1965: You didn’t win the war India, but neither did we, Pakistan

Published: September 6, 2015
SHARES
Email

In the last 50 years, both India and Pakistan have claimed their respective victories on the basis of their own proclamations.

There is no doubt that the 1965 Indo-Pak war over the status of Jammu and Kashmir ended in a United Nations (UN) mandated truce that compelled India to accept the ceasefire on September 21, 1965 while Pakistan agreed to it on September 22, 1965.

The Tashkent peace agreement constrained Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and Pakistani President Ayub Khan to quit all territorial claims and pull back their armies from the disputed terrain to pre-conflict positions by February 25, 1966.

Although it is also evident that the conflict was halted with a truce due to the policies of the US and the Soviet Union – who were engaged in the Cold War at the time – both rival neighbours, Pakistan and India, still claim victory against each other.

In the last 50 years, both India and Pakistan have claimed their respective victories on the basis of their own proclamations. Neither of the sides is ready to admit each other’s assertion, which is mostly based on home-grown broadcasting. Local newspapers of both countries are not a genuine source for any authentication as media outlets were highly influenced by official policies of the time, particularly about war coverage. Hence, it is really difficult to find precise and genuine facts and figures about the real nature of the 1965 war due to the limited media coverage of the war in South Asia. However, international media’s reporting and independent journalists’ commentary is a great source to understand the must-know details of the battle.

The Indo-Pak war of 1965 witnessed extensive aerial combat with defensive and offensive operations. Operation Dwarka, a noteworthy naval attack by Pakistan Navy and the battle of Chawinda in Sialkot sector, the largest tank battle after World War II, were the highlights of the battle.

Photo: Native Pakistani

Photo: Native Pakistani

In wake of these events, India and Pakistan formulated generally conflicting explanations and testimonies about the destruction they perpetrated as well as the losses they suffered during the confrontation.

I do not want to delve into the details of each and every operation that was conducted during the war. Instead, for neutral assessments, I would like to mention some of the excerpts from the foreign media’s war-reporting of the 1965 war. Some of these have been documented in great detail.

An American weekly Newsweek magazine applauded the tactics of Pakistan’s armed forces who repulsed the attack by large Indian army and defended its territory.

“By just the end of the week, in fact, it was clear that the Pakistanis were more than holding their own.”

A very interesting opinion was written by Donald Seaman for Daily Express (London) on September 24, 1965:

“Outnumbered three-to-one, they beat the Indians to a standstill, and were about to mount a counter attack in the last six hours before the ceasefire when they were stopped on political grounds.”

In their book, ‘Conflict in Asia: Korea, China-Taiwan, and India-Pakistan’ (2003), Uk Heo and Shale Asher Horowitz concluded,

“Again India appeared, logistically at least, to be in a superior position but neither side was able to mobilise enough strength to gain a decisive victory.”

In the chapter ‘Of Cowardice and Panic’ of his book ‘1965 War, the Inside Story: Defence Minister YB Chavan’s Diary of India-Pakistan War’, RD Pradhan openly wrote the account of Indian Defence Minister from his day-to-day diary:

Photo: Amazon.com

Rob Johnson in his book ‘A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947’ stated,

“India’s strategic aims were modest – it aimed to deny Pakistani Army victory, although it ended up in possession of 720 square miles (1,900 kilometres square) of Pakistani territory for the loss of just 220 square miles (570 kilometres square) of its own.

The Time Magazine’s correspondent Louis Karrar wrote in a war dispatch on September 22, 1965,

“Who can defeat a nation which knows to play hide and seek with death? Playing with fire to these men – from the Jawan to the General Officer Commanding – was like children playing with marbles in the streets. I asked the GOC, how is it that despite small number you are overpowering the Indians? He looked at me, smiled and said: If courage, bravery and patriotism was purchasable commodities, then India could have got them along with foreign aid.”

Roy Meloni, a journalist of American Broadcasting Corporation summed up the events of the war on September 15, 1965 as follows,

“I have been journalist now for 20 years and want to go on record that I have never seen a more confident and victorious group of soldiers than those fighting for Pakistan, right now.”

Patrick Seale, a Belfast-born British journalist and author for The Observer, wrote about the air combat between India and Pakistan (September 12, 1965),

“Pakistan’s success in the air means that she has been able to redeploy her relatively small army – professionally among the best in Asia – with impurity, plugging gaps in the long front in the face of each Indian thrust.”

According to a Daily Mirror correspondent (September 15, 1965),

“And there is the smell of death in the burning Pakistan sun. For it was here that India’s attacking forces came to a dead stop. Screaming Pakistani troops bet off the attacking Indian forces again and again.”

Guardian’s journalist, Peter Preston, wrote on September 24, 1965 about the air strikes of Pakistan Air Force during the 1965 war,

One thing I am convinced of is that Pakistan morally and even physically won the air battle against immense odds.”

The Time Weekly published the following assertion on September 17, 1965 about the aerial warfare of Pakistan Air Force,

“In the air, it was much the same story – Indian quantity and Pakistan quality. In the short run, Pakistan’s small, highly trained army is more than a match for the Indians.”

At the end of the 17-day war, huge personnel, economic losses and strategic blunders by both India and Pakistan confirmed that the Indo-Pak war of 1965 ended in a stalemate and none of the rivals were eventually declared as victors of the combat zone. The Tashkent Declaration wounded up the affairs of all the armed consequences of the 1965 war.

From the aforementioned excerpts, it is evident that despite what is said nowadays, the Pakistani Army has given its nation and the people enough to write home about.

Tanveer Khadim

Tanveer Khadim

An avid reader, freelance writer and a blogger, Tanveer is pursuing fashion designing. She has a passion for cooking, attended cookery courses and tweets as @TheFusionDiary (twitter.com/TheFusionDiary)

The views expressed by the writer and the reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of The Express Tribune.

  • someone

    LOL. Ok it took you from 50 years to move from ” We won the war” to ” it was stalemate”. Just wait another 50, you would realize that you did loose every war.Recommend

  • rajan

    IF pakistan won the war,then why pakistan still has to approach UN on kashmirRecommend

  • Asad

    Thank you for compiling these accounts of neutral journalists. Now get ready for curses from Indians saying all these journalists are not credible.

    “I asked the GOC, how is it that despite small number you are overpowering the Indians? He looked at me, smiled and said: If courage, bravery and patriotism was purchasable commodities, then India could have got them along with foreign aid.”

    BURRNNNNNNNNN.Recommend

  • yasir

    after a long time an article worth reading on ET , i really appreciate you critical thinking and not being biased as a pakistani as neither won but overall we stood 1-5 yet we held our own and even pushed india back that in itself is an achievement however you can include a bit of indian sources as well would improve the articleRecommend

  • amoretamoret

    A good try, but the excerpt from Rob Johnson gives it away– India “ended up in possession of 720 square miles (1,900 kilometres square) of Pakistani territory for the loss of just 220 square miles (570 kilometres square) of its own”. How can a country which loses 500 miles more of its territory claim to have won the war? Just holding on to part of your own territiry doesn’t mean victory. Victory is winning more territory or accomplishing whatever you had decided to achieve.

    All these excerpts (only selective, partial, based on Pak army briefings and mostly pertaining to when complete information was not not available) are from Western journos who were rooting for a fellow SEATO ally Pakistan aganist a perceived left country like India. Nothing strange here.Recommend

  • persona2020

    There is no question of India winning or loosing as it did not started the war. Pakistan started it and failed terribly. Making things look complicated won’t save your face.Recommend

  • zoro

    If you start a war with a particular goal in your mind … (which in this case was complete control on Indian side of Kashmir …) which u did not win … rather conceded Kargil and various adjoining areas …. the result would be ????
    I leave this judgement to the readers ….Recommend

  • abhi

    Western media is not a neutral source. Pakistan was very much a part of western aliance at that time and blue eyed boy of America. Pakistan’s status was same as Israel at that time and they had modern equipments suplied by USA.Recommend

  • abhi

    If these journalists are credible then how despite “winning” the war Pakistan couldn’t get an extra inch of Kashmir?Recommend

  • Asad

    right………. sorry if the article hurt your egoRecommend

  • Asad

    just like India started with the objective of capturing Lahore and then Sialkot :P LOL at your face :PRecommend

  • Abhishek Chaturvedi

    pakistan started the war … pakistan’s aim was to get kashmir from india …pakistan did not get it … in turn it lost 1900 sq km of area……. as someone recently from pakistan said …. “pakistan lost the war terribly “… period …… and finally if u look at current scenario pakistan is a sinking ship … loosing the battle everyday… so yeah go on with ur defense day celebration if only it can save u from hunger ,poverty ,polio ,terrorist attack and brain eating amoeba …Lulz …Recommend

  • John

    What is there to burn…..dude..?…..if we had’t be patriotic, we wouldn’t have been where we are…..Recommend

  • Abhishek Chaturvedi

    we will launch an attack on india to get kashmir from india …. mashallah inshallah kashmir shall become pakistan…. our brave forces will kill each and every hindu….”CRUSH INDIA”…… kashmir banega pakistan……. courage ,valor of pak army will destroy enemy …
    after days of battle and buri tarah joote khaane ke baad……
    Mashallah we successfully defended lahore … inshallah … we won the war …
    RIP Paklogic……LolRecommend

  • Abhishek Chaturvedi

    yeah … just that he din know years after his country would have to survive on foreign aid…
    BURRNNNNNNNNN.Recommend

  • Vishwaroopam

    conclusion in your own words

    “India’s strategic aims were modest – it aimed to deny Pakistani Army victory, although it ended up in possession of 720 square miles (1,900 kilometres square) of Pakistani territory for the loss of just 220 square miles (570 kilometres square) of its own.”

    so as per your words India didn’t started the war but inspite of that it snatched 4 times territory than Pakistan could.Now anyone can conclude who won the war.Recommend

  • Bharat

    There was no reason for Inda to withdraw. In fact they should have taken Lahore and then Stopped.

    next time Inda will not return territory. Recommend

  • Jayman

    1965 was a large-scale infiltration. Pak started by opening one front and India opened another front.Recommend

  • Headstrong

    You seem to be a Deep Purple fan! Words are cheap – recall the 1 pakistani soldier = 10 Hindu soldiers. We know how that turned out…..Recommend

  • Brain Think

    Pakistan is celebrating this day on a false pretext. Pakistan did not win the 1965 war.

    Irony is that, Pakistan started all the wars. Contrary to the false belief – spread from the military circles into school text books – India never attacked Pakistan first, ever.

    One can stretch the rubber band only so much. Truth ultimately has to be accepted.

    Pakistani military needs to end its war agenda with India, open up the borders, form a joint coalition against the upcoming REAL wars that are coming to this region, such as the ISIS.

    Pakistani and Indian military would need to work together to destroy the ISIS, which is going to be a huge threat to their existence in the upcoming years.Recommend

  • Jahangir

    Very informative article, however a rather inappropriate title. Because we did win war of 1965 on our hardcore facts and ground achievements. Don’t need western jornos to tell you who won!Recommend

  • jay

    Pakistan is always winner in words. Each Pakistani knows the reality of their position and strength. They like, want, and will always win over India. India being eleder brother knows Pakistan Army’s position. They will always control Pakistan Civil Government directly or through Proxy by claiming they are the only powerful Army saving Pakistan from India. India never likes to have war with Pakistan. It is creation of Pakistan Army to emotionally blackmail Pakistan public by giving an anti India propaganda. After Independence, India became the largest democracy in the world in real sense. But Pakistan became the most dictatorial country in the world in the hand of its own Army. Pakistan People can see video footage or pictorials of the meeting between Army Chief and PM Mr. Sharif. How the poor Mr Sharif has to succumb to the remote control rule of Pak government by Army Chief. Army Chief’s powers come from Chinese nuclear and arm supports. Pak Army Chief’s inferiority complexion is well known when Mr Sharif visits India for trade then Pak Army chief visits China for more defense support. what for? it is well known fact that India never feels to have battle with Pak. How ever, Pak Army is scared about the fact that if Indian and Pakistan people became friendly, peaceful and become economically stable through mutual trade then Pak Army will loose its significance in the region consisting Afganisthan, Pakistan and India. Pak Army and ISI are spreading worms of Terrorism across south Asian country to bring unrest. Poor Pakistani are suffering and are killed maximum in the hands of the proxy terrorists of Pak Army. What is celebration for? Own Army killing own people through spreading the worm of terrorism. Poor pakistani has no other alternative but to celebrate their own killings due to their own Army’s dictum.Recommend

  • hari naidu

    you burn got lost in every war with indiaRecommend

  • Vectra

    Pakistanis are confused lot who are taught the distorted history through their life.Pakistan has been celebrating something which it has never won but lost miserably.But still remains in denial mode.Recommend

  • Vectra

    Pakistanis are confused lot who are taught the distorted history throughout
    their life.Pakistan has been celebrating something which it has never
    won but lost miserably.But still remains in denial mode.Accept or reject history doesn’t change.Recommend

  • ajay gupta

    indeed. what happened to the bravery 6 years later? in 1971? by then the Indian army had purchased courage, bravery & patriotism, is it?Recommend

  • Um Has

    Defense day celebrations are highlighting the fact of successful defense, inflicting great amount of damage in land, air and sea on the enemy and never defeating or completely wiping it out as happens in normal victories !!!
    But for the 17 days war the superiority on land and particularly more by PAF and PN is quite evident from all accounts !
    Also the area captured figures vary from source to source .. some quote larger by Pakistan and some larger by India .. but most agree than Pakistan was able to repel the offensive in a stronger way ! (lahore being the prime example)Recommend

  • uzair khan

    114 indian jets were took down, 450 tanks of india were destroyed,.. 18000+ soldiers of india were killed….. isn’t it the victory of pakistan…. ???Recommend

  • aPakCitizen

    Question for a layman, do you know wars have objectives? Please write about the achieved objective of the indian armed forces. Pakistan for that matter was not the aggressor but defender and defended, please read.Recommend

  • Milind A

    A sudden spurt of these 1965 articles and Pakistan’s celebration of this defence appears like a knee-jerk reaction by Pakistan to Modi’s celebration of 1965 was in India. Once again Pakistan has played in his handsRecommend

  • Vish

    The author reveals both, her lack of vision and hindsight. Any analyst worth her/his salt will conclude that 1965 was a catastrophic defeat for Pakistan, in spite of any tactical victories it may have won on the battlefield. Not only did Pakistan fail to wrest Kashmir, it also lost any claim on Kashmir as Operation Gibraltar clearly exposed the fact that Kashmiris were with India. In reality Kashmiris helped Indians capture Pakistan infiltrators. Although Pakistan’s attack took India by surprise, it recovered and not only held its own but also captured Pak territory. That this was done with inferior equipment, greatly boosted India’s confidence. India became wary of Pakistan, rebuilt its military forces and decided to take revenge on Pakistan. It helped and supported the disillusioned East Pakistanis who were in a majority resulting in the dismemberment of Pakistan in 1971. If there was no 1965, there would be no 1971. Sadly Pakistanis like this author fail to realise this, while gloating over a few tactical victories or the fact that there was no official victor in 1965. In reality, 1965 laid the grounds for the end of Jinnah’s ‘moth eaten Pakistan’. What can be a greater defeat then that? But again, Pakistan’s establishment may right now be laying the grounds for a far greater defeat in future. Who know?Recommend

  • Bairooni Haath

    Pakistan started the war and did not meet any part of its objective. That is the definition of defeat.Recommend

  • Bana Post

    The 1965 war with India proved that Pakistan could neither break the formidable Indian defenses in a blitzkrieg fashion nor could she sustain an all-out conflict for long.One of the most far reaching consequences of the war was the wide-scale economic slowdown in Pakistan.[136][137] The cost of the 1965 war put an end to the impressive period economic growth Pakistan had experienced during the early 1960s. Between 1964 and 1966, Pakistan’s defence spending rose from 4.82% to 9.86% of GDP, putting tremendous strain on Pakistan’s economy. By 1970–71, defence spending comprised a whopping 55.66% of government expenditure.[138] According to veterns of the war, the war had greatly cost Pakistan economically, politically, and militarily.[139] Nuclear theorist Feroze Khan maintained that the 1965 war was a last conventional attempt to snatch Kashmir by military forces, and Pakistan’s own position in international community, especially with the United States, began to deteriorated from the point the war started, while on the other hand, the alliance with China was indeed improved.[139] Noted in the memoirs of war veteran, General Tariq Majid (later four-star general), Chou En-Lai had longed advised the government in the classic style of Sun Tzus: “to go slow, not to push India hard; and avoid a fight over Kashmir, ‘for at least, 20-30 years, until you have developed your economy and consolidated your national power’.”[139] source wikiRecommend

  • Simla

    In 1965 world was different, there was cold war, Pakistan was a member of SEATO and CENTO, darling boy of the west. Pakistan had the backing of all western countries where as India had only Soviet support. No western power favoured India. If all these reports were true, then why did Pakistan not win the war or attain the objectives of Operation Gibraltar and Operation Grand slam.
    Lastly there is no need for any Indian to burn because these very same newspapers have now changed their tunes. What the West now think of Pakistan is defined by the term “AfPak”.Recommend

  • Bana Post

    Really funny.After 100 Pakis will celebrate 1971,Siachin loss,Kargil flop and of course Mumbai. attack. Pakistan dont know one thing thats how write unbiased history with objectivityRecommend

  • Bana Post

    Really funny.After 100 years Pakis will celebrate 1971,Siachin loss,Kargil flop and of course Mumbai. attack. Pakistan dont know one thing thats how write unbiased history with objectivityRecommend

  • shehryar bukhari

    Holding on to your part of territory is clearly a victory if you’re Defending it specially when you’re outnumbered to 3:1.
    You need to read basic definitions.
    I suggest you read a book ” art of war” by sun tzuRecommend

  • shehryar bukhari

    Negative sir
    India attacked on international border ,clearly frustrated of Pakistani infiltration in Kashmir sector and Pakistani forces defended their territory against an enemy three times bigger . so it is clearly about failed attempts of Indian Army to capture kusur and LahoreRecommend

  • Talat

    Hahahaha My Dear Indian,
    Read the whole article again. Read the quote of your then Defence Minister YB Chavan, In his Diary of India-Pakistan War’, he wrote,

    “Sept 9, 1965: Had a very hard day on all fronts. Very fierce counter-attacks mounted and we are required to withdraw in Kasur area. COAS was somewhat uncertain of himself. I suggested to him that he should go in forward areas so that he will be in touch of realities. He said he would go next day.”

    I hope you understand it now :DRecommend

  • Talat

    Good writeup!
    Writer has cleverly cemented Pakistani victory by attaching European media accounts.
    None of the added quotes have anything positive for India, irrespective of what India claims as victory. One needs to go thoroughly from this article to understand what writer is saying.Recommend

  • Atif

    Yes it was a stalmate . I love tje Media coverage that is mentioned here
    Recommend

  • http://thoughtsandotherthing.blogspot.fr/2015/09/vegetarianism-ritual-killings-et-al.html Supriya Arcot

    There are no winners in any war , there are mere survivors . The alive ones stop living , they merely exist till the end of their lives.Recommend

  • Pakistani Malang

    Well done, I can comprehend the motive of this blog, author smartly established the Pakistan’s victory over India with the help of international press.
    Awesome report of Daily Mirror September 15, 1965:
    “And there is the smell of death in the burning Pakistan sun. For it was here that India’s attacking forces came to a dead stop. Screaming Pakistani troops bet off the attacking Indian forces again and again.”Recommend

  • PakistaniMalang

    Yes Too Good, “If courage, bravery and patriotism was purchasable commodities, then India could have got them along with foreign aid.”
    Yes BurnnnnnRecommend

  • Sridhar Kaushik

    No need to confuse the issue here.
    A war is lost when the objective for which it was started by the perpetrator is not achieved. It is not necessary that the other side surrenders or loses a lot of territory etc.
    Political “spin doctors” would give it whatever spin is needed to interpret it differently.

    It should be clear to anyone who is reading books written by unbiased authors that the war was started by Ayub Khan to wrest Kashmir from India. That was initially supposed to be limited to Kashmir valley but India saw it fit to broaden the area of conflict to get some advantage.
    Finally what happened?
    There was a so called “stalemate” and Takshent declaration.
    Did Pakistan’s Ayub Khan acheive his objective of wresting Kashmir from India?
    No.
    In very simple language of “warfare”, Pakistan lost the war since it did not achieve the objective for which war was started.Recommend

  • Raheel Luqman

    Good Job Writer, reporting of Guardian, Time Weekly, Daily Mirror, The Observer, etc wonderfully summed up the end result of 1965 war.Recommend

  • Luqman

    *I can’t stop laughing*
    Look at your silly comment, you are saying these excerpts from Europe’s newspapers are published based on Pak army briefings. Europe’s media is not biased and is not like India’s media where everything is published with extra hype and under governmental pressure.Recommend

  • Raheel Luqman

    Indians have already started with their comments based on ill-logic.Recommend

  • Faulitics

    An aggressor is always considered the loser if their aggression did not produce any gain. So the question is who is the aggressor in this war? Did they gain anything?Recommend

  • ravi

    Well individual bravery were seen on both sides but you should hv asked ur COAS whether you started War only to prove bravery or achieve any strategic objective and finally did you achieve it. Recommend

  • Usama Siddique

    Indian’s failure to get Lahore and Sialkot
    Pakistan’s air supremacy.
    Pakistan,s Navel dominance.
    Its a clear victory over 5 time larger enemy !Recommend

  • Abdur Rahman

    @Amoret Amoret Rob Johnson wrote his book decades AFTER the war…almost all observors/ investigators/ journalists writing at the time of war or right after it ended declared Pakistan’s victory/ upper hand over the Indians. Furthermore war is not just of land. ALL NEUTRAL journalists and books even those written decades after the war admit that Pakistan won the aerial war..plus that India had no proper response to Pak’s naval attack. to quote a few:

    1. “Pakistan has been able to gain complete command of the air…India is being SOUNDLY BEATEN by a nation which it outnumbered by a 4 and a half to 1 in population and 3 to one in size of armed forces” (Sunday Times- London- issue: September 19 , 1965)

    2.. “Outnumbered by three-to-one they (Pakistani soldiers) beat the Indians to a standstill” (Daily Express- London 24th September 1965-correspondent: Donald Seaman)

    4. “For the PAF, the 1965 war was as climatic as the Israeli victory over the Arabs in 1967. A further similarity was that Indian air power had an approximately 5:1 numerical superiority at the start of the conflict. Unlike the Middle East conflict, the Pakistani air victory was achieved to a large degree by air-to-air combat rather than on ground. But it was as absolute as that attained by Israel. (USA Aviation and Space Technology 1968 issue) 5.”Pakistan morally and physically had won the air-battle against the Indians. The Indians had no sense of purpose. The Pakistanis were defending their own country and willingly taking greater risk.” (Peter Preston – The Guardian 24th September 1965 issue)Recommend

  • Abdur Rahman

    wrong agian. Pakistan initiated a limited operation in a disputed territory..similar operations have been launched by India in the past for example in Siachen..however they never led to a full-fledged war. in other words India/Pak did not attack India/Pakistan “proper” over limited attacks/operatons. It was India who launched a full-fledged attack on Lahore and Sialkot aiming to occupy them but failed miserably.. Now pls don’t give me the excuse that India never intended to occupy Lahore because we have pictures of cuttings from your own newspapers where your army claimed Lahore’s cantonement as one of its aims..but later took a “U-Turn Apology” over it!Recommend

  • Abdur Rahman

    Rob Johnson’s book was written Decades AFTER the war..almost all neutral journalists/ reporters/ investigators reporting right from ground or just after the war ended claimed Pakistan’s victory. they range from Australia, Britain, America etc. 2ndly how are you deciding a war based on land alone (though the figures in Rob Johnson’s book can be proven untrue with documentary evidence) ALL NEUTRAL historians even those who wrote decades after the war unanimously agree that Pakistan had the upper hand over the Aerial warfare and also that India’s naval response was not befittting to Pakistan’s attack.

    1. “Pakistan has been able to gain complete command of the air…India is being SOUNDLY BEATEN by a nation which it outnumbered by a 4 and a half to 1 in population and 3 to one in size of armed fources” (Sunday Times- London- issue: September 19 , 1965)

    2. “For the PAF, the 1965 war was as climatic as the Israeli victory over the Arabs in 1967. A further similarity was that Indian air power had an approximately 5:1 numerical superiority at the start of the conflict. Unlike the Middle East conflict, the Pakistani air victory was achieved to a large degree by air-to-air combat rather than on ground. But it was as absolute as that attained by Israel. (USA Aviation and Space Technology 1968 issue)

    3.”Pakistan morally and physically had won the air-battle against the Indians. The Indians had no sense of purpose. The Pakistanis were defending their own country and willingly taking greater risk.” (Peter Preston – The Guardian 24th September 1965 issue)

    4. “Pakistan Air Force did well in the conflict (1965) and probably had the edge” Werrell, Kenneth (2013). Sabres Over MiG Alley: The F-86 and the Battle for Air Superiority in Korea. Naval Institute Press. p. 188.Recommend

  • Trilok Singh

    The GOI had had admitted defeat but for the stubborn GEN HARBAKHSH SINGH, who refused to leave Amritsar area up to Beas River.Recommend

  • rtnguy

    Lol, india had no aim to capture lahore or sialkot. Its only aim in mounting the attacks on lahore and sialkot was to ease pressure on kashmir in which it succeeded. pakistan started the war with aim to capture kashmir and could not do so. So who won?Recommend

  • Kaleemullah

    An unbiased analysis fully based on unbiased press releases is great to read.
    The excerpts are extraordinary evidences that in 1965 war, Pakistan was in a better position because it pushed India back to their inner circle. Pak army even captured many Indian areas. Pakistan Air Force did marvelous job and till this day whole world recognizes it.Recommend

  • Kaleemullah

    A logical thinking always enjoy unbiased opinions and articles.Recommend

  • usman777

    So you concede than by your own logic that Pakistan won in 1948 by taking 84000 sq. km from bharat mata? Good now considef fixing your own narratives.Recommend

  • Kaleemullah

    Go to your India and resolve Kashmir issue, Khalistan movement, and many other separatist movements.Recommend

  • Bana Post

    After 100 years Pakistan will celebrate 1971,Siachin loss,Kargil,Mumbai attack.History can be written just like that in Pakistan No objectivity,unbiased thoughts ………Recommend

  • ricardo sergio navarro

    Where you read that India won with your 720 km, must be Indian home issued books.Recommend

  • ricardo sergio navarro

    All true said in articleRecommend

  • ricardo sergio navarro

    True is always hard to bear but in Indians case it is really a burn but they will keep lying as always. Recommend

  • ricardo sergio navarro

    Indians need to read they agreed to stop war on 21st and Pakistan on 22nd which means Indians were the one who were on losing end and were begging UN, USA and Russia though they attacked and were running finding solution to its losses.Recommend

  • nouman

    its your own calculations about pakistan where you read that we loss 500 miles your indian history writers told you that
    neither we or india won the 1965 war
    victory in wars means to capture the whole land neither india nor pakistan successful in capturing each others land
    so net result= neutral.Recommend

  • mimi sur

    Ms.Khadim,

    A family in India named Khadim runs one of the biggest foot-ware store chain in India. However coming to point, Before Mr.Modi announced a 65 memorial, you had won 65 war. Now you are saying you were not defeated. Wait for some years, you will say something different.Recommend

  • Sukruth N S sukruth narayana s

    The 1965 war ended with an Armistice after the soviet leaders intervened while the war was going on and the Tashkent Agreement was signed between Lal Bahadur Shastri and ayub khan.victory claim by pakistan is an act of foolishness and brainwashing its people with anti-India sentiments poured into their mindsRecommend

  • Parvez

    This is a childish game of he said she said…..so I too can quote :
    The London Daily Times reports : India is being soundly beaten by a nation which is outnumbered four and a half to one in population and three to one in size of armed forces.
    Yes you are right both sides lost territory…..but that proves very little.
    If one has to be adult about it……one would say neither side won. Recommend

  • maktal

    because it doesn’t want to slap India once more… it is giving india a chance to resolve this peacefully…Recommend

  • Captain Jack Sparrow

    Every kid on the block knows that India had no backing from USA or UK whose journalist made the comments. They both sided and supported Pakistan with arms and ammunition. Both were against India. USA and India never became true friends until a decade ago when war on terrorism forced USA to distance away from Pakistan which is indeed epi center of terrorism. Also UK is facing heat for lot of Pakistanis involvement in terrorism in UK and Europe. So they have no choice but to accept that their foul judgement for last 60 years. Well never too late.

    All the articles were from UK and USA journalist who were biased against India back then. So no surprises. But how can a country which lost land three times then it won from enemy win the war with all the superiority it is claiming. Does it take someone PhD to see something is wrong ? Let me re-phrase what you quoted….
    “India ended up in possession of 720 square miles (1,900 kilometres square) of Pakistani territory for the loss of just 220 square miles (570 kilometres square) of its own”Recommend

  • somenone

    You are so right.Despite all the US aid and weapons, those 90,000 Pakistanis surrendered to Indian army.Recommend

  • Pakistan

    Pakistan given the access to India on UN mandated ceasefire, otherwise, you can see Pakistani troops in Indian Territories with Pakistani flags. Check the pictures and history. Want to see this happen again, try to attack Pakistan and you will see the resultsRecommend

  • Vikram

    Honestly, what is the criteria for declaring victory? Whether your aims are achieved or not. Pakistan’s aim was to annex Kashmir. India’s modest aims, as the article itself mentions, was the prevent a Pakistani victory since Pakistan was the aggressor and India was the defender.
    Did Pakistan succeed in it’s aim? NO.
    Did India succeed in it’s aim? YES. Along with that it ended up with 720sq miles of Pakistani territory for loss of just 220sq miles of it’s own.

    QED India won because being the defender, it prevented Pakistan from achieving it’s aims and Kashmir was not annexed.Recommend

  • Gullu

    It’s always good to see Hindia get trounced soundly by Pak forces.
    In the old days numeric superiority,[ say 15:1 Hindia ] was the only
    way to face the Pak adversary. That happened at Rann of Kutch,
    in 1965 war, in the Bengal war, and the short and sweet Kargil affair.
    [Where Hindian forces ran downhill, pell mell, falling over each other.]
    If you analyze carefully, Hindia has to hire mercenaries to fight it’s wars.
    Hired Nepalese Gurkhas are the backbone of the Hindian Army. There are
    Sikhs, “supposedly” as paid vanguards, but they are iffy. Their demands
    for more money keep going up. Then the Ladhakis bring up the rear, they
    shoot any deserting Hindus. Hindus who are the soft, jelly like middle of the
    army. There you have it, The Big Jelly Bean,…Hindian Army.Recommend

  • Ricky Smith

    I think this article lays to rest the Indian “phyrric” victory. There was no victory for India, it was at the time 3 times bigger in numbers and force and Pakistan held it at bay and was preparing to counter punch it massively as one of the articles states but Indians were saved by the truce agreement. Pakistan holding off India against all odds and a small size is a victory in itself. We are proud to face off to a nation now 5 times bigger in numbers than us, but as an Indian I would be ashamed of fighting and boasting against a nation 5 times smaller, but we are Muslim and its our style to look for bigger challengers, and its Indian style to see a smaller Pakistan as an equal match, an even adversery instead of China …lol….

    Allah O Akbar, Pakistan is still here, India had no victory, a victory is when you completely defeat a nation and take its capital, Alhamdolillah, India could not even get close to Lahore which is what, 20 some odd miles from the border…laugh.

    I see Indians as blowhards, big mouths, but weak kneed and cowards and nothing can change, it, the Pakistani General said it best, if Bravery were a commodity India could purchase, it would be the first to do so. Sadly for India, that will never be available.Recommend

  • Safinah

    Thanks for writing such a info filled column.
    The truth for 1965 War is here:
    “Indian quantity and Pakistan quality. Pakistan’s small, highly trained army is more than a match for the Indians.”Recommend

  • S

    “Now get ready for curses from Indians saying all these journalists are not credible.”
    Of course Indians will say this because all quotes are not in favor of them.Recommend

  • Minerva

    Pakistan emphatically lost the war because it had launched the Operation Gibraltor to capture Jammu & Kashmir. India was simply defending it’s territory in which it succeeded. The proof of India’s victory is in the fact that even after 50 years Pakistan is running from pillar to post on Kashmir which remains to be India’s integral part.Recommend

  • Mohsin

    One thing I am always sure about… Pakistan decisively defeated Indians in air combat in 65 war. Pakistani losses 23 aircrafts and Indians losses more than 97.Recommend

  • Chopra TP

    This is in the article above. Read the article before sounding off like an ignorant Axact Graduate.

    “India’s strategic aims were modest – it aimed to deny Pakistani Army victory, although it ended up in possession of 720 square miles (1,900 kilometres square) of Pakistani territory for the loss of just 220 square miles (570 kilometres square) of its own.”

    India never wanted to capture Lahore as Pakistanis are claiming. India wanted to capture just enough territory (1,900 kilometres square) as to make pakistan give back what it it captured (570 kilometers square). In addition India did not want to be engaged in Urban warfare, which is what would have happened if it just marched in to Lahore. Aim was to be in a position to shell the crap out a major Pakistani city if Pakistan did not stop its aggression, which started when Pakistani army in civilian clothes launched operation Gibraltar. By the way fighting in the guise of civilians is a major violation of Geneva convention not to mention a cowardly act that Pakistan repeated in Kargil.Recommend

  • Hassan

    Hahahaha..if i know Indians well, and if there was a slightest angle by which Indians could conceive that it was a victory for them then trust me they would have celebrated it every year and every day…bringing it in on every forum like 71. but see how silent their guns are on boarders and on forums. this tells u the whole story, on the other hand we are celebrating our victory like a man.Recommend

  • Easy peasy

    Only Pakistanis can construe a loss of net 500 square miles as a victory. I don’t blame them there isn’t much to cheer about in that country anyway.Recommend

  • someone

    In 1948, Pakistani tribal fought the Dogra Army of Hari Singh, the Maharaja of Kashmir and not Indian army.. Thanks to you guys, Hari Singh sought help from India and when Indian army took charge, it stopped Pakistani advances. Result, India still holds 2/3 of kashmir. Why are you guys so weak in hisroty?Recommend

  • kartikey mishra

    Operation Dwarka was a destructive move for pakistan as pakistanis were bombing in Dwarka the Land of Lord Krishna’s Town about 5100 years old Town in Gujrat but none of those bombs were even touched the Lord Krishna’s land even this time its a famouce turist place after founding some great temples & places.even pakistan can’t attacked Jammu too.Recommend

  • zoro

    India did not had any designs to capture anything … on the contrary India was saving Kashmir … But with the shear lack of will and circumstances and situations on both sides made India reach up to Sialkot and Lahore …
    This you will understand only if you read real history ….
    At the end of the day you might have won battle … But India won the war ..Recommend

  • someone

    wow Pakistanis and their skewed logic. So here is Pakistani idea of winning.

    1. Start a war ( breach of Geneva Convention).

    2. Get a beating there and pushed back

    3. Then run to save the major cities.

    4. Loose more than 600 Sq mile territory.

    5. despite having superior infantry ( patton tanks from US) still get a beating.

    by the way,

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34136689

    Happy Reading.Recommend

  • someone

    Thanks to Acknowledge that Kashmir is Indian matter. See,it was not so difficult, now was it? Recommend

  • someone

    Hold your own??? LOL. Yeah losing more than 600 sq mile territory could very well mean “holding on our own” for Pakistan.Recommend

  • Milind A

    Make up your mind.. You’re saying your country initiated a limited operation. The commentator above you, says India attacked you…Recommend

  • Milind A

    So first you deny that you started the war , after which your own Air Marshal Asghar Khan admits it. Then it was ‘We won the war and India lost’.. Slowly but surely you’re inching towards reality, when you admit that it was a stalemate. Good progress.Recommend

  • Union Jack

    @Tanveer Khadim

    For your own knowledge

    http://www.dawn.com/news/1204953/Recommend

  • Simla

    Who started with Operation Gibraltar and Operation Grand Slam. Did Pakistan attain its objective. No, therefore Pakistan lost. India attacked Western Punjab to keep hold of Kashmir. Did India manage this. Yes, therefore India won. I wonder why I see lack of logic and analytical skills among the seemingly educated Pakistanis.Recommend

  • Vikas Pandey

    In wars victory is to the ones who achieve the purpose of the war. In your case it was to capture kashmir that you couldn’ even till date. India’s target was to capture more territory so to bargain what was captured by pak. So india achieved it’s purpose but pakistan not. So who is the winner? Recommend

  • Vikas Pandey

    They are week in there already distorted history ;)Recommend

  • Vikas Pandey

    Who will capture territory filled with brainless people. They would be biggest liability. What we have is enough. What we captured was for bargain and later we relieved.Recommend

  • Commemtator

    All mentioned reports of neutral journalists clarified the situation that Pakistan was in a much better position in 1965 war, whereas India lost the war because of failure of the motive of the attack that is capture of Lahore and enjoyment in Lahore Gymkhana.Recommend

  • Commemtator

    Oh please tell me why Indian Navy didn’t dare to get out of Indian coast and why the radar, which was helping IAF attacks on Karachi, was completely destroyed by Pak Navy? And why Indian parliament questioned Indian Navy about the debacle?Recommend

  • Commemtator

    Read again and again the neutral accounts of 1965 war, it will tell you the Indian defeat.Recommend

  • Commemtator

    Read again and again the neutral accounts of 1965 war, it will tell you the Indian defeat.Recommend