India Historical Indian War History Thread

[Jackdaws]

MOD MESSAGE (DUE TO THREAD MERGE) TO ALL THREAD PARTICIPANTS (READ FIRST):

https://defencehub.live/threads/indian-war-history-thread.3613/page-2#post-34164

 

[Nilgiri]

I would still pick 1971, the full breadth of planning and operations involved. There was a clear undisputed victor too.

1965 was a stalemate for both sides...and thus both sides claimed victory too, but in neutral terms nothing was really resolved for a clear win by either side.

Indian operations in 65 were worthy and had many notable successes, but it really boils down to the leadership's (responsive + reactionary) guts to open front on Punjab to relieve the dire situation faced in Kashmir at the crucial juncture of the war (that really Joe does best in describing). It was not really a brilliant strategic move (that would put it say above 1971), but really a sagacious cognizant response (though needing the boldness to start) among the options that were already long established since partition (and 1st kashmir war) shaped the basic paradigms involved topographically (and then ofc. cold war alliances + focuses augmented Pakistan's hand...but thats longer subject open to Indian miscalculations + errors regd that).

Contrast this to the key planning needed for 71 all through that year when operation searchlight commenced and then further murderous actions expanded to countryside... and the millions of refugees arrived to India.

i.e a war thrust on us (we did well all things considered) that we were mostly caught unaware about (op gibraltar really was not enough time for proper canary in coalmine as to what Pakistani compunction to go to all out war would be)....

....Versus a war on our terms (plan, execution, victory).

1999 is a great victory too, but its not really an all out war (India itself constrained itself to staying on its side of LoC only for a larger wise strategic reason and also keep a freeze on escalation ladder)....so I would not include with the other 2 (personally).

 

[Jackdaws]

I would still pick 1971, the full breadth of planning and operations involved. There was a clear undisputed victor too.

1965 was a stalemate for both sides...and thus both sides claimed victory too, but in neutral terms nothing was really resolved for a clear win by either side.

Indian operations in 65 were worthy and had many notable successes, but it really boils down to the leadership's (responsive + reactionary) guts to open front on Punjab to relieve the dire situation faced in Kashmir at the crucial juncture of the war (that really Joe does best in describing). It was not really a brilliant strategic move (that would put it say above 1971), but really a sagacious cognizant response (though needing the boldness to start) among the options that were already long established since partition (and 1st kashmir war) shaped the basic paradigms involved topographically (and then ofc. cold war alliances + focuses augmented Pakistan's hand...but thats longer subject open to Indian miscalculations + errors regd that).

Contrast this to the key planning needed for 71 all through that year when operation searchlight commenced and then further murderous actions expanded to countryside... and the millions of refugees arrived to India.

i.e a war thrust on us (we did well all things considered) that we were mostly caught unaware about (op gibraltar really was not enough time for proper canary in coalmine as to what Pakistani compunction to go to all out war would be)....

....Versus a war on our terms (plan, execution, victory).

1999 is a great victory too, but its not really an all out war (India itself constrained itself to staying on its side of LoC only for a larger wise strategic reason and also keep a freeze on escalation ladder)....so I would not include with the other 2 (personally).

I agree that this is the general consensus. A bit charitable to call 1965 a stalemate. But then again, India is known for its largesse.

 

[Nilgiri]

I agree that this is the general consensus. A bit charitable to call 1965 a stalemate. But then again, India is known for its largesse.

With war you have to force a political result for it to be a win in neutral eyes...

Ofc when you know much more than a neutral, invested much more than a neutral ever could be....you know what a win vs lose really is in the end, but it can't really be proven in such quick direct way like a political result does (that often you can bring up first and then back work explanation/process with)

 

[Jackdaws]

I would still pick 1971, the full breadth of planning and operations involved. There was a clear undisputed victor too.

1965 was a stalemate for both sides...and thus both sides claimed victory too, but in neutral terms nothing was really resolved for a clear win by either side.

Indian operations in 65 were worthy and had many notable successes, but it really boils down to the leadership's (responsive + reactionary) guts to open front on Punjab to relieve the dire situation faced in Kashmir at the crucial juncture of the war (that really Joe does best in describing). It was not really a brilliant strategic move (that would put it say above 1971), but really a sagacious cognizant response (though needing the boldness to start) among the options that were already long established since partition (and 1st kashmir war) shaped the basic paradigms involved topographically (and then ofc. cold war alliances + focuses augmented Pakistan's hand...but thats longer subject open to Indian miscalculations + errors regd that).

Contrast this to the key planning needed for 71 all through that year when operation searchlight commenced and then further murderous actions expanded to countryside... and the millions of refugees arrived to India.

i.e a war thrust on us (we did well all things considered) that we were mostly caught unaware about (op gibraltar really was not enough time for proper canary in coalmine as to what Pakistani compunction to go to all out war would be)....

....Versus a war on our terms (plan, execution, victory).

1999 is a great victory too, but its not really an all out war (India itself constrained itself to staying on its side of LoC only for a larger wise strategic reason and also keep a freeze on escalation ladder)....so I would not include with the other 2 (personally).

Also I think given that his family didn't latch on and he was no where near as charismatic as Nehru and also had a pretty short tenure, our country tends to forget what a fine leader Shastri was. Tbh, if I had to rank Indian PMs, he would be #1, followed by Vajpayee and #3 being Nehru.

 

[Jackdaws]

With war you have to force a political result for it to be a win in neutral eyes...

Ofc when you know much more than a neutral, invested much more than a neutral ever could be....you know what a win vs lose really is in the end, but it can't really be proven in such quick direct way like a political result does (that often you can bring up first and then back work explanation/process with)

@Joe Shearer is better suited to answer. I went thru a lot of physical books and old microfilm and microfiche newspapers in the 1990s about the 65 war.

But if I remember correctly, the Americans actually asked India to stop the advance to Lahore so they could evacuate their citizens.

On youtube you can find clips of Bhutto literally begging India to stop their advance - comparing India to Germany and Pakistan to tiny Denmark. Except, Pak was then the biggest Muslim nation in the world. And a member of SEATO, CENTO.

Of course, 71 was more resounding.

 

[Nilgiri]

Also I think given that his family didn't latch on and he was no where near as charismatic as Nehru and also had a pretty short tenure, our country tends to forget what a fine leader Shastri was. Tbh, if I had to rank Indian PMs, he would be #1, followed by Vajpayee and #3 being Nehru.

Yes I have always put Shastri no. 1 too, in fact my whole family generally does (even the Modi fans).

 

[Jackdaws]

Yes I have always put Shastri no. 1 too, in fact my whole family generally does (even the Modi fans).

Lol @ Modi fans. By the way, his fan base is dwindling albeit at a glacial pace.

 

[Kaptaan]

India's 3 victories in 65, 71 and 99 have been the subject of a lot of documentaries as has been the debacle of 1962.

It is interesting to compare the victories though. Most people seem to think that 71 was the greatest victory because it literally created a new nation on the global map.

My personal view is that the victory in 1965 was greater because the odds were stacked against us, our enemy had better weapons and the element of surprise. We had also lost our tallest leader in 1964 and also just received a hiding from the Chinese. So just looking at the odds, I rank the victory in 1965 higher. But your views are welcome.

Kargil was somewhere between a skirmish and a full fledged war

@Joe Shearer @Nilgiri @Zapper

This sounds like a cat that was mauled by the tiny mouse but eventually chased the mouse away. Then declared that as victory of victories hahaha !!!

 

[Jackdaws]

This sounds like a cat that was mauled by the tiny mouse but eventually chased the mouse away. Then declared that as victory of victories hahaha !!!

Lol. Good thing the Brits didn't see themselves as mice when taking on the Argentines in the Falklands or the might of the Nazi Germany in WW2.

I guess it is a matter of perspective and self confidence. Some nations view themselves as rodents and then act like them. To each his own. Hahaha

 

[Raptor]

I would still pick 1971, the full breadth of planning and operations involved. There was a clear undisputed victor too.

1965 was a stalemate for both sides...and thus both sides claimed victory too, but in neutral terms nothing was really resolved for a clear win by either side.

Indian operations in 65 were worthy and had many notable successes, but it really boils down to the leadership's (responsive + reactionary) guts to open front on Punjab to relieve the dire situation faced in Kashmir at the crucial juncture of the war (that really Joe does best in describing). It was not really a brilliant strategic move (that would put it say above 1971), but really a sagacious cognizant response (though needing the boldness to start) among the options that were already long established since partition (and 1st kashmir war) shaped the basic paradigms involved topographically (and then ofc. cold war alliances + focuses augmented Pakistan's hand...but thats longer subject open to Indian miscalculations + errors regd that).

Contrast this to the key planning needed for 71 all through that year when operation searchlight commenced and then further murderous actions expanded to countryside... and the millions of refugees arrived to India.

i.e a war thrust on us (we did well all things considered) that we were mostly caught unaware about (op gibraltar really was not enough time for proper canary in coalmine as to what Pakistani compunction to go to all out war would be)....

....Versus a war on our terms (plan, execution, victory).

1999 is a great victory too, but its not really an all out war (India itself constrained itself to staying on its side of LoC only for a larger wise strategic reason and also keep a freeze on escalation ladder)....so I would not include with the other 2 (personally).

Pakistan at that time(in 1965) was in better economic situation than India and had advanced defence equipment support from US,bringing the war at stalemate,shows that India did great job.

 

[Jackdaws]

Pakistan at that time(in 1965) was in better economic situation than India and had advanced defence equipment support from US,bringing the war at stalemate,shows that India did great job.

I don't see how it was a stalemate since India achieved all its objectives and Pakistan achieved none of theirs.

 

[Paro]

India's 3 victories in 65, 71 and 99 have been the subject of a lot of documentaries as has been the debacle of 1962.

It is interesting to compare the victories though. Most people seem to think that 71 was the greatest victory because it literally created a new nation on the global map.

My personal view is that the victory in 1965 was greater because the odds were stacked against us, our enemy had better weapons and the element of surprise. We had also lost our tallest leader in 1964 and also just received a hiding from the Chinese. So just looking at the odds, I rank the victory in 1965 higher. But your views are welcome.

Kargil was somewhere between a skirmish and a full fledged war.
@Joe Shearer @Nilgiri @Zapper

Diplomatically kargil victory changed the perspective of India being a mature responsible nation, furthering its economic reach in the years to come. It has also played a role in getting into NSG unlike the other side.
But if you are considering a victory only militarily then its 1971 where for the first time a new nation state was created without the intervention of either blocks getting involved. And of course the largest surrender of POWs with self proclaimed martial race theory after WWII who until a day before claimed to have the upper hand.

This sounds like a cat that was mauled by the tiny mouse but eventually chased the mouse away. Then declared that as victory of victories hahaha !!!

Atleast you accept the mouse was chased away. Because certain state propaganda even after decades still brainwashes their awaam the mouse was victorious over the cat.

 

[Nilgiri]

Pakistan at that time(in 1965) was in better economic situation than India and had advanced defence equipment support from US,bringing the war at stalemate,shows that India did great job.

Actually Pakistan was not in "better economic situation". This is somewhat being established as some conventional wisdom now, but its not the case to be honest (even if you focus on only say industry).

For example infant mortality rate from 1960 - 1965:

Pakistan = 172
India = 155

A better economy significant enough to influence wars would have needed Pakistan's not only to be lower than India there, but significantly so.

Rest of your sentence I agree, thats the cold war impetus that I was mentioning....but large part of that is also due to Indian mistakes to allow to happen quite that way.

 

[Rajendra Chola]

1965. When everything seemed lost, an almighty offense was then planned and executed reaching our objectives which was establishing status quo.
But a diplomatic blunder on giving up areas gained.

 

[Kaptaan]

Good thing the Brits didn't see themselves as mice when taking on the Argentines in the Falklands or the might of the Nazi Germany in WW2.

I know facts don't go to well with sounbites and propaganda but note a few facts here. Britain and Germany are roughly the same population. 55 versus 80 million. And Britain was global power.

Secondly. Argentina has population of 44 million and only marginally smaller than UK. To compensate that the battle for Falklands was fought 8,000, yes 8,000 miles on the other side of the globe but was right next to Argentina's front door. So again your comparison s poor to pathetic.

Now compare Pakistan Army with 55k soldiers -

• fighting 1,200 miles from home
• with entire India inbetween
• against 60 million pissed off Banglas baying for blood
• over 120k Mukhti Bahini Bangla fighters
• many cases of internal sabotage as Banglas turned sides
• India a country nearly 7 times greater population right next door.
• the only logistical supply chain was by sea past Indian coast subject attack at a duistance of 3,500, yes three thousand five hundred miles. Please sea map below. Unless India would have obliged by giving Pakistan a 1,200 miles safe 'airbridge' through Indian airspace.
• with India attacking from their own bases from all three sides of Bangla and subject to naval assault from Kolkatta marked in red.
• enjoying something like 15:1 superiorty in soldiers as attested by Indian military command.

 

[Jackdaws]

I know facts don't go to well with sounbites and propaganda but note a few facts here. Britain and Germany are roughly the same population. 55 versus 80 million. And Britain was global power.

Secondly. Argentina has population of 44 million and only marginally smaller than UK. To compensate that the battle for Falklands was fought 8,000, yes 8,000 miles on the other side of the globe but was right next to Argentina's front door. So again your comparison s poor to pathetic.

Now compare Pakistan Army with 55k soldiers -

• fighting 1,200 miles from home
• with entire India inbetween
• against 60 million pissed off Banglas baying for blood
• over 120k Mukhti Bahini Bangla fighters
• many cases of internal sabotage as Banglas turned sides
• India a country nearly 7 times greater population right next door.
• the only logistical supply chain was by sea past Indian coast subject attack at a duistance of 3,500, yes three thousand five hundred miles. Please sea map below. Unless India would have obliged by giving Pakistan a 1,200 miles safe 'airbridge' through Indian airspace.
• with India attacking from their own bases from all three sides of Bangla and subject to naval assault from Kolkatta marked in red.
• enjoying something like 15:1 superiorty in soldiers as attested by Indian military command.

Yeh, sure this was the greatest victory by Hindus for a thousand years So I can say why you need to shout from atop the mandir. As the faithfull say "mashallah".

I know facts are sometimes difficult to grasp. It's probably an exercise in futility but here goes -

1. Nazi Germany had already conquered much of Western Europe or had it subservient to it. Nazi Germany when the Battle of Britain was fought over the English Channel was significantly larger than Great Britain.

Anyone with a basic grasp of history would know that but I can guess history is probably not a subject in your madrassa.

2. Multiple sources have said the number of 90k + ; repeating a lie so you can believe your own fantasies is laughable.

3. Argentina was very close to the Falklands. Britain was rather far. Much farther than East Pakistan was to West Pak. But Britain didn't use that as an excuse to give up its land.

4. Your inferiority complex with respect to Hindus is something you need to address with your shrink. This was a victory by India - with a Hindu PM, a Parsi Army Chief, surrender document was drafted by an Indian Jew and the surrender accepted by an Indian Sikh.

Now I understand you lot have not won anything in your 70+ years as a nation and in previous 4000 years the land comprising Pakistan today has been invaded and ruled by Hindus, Sikhs, Afghans, Brits, Americans and now it seems the Chinese. That really is something you need to come to terms with.

 

[Nilgiri]

I have edited out the religion based ad-hominem (mandir vs madrassa etc)....please dont do that guys. Next will be warnings.

 

[Jackdaws]

I have edited out the religion based ad-hominem (mandir vs madrassa etc)....please dont do that guys. Next will be warnings.

Well, religious attacks seem to come naturally to certain members. If they are prepared to hurl religous insults, they should be prepared to receive them as well.

 

[Nilgiri]

Well, religious attacks seem to come naturally to certain members. If they are prepared to hurl religous insults, they should be prepared to receive them as well.

It is better if you just bring anything against forum rules to my attention rather than throw mud on mud back.

There is zero-tolerance policy to ad-hominem (religion or otherwise), just so everyone is clear.

Please attack the message, not the messenger. It is a heated topic of course so naturally there is going to be acerbic nature behind lot of posts....it comes with territory by starting such topic in first place.

As you can see I have left bulk of (both) your posts up, save the ending ripostes (which were not required for the message at all and against forum rules).

Yes yours was retaliatory to an initiation....so this message goes to Kaptaan first before you...but it goes to both of you. Please no more.

There will be no tolerance to country/nation-bashing too (please limit such bashing to specific sets like politicians, leaders, extremists etc that are defined on things to bash on....rather than entire population/country)...I feel we have been bit too lenient on it so far....but now forum is hitting stride and its time to make certain things crystal clear to all.