19-year-old man, and dozens injured
in clashes with security forces who were enforcing a rare
curfew on the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha.

Authorities imposed the curfew across all 10 districts of

Kashmir to thwart plans by separatist groups to march
to the local offices of the United Nations, Indian news
media reported.

India and Pakistan each control portions of Kashmir but

claim the territory in its entirety. Separatists in the
Muslim-majority territory have taken up arms to seek
independence from Hindu-dominated India or a merger
with Pakistan.

Under a controversial security law, Indian authorities

enjoy broad powers to crack down on unrest in Kashmir.
Human rights groups have assailed tactics used by
security forces, accusing paramilitary police of firing
pellets that have injured or blinded peaceful
demonstrators and even children sitting in their homes.

“These weapons are inherently indiscriminate and always

carry the risk of causing serious injury to people who are
not engaging in violence,” said Amnesty International’s
India director, Aakar Patel. “There is simply no proper
way to use these weapons, and they should be
prohibited.”

On Sept. 2, Indian officials approved an alternate to the

pellets – a shell packed with a compound derived from
chili peppers – that it said would be used only in rare
cases. But Amnesty said more than 100 cases of pellet
injuries were reported at hospitals in Srinagar in the first
week of the month.
September 14, 2016 at 7:06 AM

Riaz Haq said...

Top Congress leader: If #India is to make Jammu &
#Kashmir love India, referendum is the only way
http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/out-
of-my-mind-azadi-indian-parliament-p-chidambaram-
ghulam-nabi-azad-kashmir-pok-atal-bihari-vajpayee-
india-2945138/ … via @IndianExpress

There is celebration in heaven when a single sinner

repents. In Indian Parliament, there is little freedom for
back benchers to speak their own mind. Yet P
Chidambaram has boldly spoken the unspeakable about
Kashmir. He is the first ranking member of any of the
political parties to say openly that India (that is all except
J&K) has reneged on the bargain the Kashmiris were
promised. He was shot down for this by Ghulam Nabi
Azad as not reflecting Congress policy. That alone
guarantees that he was telling an unpalatable truth to
his own party.
What was the bargain?
There were two steps for princely states to join the Indian
Union. First was accession and then came integration. In
Junagarh and Hyderabad, a popular vote cemented
integration. Kashmir was also promised such a popular
vote but it never happened because of the war and the
ceasefire policed by the UN. Any plebiscite became
impossible as both parts of J&K could not be got
together. Sheikh Abdullah was put under house arrest
for 11 years without trial for arguing for plebiscite.
Elections were then rigged and a pliable leadership found
to do Delhi’s bidding. The entire issue of popular
consultation was forgotten. Article 370 remained in the
Constitution but the state lost its autonomy as defined
therein. The mantra became Kashmir is an integral part
of India, proof of its secularism.
The Congress failed in the 50 years after Independence to
win over the minds and hearts of the people of the Valley.
The reconciliation process began with Atal Bihari
Vajpayee. The issue involves three parties — India,
Pakistan and J&K (plus PoK?). The solution has to be
sought in a two-pronged fashion — India and Pakistan
and India and J&K. It is when the small number of
separatists try to join up the third side — Pakistan and
J&K — that India sees red. The fear of the third
connection has restricted and distorted India’s efforts to
win the love of the Kashmiris.
Islamist terrorism began to infiltrate in the late Eighties
and has been a nagging presence ever since. Each time
someone falls victim to police or Army bullet, there is a
funeral procession where young people shout ‘azadi’,
which leads to more deaths. Azadi is a shout not for
independence from India, but for autonomy, for the
status quo ante, when the head of the government was
called prime minister (as were all chief ministers of
provinces before 1947) and the head of the state, Sadar-
i-Riyasat.
Chidambaram has now broken the silence about the
original bargain. Of course, he will be criticised.
But as a former home minister as well as a member of
the Cabinet in several governments, he is well aware of
all the issues. There is a bold way out. That is to conduct
a referendum where all the citizens of J&K have a vote,
as would have happened if the maharaja had acceded in
good time before the invasion from Pakistan. Ask them if
they want to be integrated in the Union or be
autonomous. The latter is not the same as independence
but what they had between 1947 and 1953, with Article
370 restored effectively.
If India is to make J&K love India, this is the only way.
September 16, 2016 at 4:00 PM

Riaz Haq said...

Silence over #Indian atrocities in #Kashmir speaks
volumes

https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2010/aug/
14/silence-over-kashmir-conflict

nce known for its extraordinary beauty, the valley of

Kashmir now hosts the biggest, bloodiest and also the
most obscure military occupation in the world. With
more than 80,000 people dead in an anti-India
insurgency backed by Pakistan, the killings fields of
Kashmir dwarf those of Palestine and Tibet. In addition
to the everyday regime of arbitrary arrests, curfews,
raids, and checkpoints enforced by nearly 700,000
Indian soldiers, the valley's 4 million Muslims are
exposed to extra-judicial execution, rape and torture,
with such barbaric variations as live electric wires
inserted into penises.

Why then does the immense human suffering of Kashmir

occupy such an imperceptible place in our moral
imagination? After all, the Kashmiris demanding release
from the degradations of military rule couldn't be louder
and clearer. India has contained the insurgency provoked
in 1989 by its rigged elections and massacres of
protestors. The hundreds of thousands of demonstrators
that fill the streets of Kashmir's cities today are
overwhelmingly young, many in their teens, and armed
with nothing more lethal than stones. Yet the Indian
state seems determined to strangle their voices as it did
of the old one. Already this summer, soldiers have shot
dead more than 50 protestors, most of them teenagers.

The New York Times this week described the protests as

a comprehensive"intifada-like popular revolt". They
indeed have a broader mass base than the Green
Movement does in Iran. But no colour-coded revolution is
heralded in Kashmir by western commentators. The BBC
and CNN don't endlessly loop clips of little children being
shot in the head by Indian soldiers. Bloggers and
tweeters in the west fail to keep a virtual vigil by the side
of the dead and the wounded. No sooner than his office
issued it last week, the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-
moon, hastened to retract a feeble statement expressing
concern over the situation in Kashmir.

Kashmiri Muslims are understandably bitter. As Parvaiz

Bukhari, a journalist, said early this week the stones
flung randomly by protestors have become "the voice of a
neglected people" convinced that the world deliberately
ignores their plight. The veteran Kashmiri journalist
Masood Hussain confessed to the near-total futility of his
painstaking auditing of atrocity over two decades. For
Kashmir has turned out to be a "great suppression
story".

Those western pundits who are always ready to assault

illiberal regimes worldwide on behalf of democracy ought
not to be so tongue-tied. Here is a well-educated Muslim
population, heterodox and pluralist by tradition and
temperament, and desperate for genuine democracy.
However, intellectuals preoccupied by transcendent,
nearly mystical, battles between civilization and
barbarism tend to assume that "democratic" India, a
natural ally of the "liberal" west, must be doing the right
thing in Kashmir, ie fighting "Islamofascism". Thus
Christopher Hitchens could call upon the Bush
administration to establish a military alliance with "the
other great multi-ethnic democracy under attack from
Muslim fascism" even as an elected Hindu nationalist
government stood accused of organising a pogrom that
killed more than 2,000 Muslims in the Indian state of
Gujarat.
September 21, 2016 at 10:38 AM

Riaz Haq said...

#Indian defense analyst Pravin Sawhney: Fighting
tactical battles for one-upmanship. #Rafale and #S400
would certainly help Indian Air Force, but would not tilt
the operational level balance in #India’s favor in conflict
with #Pakistan
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/fighting-
tactical-battles-for-one-upmanship/760082.html via
@thetribunechd

The issue, thus, is about tactics and operational level of

war. The Pakistan military, learning from the Soviet
Union, has always given importance to the operational
level. This is why in the 1965 and 1971 wars, despite
being more in bean-counting of assets, India never won
in the western sector. Proof of this are the ceasefire line
and the Line of Control, which otherwise would have
been converted into international borders.

The situation, regrettably, remains the same today.

Separate doctrines of the Army and the Air Force, and
with each service doing its own training is evidence that
no amount of modernisation would help if the focus of
service chiefs remains on tactics. For example, after the
Balakot operation, a senior Air Force officer told me that
the PAF would not last more than six days. He believed
in tactical linear success. What about the other kinetic
and non-kinetic forces which impact at the operational
level?

This is not all. Retired senior Air Force officers started

chest-thumping about the Balakot airstrike having set
the new normal. Some argued that air power need not be
escalatory, while others made the case for the use of air
power in counter-terror operations like the Army. Clearly,
they all were talking tactics, not war. Had India retaliated
to the PAF’s counter-strike, what it called an act of war,
an escalation was assured. It is another matter that PM
Narendra Modi had only bargained for the use of the IAF
for electoral gains.
Talking of tactics, Air Chief Marshal Dhanoa spoke about
relative technological superiority. Perhaps, Wing
Commander Abhinandan Varthaman would not have
strayed into Pakistani airspace if his MiG-21 Bison had
Software Defined Radio (SDR) and Operational Data Link
(ODL). The SDR operates in the VHF, UHF, Ku and L
bandwidths and is meant to remove voice clutter. The
ODL provides the pilot with data or text, in this case from
the ground controller. The officer, separated from his
wing-man, and without necessary voice and data
instructions, unwittingly breached the airspace and was
captured by the Pakistan army. There are known critical
shortages of force multipliers in addition to force levels in
the IAF. Surely, the IAF Chief can’t do much except keep
asking the government to fill the operational voids. But,
he could avoid making exaggerated claims since his
words would only feed the ultra-nationalists, and
support the Modi government’s spurious argument of
having paid special attention to national security.

The same is the case with Rafale and S-400. These would
certainly help, but would not tilt the operational level
balance in India’s favour. For example, the IAF intends to
use S-400 in the ‘offensive air defence’ role rather than
its designed role of protecting high-value targets like
Delhi, for which it was originally proposed. For the
protection of high-value targets, the Air Headquarters
has made a strong case to purchase the United States’
National Advanced Surface to Air Missile System
(NASAMS). This is ironic, because while S-400 can
destroy hostile ballistic missiles, NASAMS can’t do so. It
can only kill cruise missiles and other aerial platforms.
The thinking at the Air Headquarters is that since there
is no understanding on the use of ballistic missiles —
especially with Pakistan — both sides are likely to avoid
the use of ballistic missiles with conventional warheads
lest they are misread and lead to a nuclear accident. So,
NASAMS may probably never be called upon to take on
ballistic missiles.

Given the direction of the relationship between the India

and Pakistan, this assumption may not be the best to
make when procuring prohibitively expensive high-value
assets.
April 19, 2019 at 3:31 PM

Riaz Haq said...

War That Never Was: The Story Of India's Strategic
Failures
by
Ravi Rikhye

In the Chapter 4- How India Lost All Its Wars of the book,
the author gives analysis of the proposition that war of
1947-48 and 1965 were a favorable stalemate and that of
1971 was an outright victory has been carried out in this
chapter. Here the author comments that in all security
crises, there have been very serious misperceptions of
adversary behavior and that India repeatedly commits
same mistake.

https://booksynopsis16.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-
war-that-never-was-ravi-rikhye.html
September 5, 2020 at 7:24 AM
Anonymous said...
Its gross simplification to frame the issue in terms of
winning or losing. The long term strategic consequences
of 1965 war were profoundly negative for Pakistan. The
Eastern wing not being part of combat felt alienated and
insecure. The theory that defense of East Pakistan was
by maintaining a strong western wing proved wrong. The
strategic goal of Operation Gibraltor of getting a foothold
in Kashmir and getting India to negotiate on the disputed
issue was not achieved. In fact Pakistani establishment
was forced to plead for ceasefire as they did not expect to
hold Indian troops movement for long. Ayub's desperate
secret visit to China during the war to get help clearly
shows that the military was not hopeful of being able to
hold Indian troops from advancing for too long. Yes the
Pakistani information ministry under Altaf Gauhar did a
remarkable job of galvanising the people and making
them believe the it was Pakistan that had won. Though
in the chapter on the was in his book on Ayub Khan,
Altaf Gauhar paints a very different picture particularly
that of Nawab of Kalabag begging Ayub to get a cease fire
as body basgs started arriving.
August 8, 2021 at 7:42 PM
Post a Comment