Hypothetical: Pakistan suffers catastrophic defeat - Six miles to Victory.

[Kaptaan]

Okay this is a hypothetical thread of "what if" that I think would be instructive to those not too well acquainted with the dynamic that exists within the Pakistan and India conflicts. I open this because many people have a habit of going for sound bites that hide or even distort the reality. Here I will present some facts that can be checked by Indian members and I would correct them if they can prove otherwise. This hypothetical also will expose the delicate strategic equation that Pakistan has faced for last 70 years.

• Straight off let me make this crystal clear. Pakistan is and has always been the underdog. India is vastly larger by a factor of almost 1.4 billion people compared to 220 million which is just shy of 7:1 disparity.
• at heart of the issue between both countries is Kashmir and everything else has always been a sideshow. Pakistan believes by virtue of it being a adjacent Muslim dominant province which historically has had intercourse with coterminous Pakistan region it ought to have gone with the federation of Pakistan in 1947.
• the Indian view is that the Hindu ruler of the erstwhile state of Jammu & Kashmir bequeathed it to India via the Instrument of Accession which was the legal document signed between the ruler of J &K and India.
• The Instrument of Accession is the legal basis India uses as it's hold on Kashmir. The important thing to note here is that the said Instrument of Accession gave India all, repeat all of Kashmir.
• from Indian POV Pakistan illegaly occupied a portion of Kashmir today called Azad Kashmir or AK by Pakistan but Pakistan occupied Kashmir or POK by India.
• after 70 years of wars the line of control remains almost where it was 70 years ago.
• despite being the underdog Pakistan has been the one that has launched attempts to evict India from it's portion.

The first thing that would surprise any observer is why has India not been the attacker and not thrown Pakistan out of the Kashmir portion it illegally occupied [from Indian POV] and thus settled the issue once and for all. This is made all the more clear if you consider that India is the vastly larger country. The contest is akin to the elephant and the mouse with both holding a shred of cheese. But the bizzare thing being that the tiny mouse is the one that has eyes on the shred left in hands of the elephant and now and then actually attacks the elephant in a desperate attempt to grab the cheese in elephants hand. The elephant instead of taking offensive posture and knocking the mouse out takes defensive posture.

If one looks at conflict between states matters either -

1. war and total unconditional defeat of one side like Germany in WW2
2. war and conditional defeat of one side which loses the contested territory like AZ and Ngorna Karabak.
3. war but no major change take place and the contested territory is subject of stalemate

May I suggest that over 70 years of the Kashmir conflict No.3 applies. Nothing substantive has changed with LOC being almost stalemate. This of course is the reason why even after 3/4 of a century the conflict continues. It has NOT been resolved by war or negotiation.

So let us look at what could have been a solution. India launches a concerted military offensive against Pakistan to either destroy it or force it by use of arms a unconditional defeat. Such a defeat then would entail a peace treaty where Pakistan would have to give up on Kashmir and then subjected to other conditions like Germany suffered. Huge areas of German speakers in Pomerania were lost to Poland after WW2. Modern Germany has never made any attempt to reclaim it as the treaty that brought WW2 to end included Germany losing these regions.

The other possibility is India launches massive attack intended to capture vital territory in Pakistan that can then can be used to force Pakistan to pawn Pakistan occupied Kashmir. A good example to consider is how Israel used captured Sinai to dictate conditions for peace with Egypt. For this to work the territory captured must be of such significant value that Pakistan would have no choice but 'return' occupied Kashmir to India bringing this 70 year conflict to a end. Noted that it of desert or scrub will not do it.

So looking at it from Indian POV given it's vastly superior resources of which not a day goes by without latter bragging about is there and has there been any opportunity of inflicting a catastrophic defeat on Pakistan and thus bringing this conflict to a end?

The most obvious is a Indian attack given it's vastly larger army on the LOC and taking Pak occupied Kashmir [POK] and thus settling the issue. However this is not as easy as it sounds. Most of POK is hilly or mountainous where large scale offensives are difficult to execute. The terrain suits the defender. There is not much scope for use of armour or mechanized forces.

However. Yes however, a big plum is sat right within arm reach of the much vaunted Indian military. A plum so juicy that Pakistan would give up Pak occupied Kashmir without even a debate. What is that juicy plum? Yes it is second largest city and Pakistan's cultural capital called Lahore. Lahore is analogous to Istanbul for Pakistan. It is a ancient city with terrific historical heritage.

The city is right next door to the Indian border. The terrain is the Punjab plains which is flat alluvial plane ideal for mass armoued formations. In fact it is ideal tank country and fit for mobile warfare. Just a line separates Lahore from India. In fact Lahore suburbs are just six miles from Indian border. Lahore Ring Road and Lahore Airport are about 7 miles from Indian border with just flat farms between the city and Indian border. I repeat here if ever Lahore had or did fall the Pakistani state would willingly give away Pak occupied Kashmir with a halwa and a gift card.

This is map of Lahore that gives you context.

This below is Google Earth capture of Lahore cities eastern suburbs including the cities international airport with Indian border just 6 miles behind. As can be seen the cities suburbs are just six miles distant with rolling farms to the Indian border. Six miles.

So think about this. Second largest country on earth. Lahore the premier city of Pakistan. Sat there with just six miles of grass separating it. For one of the largest militaries in the world 6 miles of flat fields of grass with no physical geographic impediment in the way should be a doddle. Say three formations with one in the centre launching a armoured force with target being Lahore Airport 7 miles away. Another armoured formation on the northern flank and a similiar force on the soothern flank. The centre to capture Lahore Airport and grind any Pakistani resistance. The north and south pincers then slice off Lahore from rest of Pakistan. Then with city captured ceasefire is declared. Then as condition of a peace treaty that returns Lahore, Pakistan is forced to give up Pak Occupied Kashmir. End of the Pak/India rivalry. Pakistan is vanquished like Germany was. We have peace in South Asia.

There would always be the choice for Indian Army to drive north west 150 miles along the M1 motorway and grab Islamabad but .......


Ps. Do note that this hypothetical was available over the last 70 years. Lahore has sat a stones throw for seven decades from the Indian border and this has always been Pakistan's soft underbelly. A strategic nightmare for military planners to defend. Indeed in 1965 India did launch massive armoured attack on the axis as seen on the maps above. The Indian general even bragged he was going to have his afternoon tea in Lahore Officers Gymkhana. Alas he never got his chai although we served it to his fellow country man the Indian pilot in 2019.


The border adjacent to Lahore. Just flat wheat fields.

 

[Null/Void]

In my honest frank opinion neither the Indian elites or Pakistani elites want to fight an actual "bloody war" instead we get pot shots typical of third world countries and both have weapons of mass destructions just more proxy conflicts throughout South Asia

 

[Kaptaan]

In my honest frank opinion neither the Indian elites or Pakistani elites want to fight an actual "bloody war" instead we get pot shots typical of third world countries and both have weapons of mass destructions just more proxy conflicts throughout South Asia

Be that as it may but what I find incredulous is that since the conflict began between Pakistan and India in 1948 or 72 years ago India has not just mulched Pakistan by marching across that 6 miles of farms [I actually do 6 miles jogs on weekends] to Lahore. India could then either decide to use Lahore as a barter for Pakistan occupied Kashmir or even decide to drive further into Pakistan.

Of course I can't see that happening today as Pakistan would end up using theatre tactical nukes to blunt any Indian advance on Lahore but thiunk about all the preceding decades when Pakistan did not have the nuclear shield. India from 1947 was the significantly larger country with a larger military. It inheritated a bigger chunk of the resources and assets of the British Raj including military assets. Add to that it had vastly larger population.

To top that India enjoyed stability compared to the chronic instability in Pakistan. And as we know Pakistan was over the decades provoking the elephant. So it seems bizzare India did not hammer Pakistan by gouging Lahore.

Truth be told this belies the oft repeated Indian claim of being militarly superior to Pakistan. Any advantage they had was insufficient to defeat Pakistan in the manner the Germans were defeated. Sideshoes like Bengal 1971 made no impact on the basic dynamic. That was akin to France losing Algeria only that it lost it to just the Algerians and no outside army jumped in to help the Algerian fighters.

@Nilgiri

 

[Jackdaws]

Couple points need to be addressed in post 1.

1. India sent troops into Pak only AFTER the Treaty of Accession was signed. Till then, it was considered that J&K would be a buffer state between India, China like Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, Tibet etc.

2. In 1948, it was Shiekh Abdullah who asked India to stop the advance once the valley was captured because his own popularity stopped there. From what I understand (feel free to correct me) people in PoK don't even speak Kashmiri.

3. Has the LoC remained stable? Nope. India gained Baltistani territory and Kargil in the wars and kept it. Other areas captured by both sides have been returned.

4. Did any Indian General ever say he was gonna have whiskey at Lahore Gymkhana? It seems to be a Pakistani narrative. Just like Indira Gandhi saying she avenged Muslim rule (there is no record of her having said that)

5. Yes, it's absurd that Pakistan's premier city is a stone's throw away. Now @Joe Shearer can verify this more than Nilgiri but when Indians first attacked and opened the Lahore front in 1965 they were shocked at how undefended it was and thought they were walking into a trap. If they have satellites, would that have been the case? Nope. Secondly, the Americans asked the Indians to stop the advance toward Lahore once India has reached some Bata factory.

6. Neither in 1971 nor in 1999 was the Lahore front ever opened.

7. Why hasn't India forced its way to change the status quo? For this I can only say it is a very Nehruvian line of thought. Remember even in 1940s Portugal was a joke as a military power. Nehru still negotiated for 14 years in vain before he took over Goa in a matter of hours. With Hyderabad State too, it was Sardar Patel who gave the orders to capture Hyderabad when Nehru was out of the country. Nehru actually walked out of a British presentation when they were trying to sell India weapons, aghast at the destruction the weapons would cause. It's also why he really India whooped by the Chinese in 1962. I think that's why the Pakistanis were shocked when Shastri opened the Lahore front.

 

[Jackdaws]

Couple points need to be addressed in post 1.

1. India sent troops into Pak only AFTER the Treaty of Accession was signed. Till then, it was considered that J&K would be a buffer state between India, China like Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, Tibet etc.

2. In 1948, it was Shiekh Abdullah who asked India to stop the advance once the valley was captured because his own popularity stopped there. From what I understand (feel free to correct me) people in PoK don't even speak Kashmiri.

3. Has the LoC remained stable? Nope. India gained Baltistani territory and Kargil in the wars and kept it. Other areas captured by both sides have been returned.

4. Did any Indian General ever say he was gonna have whiskey at Lahore Gymkhana? It seems to be a Pakistani narrative. Just like Indira Gandhi saying she avenged Muslim rule (there is no record of her having said that)

5. Yes, it's absurd that Pakistan's premier city is a stone's throw away. Now @Joe Shearer can verify this more than Nilgiri but when Indians first attacked and opened the Lahore front in 1965 they were shocked at how undefended it was and thought they were walking into a trap. If they have satellites, would that have been the case? Nope. Secondly, the Americans asked the Indians to stop the advance toward Lahore once India has reached some Bata factory.

6. Neither in 1971 nor in 1999 was the Lahore front ever opened.

7. Why hasn't India forced its way to change the status quo? For this I can only say it is a very Nehruvian line of thought. Remember even in 1940s Portugal was a joke as a military power. Nehru still negotiated for 14 years in vain before he took over Goa in a matter of hours. With Hyderabad State too, it was Sardar Patel who gave the orders to capture Hyderabad when Nehru was out of the country. Nehru actually walked out of a British presentation when they were trying to sell India weapons, aghast at the destruction the weapons would cause. It's also why he really India whooped by the Chinese in 1962. I think that's why the Pakistanis were shocked when Shastri opened the Lahore

 

[Ryder]

In my honest frank opinion neither the Indian elites or Pakistani elites want to fight an actual "bloody war" instead we get pot shots typical of third world countries and both have weapons of mass destructions just more proxy conflicts throughout South Asia

Proxy conflicts is going to be the new war between Pakistan and India.

None will risk all out war.

Proxy wars especially in this region is pretty volatile and dangerous.

 

[Jackdaws]

Proxy conflicts is going to be the new war between Pakistan and India.

None will risk all out war.

Proxy wars especially in this region is pretty volatile and dangerous.

India is interested in putting such a large economic differential between the two nations, that Pak and its claims are rendered irrelevant. Pak was not even omnipresent in the Indian consciousness till 26/11 happened and since then Arnab and his clones would even blame their own farts on Pakistan. For Modi and his bhakts, Pakistan is just a convenient punching bag now.

 

[Kaptaan]

3. Has the LoC remained stable? Nope. India gained Baltistani territory and Kargil in the wars and kept it. Other areas captured by both sides have been returned.

You know how this goes. Both sides will claim they gained here and there. Without being drawn into a futile discussion most will agree that the LOC has fundamentally remained where it was in 1948.

5. Yes, it's absurd that Pakistan's premier city is a stone's throw away. Now @Joe Shearer can verify this more than Nilgiri but when Indians first attacked and opened the Lahore front in 1965 they were shocked at how undefended it was and thought they were walking into a trap. If they have satellites, would that have been the case? Nope. Secondly, the Americans asked the Indians to stop the advance toward Lahore once India has reached some Bata factory.

6. Neither in 1971 nor in 1999 was the Lahore front ever opened.

Well Nehru died in 1968. Decades followed that. Many Indian leaders have come and gone. You can't put India's incredilous inability to pluck a plum that literally is sat within arm's reach on one guy. In Pakistan we can also point fingers to policy failures. A failure over many decades is bigger than any one leader and thus looks systemic.

The Google Earth satellite really makes this jarringly clear. Just beyond those fields is soon to be the largest country on earth. On this side is from Indian POV the bankrupt, broken, inept state yet despite decades of provocations India has not gone in for a DECISIVE resolution.

Yes India made a attempt to attack Lahore in 1965 and lead Indian tanks reached the outskirts of Lahore city within few minutes of firing their engines. There was only border police in their way. Then the Indian armour parked up crippled with fear that something was afoot. In that time Pakista moved units out of the line in Jammu sector and reinforced Lahore's flank.

Can you imagine if this had been Paris or Warsaw with German Panzer divisions parked their? They would have attacked and taken the cities with or without defences with hours.

Bottom line is this strategic weakness of Pakistan as I have shown on the maps above has been there from 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s. Many Indian governments have come and gone. India failed to grap the bull's horn.

Given it's size and bluster, Indian failure to resolve this issue by force of arms and thus IMPOSE closure is most surprising.

Ps. The pattern I have noticed over the last decade is the Indian habit of puffing chests and then talking about Pakistan's anaemic economy compared to the booming India narrative. The absolutelty awash with cash and bankrupt Pakistan. This is infantile argumant. For decades Pakistan was doing as well if not better than India. Just because today and recent past India has overtaken does not mean the race is over. That is akin to a relay race and when your guy takes the lead you declare victory.

Like India overtook Pakistan things could change over next two decades. Some serious reforms in Pakistan would fix things and get the country running again. The situation you see today is not frozen like the past was not frozen.

To place things in perspective this is Lahore's Ring Road and 5 minutes drive from the Indian border.

 

[Jackdaws]

You know how this goes. Both sides will claim they gained here and there. Without being drawn into a futile discussion most will agree that the LOC has fundamentally remained where it was in 1948.


Well Nehru died in 1968. Decades followed that. Many Indian leaders have come and gone. You can't put India's incredilous inability to pluck a plum that literally is sat within arm's reach on one guy. In Pakistan we can also point fingers to policy failures. A failure over many decades is bigger than any one leader and thus looks systemic.

The Google Earth satellite really makes this jarringly clear. Just beyond those fields is soon to be the largest country on earth. On this side is from Indian POV the bankrupt, broken, inept state yet despite decades of provocations India has not gone in for a DECISIVE resolution.

Yes India made a attempt to attack Lahore in 1965 and lead Indian tanks reached the outskirts of Lahore city within few minutes of firing their engines. There was only border police in their way. Then the Indian armour parked up crippled with fear that something was afoot. In that time Pakista moved units out of the line in Jammu sector and reinforced Lahore's flank.

Can you imagine if this had been Paris or Warsaw with German Panzer divisions parked their? They would have attacked and taken the cities with or without defences with hours.

Bottom line is this strategic weakness of Pakistan as I have shown on the maps above has been there from 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s. Many Indian governments have come and gone. India failed to grap the bull's horn.

Given it's size and bluster, Indian failure to resolve this issue by force of arms and thus IMPOSE closure is most surprising.

Ps. The pattern I have noticed over the last decade is the Indian habit of puffing chests and then talking about Pakistan's anaemic economy compared to the booming India narrative. The absolutelty awash with cash and bankrupt Pakistan. This is infantile argumant. For decades Pakistan was doing as well if not better than India. Just because today and recent past India has overtaken does not mean the race is over. That is akin to a relay race and when your guy takes the lead you declare victory.

Like India overtook Pakistan things could change over next two decades. Some serious reforms in Pakistan would fix things and get the country running again. The situation you see today is not frozen like the past was not frozen.

To place things in perspective this is Lahore's Ring Road and 5 minutes drive from the Indian border.

Once again,

1. Any permanent changes in the LoC have been in India's favor. This is just a fact - if there is any land Pak gained from 1948 to now and kept, do let me know. Happy to he corrected.

2. Nehru died in 1964, not 1968. The only time Lahore was even on India's radar is 1965. In neither 1971, nor in 1999 was there a need to go for it. Who wants a hostile population? What happened to the Nazi juggernaut when it occupied Paris? On the other hand, liberating Dacca can be compared with liberating Paris by the Allied forces as the population was welcoming.

3. Pakistan had superior weaponry in 1965. It also was a member of SEATO, CENTO. India had just lost its tallest leader and had suffered a military defeat against China.

4. Was the ratio 7:1 in the 1965 war? I don't think so if you count both wings of Pakistan. In fact a reasonably strong defence of Lahore was carried out by the East Bengal Regiment.

 

[Waz]

Couple points need to be addressed in post 1.

1. India sent troops into Pak only AFTER the Treaty of Accession was signed. Till then, it was considered that J&K would be a buffer state between India, China like Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, Tibet etc.

2. In 1948, it was Shiekh Abdullah who asked India to stop the advance once the valley was captured because his own popularity stopped there. From what I understand (feel free to correct me) people in PoK don't even speak Kashmiri.

3. Has the LoC remained stable? Nope. India gained Baltistani territory and Kargil in the wars and kept it. Other areas captured by both sides have been returned.

4. Did any Indian General ever say he was gonna have whiskey at Lahore Gymkhana? It seems to be a Pakistani narrative. Just like Indira Gandhi saying she avenged Muslim rule (there is no record of her having said that)

5. Yes, it's absurd that Pakistan's premier city is a stone's throw away. Now @Joe Shearer can verify this more than Nilgiri but when Indians first attacked and opened the Lahore front in 1965 they were shocked at how undefended it was and thought they were walking into a trap. If they have satellites, would that have been the case? Nope. Secondly, the Americans asked the Indians to stop the advance toward Lahore once India has reached some Bata factory.

6. Neither in 1971 nor in 1999 was the Lahore front ever opened.

7. Why hasn't India forced its way to change the status quo? For this I can only say it is a very Nehruvian line of thought. Remember even in 1940s Portugal was a joke as a military power. Nehru still negotiated for 14 years in vain before he took over Goa in a matter of hours. With Hyderabad State too, it was Sardar Patel who gave the orders to capture Hyderabad when Nehru was out of the country. Nehru actually walked out of a British presentation when they were trying to sell India weapons, aghast at the destruction the weapons would cause. It's also why he really India whooped by the Chinese in 1962. I think that's why the Pakistanis were shocked when Shastri opened the Lahore front.

The battle of Chawinda and India's mass loss of armour stopped an advance on Lahore, and it remained deadlocked. Not the Americans.

The Battle of Chawinda, which took place during the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War, was one of the largest tank battles since the Second World War.

It has been claimed that as many as two thousand tanks took part in the battle, and that the Battle of Kursk has been the only tank battle that involved more tanks. It is known that during the Battle of Chawinda, each side had at least several hundred tanks. Both the Pakistanis and the Indians had Sherman tanks. The Indians also had Centurion tanks, while the Pakistanis also had Patton tanks.

The battle took place in the Ravi-Chenab corridor, which connects Jammu and Kashmir with the Indian mainland. It lasted from September 6 to September 22, 1965.

India’s goal was to break up the Pakistani supply line by cutting off the city of Sialkot from the city of Lahore


The plan was for the Indians to attack from the region around Samba, east of Jammu, move southwest, and cut off the road between Jammu and Sialkot.

On the night of September 6, Indian artillery began shelling Pakistani forces stationed on both sides of Jassar Bridge. The Pakistani counterattack included blowing up part of the bridge.

The Indians captured some border villages on the night of September 7, while fighting was still going on at the bridge.

On September 8, Indian forces began moving toward Chawinda, in the Sialkot district. Pakistani aircraft fired at advancing Indian tanks but did not cause much damage to the tanks. Some tank against tank fighting then took place.

The Indian moved on to the Phillora region. A huge tank battle took place there on September 11. The Pakistanis were heavily outnumbered, and the Indians were able to capture Phillora.

Next, the Indians began moving toward Chawinda. They planned to capture Chawinda and gain control of the railway that ran from Pasrur to Sialkot.

Meanwhile, the Pakistanis received reinforcements.

On the way to Chawinda, the Indians captured the town of Zafarwal and then lost it.

The Pakistanis, now supplied with more Patton tanks, were able to prevent the Indians from reaching Chawinda for several days.

Fighting began around Chawinda on September 16.

The Indians incurred the most losses during the fighting. More than 120 Indian tanks were lost, while only about 40 Pakistani tanks were lost.

On September 21, Indian forces withdrew.

The following day, the UN Security Council called for a ceasefire.

The war ended on September 23.

Indo-Pakistani War 1965 – Battle of Chawinda – Army Tanks

www.tanks.net

The Battle of Chawinda was one of the largest tank battles fought since World War II. It was part of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, fought over control of Jammu and Kashmir.

After the Pakistani Army's attempt to foment an insurgency (Operation Gibraltar) was discovered and subsequently foiled, India retaliated with an outright attack along the Pakistani border.

The Indian military had planned to take the city of Sialkot, an important railway hub and central part of the Grand Trunk Road, so that they could use it as a beachhead for further operations into Pakistan.

But the Indian force of 80,000 to 150,000 soldiers and 230 tanks was met outside of their objective at Chawinda by a Pakistani force of 30,000 to 50,000 men and 132 tanks.

After more than a day of intense fighting, a UNSC resolution was signed and an unconditional ceasefire was implemented. India lost anywhere between 29 to 129 tanks, whereas Pakistan lost up to 44 tanks.

Here's How 10 Of The Largest And Most Important Tank Battles In History Played Out

taskandpurpose.com

 

[Jackdaws]

The battle of Chawinda and India's mass loss of armour stopped an advance on Lahore, and it remained deadlocked. Not the Americans.


View attachment 15525


The Battle of Chawinda, which took place during the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War, was one of the largest tank battles since the Second World War.

It has been claimed that as many as two thousand tanks took part in the battle, and that the Battle of Kursk has been the only tank battle that involved more tanks. It is known that during the Battle of Chawinda, each side had at least several hundred tanks. Both the Pakistanis and the Indians had Sherman tanks. The Indians also had Centurion tanks, while the Pakistanis also had Patton tanks.

The battle took place in the Ravi-Chenab corridor, which connects Jammu and Kashmir with the Indian mainland. It lasted from September 6 to September 22, 1965.

India’s goal was to break up the Pakistani supply line by cutting off the city of Sialkot from the city of Lahore


The plan was for the Indians to attack from the region around Samba, east of Jammu, move southwest, and cut off the road between Jammu and Sialkot.

On the night of September 6, Indian artillery began shelling Pakistani forces stationed on both sides of Jassar Bridge. The Pakistani counterattack included blowing up part of the bridge.

The Indians captured some border villages on the night of September 7, while fighting was still going on at the bridge.

On September 8, Indian forces began moving toward Chawinda, in the Sialkot district. Pakistani aircraft fired at advancing Indian tanks but did not cause much damage to the tanks. Some tank against tank fighting then took place.

The Indian moved on to the Phillora region. A huge tank battle took place there on September 11. The Pakistanis were heavily outnumbered, and the Indians were able to capture Phillora.

Next, the Indians began moving toward Chawinda. They planned to capture Chawinda and gain control of the railway that ran from Pasrur to Sialkot.

Meanwhile, the Pakistanis received reinforcements.

On the way to Chawinda, the Indians captured the town of Zafarwal and then lost it.

The Pakistanis, now supplied with more Patton tanks, were able to prevent the Indians from reaching Chawinda for several days.

Fighting began around Chawinda on September 16.

The Indians incurred the most losses during the fighting. More than 120 Indian tanks were lost, while only about 40 Pakistani tanks were lost.

On September 21, Indian forces withdrew.

The following day, the UN Security Council called for a ceasefire.

The war ended on September 23.

Indo-Pakistani War 1965 – Battle of Chawinda – Army Tanks

www.tanks.net

The Battle of Chawinda was one of the largest tank battles fought since World War II. It was part of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, fought over control of Jammu and Kashmir.

After the Pakistani Army's attempt to foment an insurgency (Operation Gibraltar) was discovered and subsequently foiled, India retaliated with an outright attack along the Pakistani border.

The Indian military had planned to take the city of Sialkot, an important railway hub and central part of the Grand Trunk Road, so that they could use it as a beachhead for further operations into Pakistan.

But the Indian force of 80,000 to 150,000 soldiers and 230 tanks was met outside of their objective at Chawinda by a Pakistani force of 30,000 to 50,000 men and 132 tanks.

After more than a day of intense fighting, a UNSC resolution was signed and an unconditional ceasefire was implemented. India lost anywhere between 29 to 129 tanks, whereas Pakistan lost up to 44 tanks.

Here's How 10 Of The Largest And Most Important Tank Battles In History Played Out

taskandpurpose.com

The Battle of Chawinda was in the Sialkot sector and not in the Lahore sector. Now I am sure, Pakistanis are more familiar with the geography of their country than I am. Isn't Chawinda a little further than Lahore?

Also, in case of Chawinda, it definitely slowed down the Indian advance but when the UN mandated ceasefire was declared, India controlled Pak territory. Instead of sensational headlines from an obscure antipodean newspaper - allow me to present a source from a book published by the Cambridge Univ press -

Origins of Political Extremism

Political extremism is one of the most pernicious, destructive, and nihilistic forms of human expression. During the twentieth century, in excess of 100 million people had their lives taken from them as the result of extremist violence. In this wide-ranging book Manus I. Midlarsky suggests that...

books.google.co.in

Also it mentions the Battle of Assal Uttar - a far more decisive tank battle. I am sure you can find out what happened there.

 

[Waz]

The Battle of Chawinda was in the Sialkot sector and not in the Lahore sector. Now I am sure, Pakistanis are more familiar with the geography of their country than I am. Isn't Chawinda a little further than Lahore?

Also, in case of Chawinda, it definitely slowed down the Indian advance but when the UN mandated ceasefire was declared, India controlled Pak territory. Instead of sensational headlines from an obscure antipodean newspaper - allow me to present a source from a book published by the Cambridge Univ press -

Origins of Political Extremism

Political extremism is one of the most pernicious, destructive, and nihilistic forms of human expression. During the twentieth century, in excess of 100 million people had their lives taken from them as the result of extremist violence. In this wide-ranging book Manus I. Midlarsky suggests that...

books.google.co.in

Also it mentions the Battle of Assal Uttar - a far more decisive tank battle. I am sure you can find out what happened there.

What? They are both in Punjab, the distance between the two is 66 miles. Major losses incurred by the Indian forces ( Indian 1st Armored Division) stopped them from reinforcing the Lahore front for a final push.
When the ceasefire was announced Pakistan also controlled Indian territory, hence the exchange.

Also why are you rubbishing the source for? I put up two respectable sources from sites dedicated to tank warfare.
Yes Assal Uttar was decisive in stopping the Pakistani armoured thrust, as was Chawinda in stopping the Indian advance. Wether it was "more decisive" is a matter of perspective.

 

[Jackdaws]

What? They are both in Punjab, the distance between the two is 66 miles. Major losses incurred by the Indian forces ( Indian 1st Armored Division) stopped them from reinforcing the Lahore front for a final push.
When the ceasefire was announced Pakistan also controlled Indian territory, hence the exchange.

Also why are you rubbishing the source for? I put up two respectable sources from sites dedicated to tank warfare.
Yes Assal Uttar was decisive in stopping the Pakistani armoured thrust, as was Chawinda in stopping the Indian advance. Wether it was "more decisive" is a matter of perspective.

Sure. I am merely quoting a scholarly work published by the Cambridge University Press which clearly states that the Battle of Chawinda was inconclusive. You have every right to post an article from the Australian which has a contrary view.

I am yet to see a single neutral source like the Australian or any published material by a neutral source which disputes the fact that the Battle of Assal Uttar was decisive and resulted in a Pakistani defeat. Again, I am happy to be corrected if wrong.

In fact with regard to the Battle of Chawinda -
Here is another neutral source which states that the battle was inconclusive -

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=kNzCDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA600&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false


In fact the book also mentions the battle of Assal Uttar above and no where does it state that the battle of inconclusive.

 

[Kaptaan]

So, let me get this right. Any victory is down to India. But any failure is down to America holding you guys back? Mashallah. Keep smoking the stuff.

The greatest army on earth backed up by the Mars humping technology of India as singularly failed to cross a tract of farms less than 6 miles to knock out Pakistan forever. Hell if I stood on the Indian border and I dipped my nose ovr into Pakistan it would touch Lahore Airport. I know I have Jewish nose but hey that tells you how close Lahore is to India.

You can cite dozen reasons presenting the Indian PV. So can thus presenting the Pakistani POV. But the FACT is. After deven decades. 70 years. Multiple wars. Multiple provocations by Pakistan almost all over Kashmir.

India has failed to give that KO. Which is as easy as moviing Indian Armour that SIX MILES. That is the BOTTOM LINE.

Ps. Pakistan has tried but frankly failed because in this David and Goliath struggle India is far too large. But why has India not knocked out Pakistan given it's massive size? No songs about "Amreeka" when it suits you please.

@Waz @Jackdaws

 

[Nilgiri]

This topic comes up kind of frequently and boringly now (IMO)....and the typical circular repeating predictable patterns are given by the various proponents of each side.

The same details and instances come up each time.

Here's the thing, India faced the ravage of the most degrading economic-sapping colonisation known to mankind (by total scale and opportunity cost).

It was a frightfully poor country at independence (and well up to the new millenium).

It literally beggar's belief what kind of bad shape it was in... in the mid 20th century.

Then it picked and stuck to a economic model with deep flaws far past expiry date, exacerbating what it had inherited (w.r.t opportunity cost, though the worst things like drought starvation cycles and food aid dependency were slowly rectified)

It was in no position to bring to bear its large population into conventional forces....compared to growing food + surviving + saving for rainy day to help with next tier activity downroad.

It was never a country that will tolerate people-are-expendable escapades like Mao did with his human population waves past the Yalu river (due to being constrained by similar agrarian + low industrial + ravaged existence inherited in that case too...but figuring fostering stronger relations with Stalin was more important).

Then Mao thanked the population that sent these waves a decade later with govt-sanctioned totalitarian mass-starvation and internal genocide.

"Better for half the people to die so the rest can eat" - Mao

In India (despite all our faults and serious issues of which there are many) there is ethos of respecting human life...thus a democratic govt has to inevitably respect and base itself on that standard....unlike a despot removed and insulated from it (or the secondary tier of it in some junta or khaki cabal puppetmasters etc...)

So of course our military was never going to be backed by the industrial aptitude/intensity others of the time took for granted. The Indian army under British rule was not one designed for the 20th century relevance either.

1950 - 1980...There was literally next to nothing to export to earn foreign exchange to then buy military goodies at scale.

Abiding commitment to being non-aligned as possible, also meant no huge influx of military aid/loans/umbrellas.

So why would India have any kind of military superiority by way of its population in the cold war pre-nuclear breakout in region?

It designed its military policy to safeguard its borders, and grow and better the situation in far higher priority areas....so you know, there wasnt mass starvation and things like that. As much as the congress administrations got wrong....they operated on an overall good faith w.r.t Indian national priority long term.

That is it....it never was guided by we are X times the size of another thus we need to be X times powerful militarily (at whatever long term cost).

If Pakistan decided to start 3 wars (breaking the standstill agreement with kingdom of kashmir, op gibraltar and then massive scale of atrocities in its eastern wing prompting refugee exodus)...and then come with the same ole "you never got lahore! haha!" as though that is some kind of vindication...that is on Pakistan to do...and for others to be bemused by I suppose.


We on the other hand are content we do not have our name next to the biggest surrender since WW2....and that we persevere with border-wise what we formed with. That is more than sufficient for our cold war era.

The fact haji pir pass was given back in 1965 and simla agreement was done as it was done in 1971, should be ample proof of that.

Anyway now its time for the current era to gather more pace and have a better idea of the next era after it...rather than being stuck like the cold war one relatively was.

It is quite simple....south korea does its thing too (having picked a rational approach) and runs the clock better compared to its northern peer....though they have an existential issue of mutual non-recognition....with their respective capital cities falling to each other in their massive 1st war (of scale just not seen in 20th century south asia).

At time and place that is relevant, it (South Korea) will settle it with the economic+military disparity it has achieved at that point...and simply chart the course in the interim....while the other atrophies and double/triples down on the irrational brittle existence.

India will similarly work to get its total savings per year from 1 trillion to 2 trillion USD (given what this means to basic investment and capital formation) ASAP now. It took way too long to get it double from ~ 500 billion in 2009 and tripled from ~ 300 billion in 2005.

That 300 billion is twice as good per capita than Pakistan is now (15 billion in 2019).

Reads very similar to demographics time-lag between the two too (fertility rate, infant mortality rate etc)...yet another thing Pakistan decides to not focus on working on the pace needed.

Thus we simply have to be in a position to best harness upcoming developments so the next era of deterrence, offence and super-weapons (that make say nuclear weapons obsolete) are well within our grasp....without being dependent on foreign provider for it.

Thus everything military based must be well grounded in our industrial, economic and research capacity too.....we do not plan on having our forex reserves and yearly savings dwindle to something worse than a banana republic in central africa.

We do not want wild swings of what our trade deficit and current account ratio pressures are to our forex.....to wild numbers that register in the three digits % of forex :

Army Helicopter programs

A KUH-1 Surion helicopter hovers during the U.S.-South Korea joint military exercise at the Seungjin firing drill ground on Aug. 28, 2015, in Pocheon, South Korea. (Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images) South Korea’s arms procurement agency plans to replace its fleet of Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk...

defencehub.live

The local missile/radar/sensor/ship etc etc developments monthly (sometimes more frequently) increase at pace and depth each year for a reason.

Simply put, the buffer of rational macro-economic scope gives the base and assured confidence for it.

When we launch a satellite for brazil, it is because we have applied a commited persistence to that capability, rather than be happy with what hot-air brochures generals provide when they feel up to it, when they even spare a little time beyond their palatial mansions and side-hustles (Bajwa Pizza USA etc).

We want to get our patent grants internationally from 5000 or so it is now to 10,000....and then 20,000.

We want our market cap to get well past the 3 trillion USD it is headed to.

We want our forex reserve to stay above 500 billion USD, and hopefully get to a trillion if it makes sense for the time.

Sometimes you got to divide these not by 7 (like the earlier population argument used would suggest), not by 10...not by 20...but sometimes as much as 50 or 100 or even more than that to get to the north-korea attitude equivalent in the region.

Or the population argument suddenly doesnt apply here? Like it strangely doesn't apply for the voids of certain things in "newly named" land between Persia and Bharat.

Having single digits in these (forex bn, int. patents granted, savings rate, tax base) are for countries with their elitists stuck in certain way of thinking...and those elitists too arrogant and/or stupid to correct it.

FATF costs to economy estimated at nearly 40 billion (not including opportunity cost):

Terror-financing grey listing costs Pakistan billions annually

FAFT to keep South Asian economy's status despite 'significant progress'

asia.nikkei.com

Essentially that could have been 40 billion (much more than that with opportunity cost) to shore up the country's forex level, or taxable income, or 40 billion less loan pressure or something in the GDP that could have helped.

But sure lets larp about lahore not taken in whatever removed time period to feel better....when India was in even worse state than this back then.

We can see if any of that supposed argument helps Pakistan going forward....or help convince anyone else of Pakistan's past asserted "exceptionalism". As though Taiwan does this against an opponent 100 times its size?

It certainly did not help it (even way back then) in Dhaka when it loudly proclaimed 10:1 superiority man for man.

It certainly did not help it when it projected 1000 year war....and lasted just 2 weeks.

The cost to the Indian economy (as bad shape as it already was) back in that period for just Dhaka result was felt deeply and for extended time...heck Indian economy had not even recovered from the 1965 war.

Food and fuel severe rationing occured for quite many years, experienced by my elder family back then (in completely different part of country, as far away from northern borders as possible pretty much).

Possibly the best govt/leader (at state level) India has ever seen.... lost election because of effects of (earlier) 1965 war on rice supply in my state (and the big bold electioneering shenanigans this opened up for a worthless local party)

In 1971 it needed that scale of human deluge, that scale of atrocity....that scale of those costs to gather muster to plan, strive and achieve that result...even with its costs.

It was ample karma for what caused it not to mention how it was justified by its perpetrators (takfiri and whatever else it took).


Heck, forming a better commensurate doctrine (with better organization + development. of non-infantry divisions) only started in the 80s to begin with under Generals like Sundarji...and could only be really backed up by fiscal resource more recently.

Thus some lahore or kashmir argument with our significant lack of military capability (especially past infantry) in esp first half of cold war (and second half too, but nukes started to enter picture) is severely lacking at best.

We simply were never in the business of forming some juggernaut military (proportionate to population) when we could barely eat....and we didn't want some human-wave mao thing either, nor did we have some krupp steel 3rd reich economy....in all of these lives being just statistical units to be measured and used up for despotic purpose.

The chinese (post mao) realised this folly too over time and adjusted accordingly....leading to them not being able to get to Hanoi in 1979, need I remind you of Vietnams size relative to them?....That war had its own fiscal burden on China too.

Thus the extreme complexes (exceptionalism or lack of as being some black and white, be all end all ....by some very narrow cherrypicked rational/context for it) are more for stalin/mao totalitarianism...or mard-e-momin complex, or juche complex elitist-drivel govts combined with populations with little to no recourse to challenge it.

The current sustained relative scale of that attitude/psyche in the region (and world at large) can be seen for yourself.

It matters to pay attention to the relevant scale and context needed....otherwise you do not rise to that scale even later, having long convinced yourself of the little well's sufficiency.

@VCheng @Paro @crixus @Zapper @Raptor @kaykay @Milspec @Jackdaws et al.

Would like to see if @Joe Shearer has any comment too.

 

[Waz]

Sure. I am merely courting a scholarly work published by the Cambridge University Press which clearly states that the Battle of Chawinda was inconclusive. You have every right to post an article from the Australian which has a contrary view.

I am yet to see a single neutral source like the Australian or any published material by a neutral source which disputes the fact that the Battle of Assal Uttar was decisive and resulted in a Pakistani defeat. Again, I am happy to be corrected if wrong.

In fact with regard to the Battle of Chawinda -
Here is another neutral source which states that the battle was inconclusive -

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=kNzCDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA600&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false


In fact the book also mentions the battle of Assal Uttar above and no where does it state that the battle of inconclusive.

Yes and in the same paragraph he writes of the far greater losses the Indian forces took. I'd ask Clodfelter what exactly he means by indecisive, as it certainly put a stop to the Indian advance and they came off worse in the battle.

 

[Jackdaws]

Yes and in the same paragraph he writes of the far greater losses the Indian forces took. I'd ask Clodfelter what exactly he means by indecisive, as it certainly put a stop to the Indian advance and they came off worse in the battle.

Of course he states 100 tanks lost by India and 60 by Pak in Battle of Chawinda

 

[Jackdaws]

So, let me get this right. Any victory is down to India. But any failure is down to America holding you guys back? Mashallah. Keep smoking the stuff.

The greatest army on earth backed up by the Mars humping technology of India as singularly failed to cross a tract of farms less than 6 miles to knock out Pakistan forever. Hell if I stood on the Indian border and I dipped my nose ovr into Pakistan it would touch Lahore Airport. I know I have Jewish nose but hey that tells you how close Lahore is to India.

You can cite dozen reasons presenting the Indian PV. So can thus presenting the Pakistani POV. But the FACT is. After deven decades. 70 years. Multiple wars. Multiple provocations by Pakistan almost all over Kashmir.

India has failed to give that KO. Which is as easy as moviing Indian Armour that SIX MILES. That is the BOTTOM LINE.

View attachment 15527


Ps. Pakistan has tried but frankly failed because in this David and Goliath struggle India is far too large. But why has India not knocked out Pakistan given it's massive size? No songs about "Amreeka" when it suits you please.

@Waz @Jackdaws

Your argument is based on Lahore being some kind of crown jewel. Is it though?

And what can we do if the US kept bailing West Pakistan out?

Kissinger: No. Well they understand it now, believe me.

Nixon: Yeah. See the point is, our desire is to save West Pakistan. That’s all.

Kissinger: That’s right. That is exactly right.

Full link -

Document 172

south asia

2001-2009.state.gov

If the Pakistani forces were so adept at defending West Pak - why did they need Nixon in 71?

Or why did Nawaz run to Clinton in 1999 even during Kargil?

They should have been able to mount a defence on their own, no?

 

[Saiyan0321]

What? They are both in Punjab, the distance between the two is 66 miles. Major losses incurred by the Indian forces ( Indian 1st Armored Division) stopped them from reinforcing the Lahore front for a final push.
When the ceasefire was announced Pakistan also controlled Indian territory, hence the exchange.

Also why are you rubbishing the source for? I put up two respectable sources from sites dedicated to tank warfare.
Yes Assal Uttar was decisive in stopping the Pakistani armoured thrust, as was Chawinda in stopping the Indian advance. Wether it was "more decisive" is a matter of perspective.

The 1965 war has seen great scholarship most of it which is either ignored or simply not available. I have had to myself search high and low to get those sources. Unfortunately most of it is ignored in favor of preconceived notions and set thoughts and most notable which is confirmation bias and we must also understand that most posters who talk about war are not qualified to talk about war neither historically nor professionally for they ignore the various nuances and facts and happenings of the war in favor of personal bias.

 

[Saiyan0321]

As to @Kaptaan query as to why India has never been able to capture Lahore to end all wars basically.

Well there is a short answer. Then there is a mid length answer. Then there is a long answer. Then a very long answer and then sell a book length.


Perhaps the shortest answer is that Lahore is not that defenseless. The pakistani army is actually a competent army and understood from the very start what were the weakest regions of the border and Lahore was identified as one of them. For this the military made several plans for defense and they always revolved around BRB canal. If you look at a map, the canal protects the city of Lahore and has running networks all over. The bridges make sure that an advancing army will struggle.

So first question is was pakistan unaware of the 1965 Lahore front attack?

Second question is was pakistan unaware of any indian military offensive across the Lahore front?

The answer to both is surprisingly no and if you don't believe me then you can hop a forum and ask panzerkiel.

So to the first question it is a No in short and yes and no in long. No because pakistan has actually received repeated intel that india might launch an offensive across the Lahore front. This was repeatedly conveyed to the higher command and general Musa and general iftikhar and general gul hassan testify to this fact. They repeatedly excuse the lack of urgency due to the fact that the foreign office of zulfiqar bhutto and aziz Ahmed, both of whom were also members of the kashmir committee which spearheaded gibraltar and basically gave birth to it, were against antagonizing India by any form of buildup so that the war will not escalate. They repeatedly told Ayub that since the conflict was contained to the disputed region, India will not cross the international border. The clout bhutto had cannot be understated and this is verified from multiple sources. Ayub trusted bhutto in a manner unheard of and it is this war that would break this trust between them. Ayub Khan, akhtar malik, general iftikhar, general musa and general gul hassan were all well aware that any action on gibraltar will lead to a full scale war. General musa is on record having said that he repeatedly contacted Ayub to not start hostilities until the army was ready to fight s full scale war. Infact he would repeatedly try to convince Ayub of this and Ayub would be convinced but the hawks of the kashmir committee won. In 1956 the Indian army held a mass military exercise where they actually practiced what would happen if pakistan sent in infiltrators who would cut Jammu and various kashmir regions from the indian army and how the army should react. This exercise included many elements of gibraltar and grandslam but most notable the indian HQ came to the conclusion and practices for it that in the eventuality of such, they would have to attack Lahore to ease the pressure and force pakistan go defend Lahore. Pakistan has watched those exercises greatly.

Now coming to the second question and it is a definite No mainly due to the reasons above but most definitely of the fact that when rann of kutch conflict was happening pakistan has predicted an Indian retaliation across the Lahore front. For this the 10th division has armed the region east of BRB, set up defensive barriers, placed charges on the bridges and everything. This was in april 1965 post the battle of sardar post but before the battle of bets. Pakistan saw the Kutch as disputed yet it still saw any retaliation by India to be done in a scale of a general war hence the BRB preparation so the question is why wasn't the same allotted here? Why was Pakistani army caught completely off guard despite knowing their weak center. The reason, I have been able to figure out, is that it was never ayub's war but Bhuttos. Before the conflict, pakistan had created a Kashmir committee and this committee was to figure out how to defrost the Kashmir issue. The committee was entirely headed by Bhutto despite being home to several military men. The thing about it was that whilst the entire membership was of hawks, Bhutto held great influence both on the committee and on Ayub. On multiple sources, he is said to have convinced Ayub on the sophistry of borders and how the conflict would remain contained despite the fact that even during the planning of Gibraltar Ayub, general Musa, akhtar Malik were all convinced that this would lead to general war and while akhtar was convinced that an action on Kashmir, if successful would bring much on the table that even a counter attack couldn't blunt, Musa was convinced that the army was not ready for e general. Ayub, himself a realist, was assured that Pakistani forces were not ready to take on the Indian army and if it became a general war or a war of attrition then Pakistan would lose.

Bhutto a young and eloquent man with a passion for speeches and a favourite of Ayub was convinced that the war would remain contained and is on record to have stated that if it doesn't remain contained then we will shut the American lobby once and for all aka America would not come to aid and the American supporters would finally find themselves shut since the Pak Us relations were extremely cooled during this period courtesy of the opening or Pak China relations.

So why didn't India ever try to capture Lahore or try the same again. Simple. First of all in 1956 exercises and as shown by the 1965 war plans, the indian army was not to capture Lahore but to ease the northern front. It was a classic open a front and then force the opposition to over-extert itself. Infact the indian plans were to capture east of BRB and then secure that position and form bridge heads. Dera baba nanak bridge was key here. The other point of attack was to cross the border for sialkot and drive a wedge between Lahore forces and forces at sialkot.

Apart from knowing that India had the option to fight at a time and a place of its choice, Pakistan had received reports as early as 15 August and as late as 4 September that India was moving troops closer to the international border. Pakistan’ s 15 Division was asked to set an ambush on the Samba- Kathua road that had seen heavy traffic since the middle of August. At 01:00 hours on the night of 3/4 September, an excited Colonel S.G. Mehdi, colonel staff at division headquarters, called Lt. Col. Sher Zaman of the MI Directorate to report that they had caught an Indian dispatch rider carrying mail for the headquarters squadron of the Indian 1st Armoured Division. This established that the 1st Armoured Division was in the vicinity of Samba, ready for an offensive strike under the code name Operation Nepal.6 The Lahore, Sialkot, and Kasur sectors all reported heavy Indian activity. A day earlier, Prime Minister Shastri had warned his fellow countrymen in a speech on All India Radio of the ‘hard days ahead’ when they might have to ‘suffer damage from air raids.’7 Gul Hassan recalls discussing the Indian moves with the CGS Lt.
Gen. Sher Bahadur, and suggesting that Pakistan move its forces to defensive positions along the border. Sher Bahadur was reluctant to commit, given the prevailing stricture from the foreign office of ‘Do not provoke, Do not escalate.’ Musa was visiting Chamb that day and did not get back till late. Gul Hassan asked one of his staff officers to brief the chief who responded that the officer should monitor the All India Radio. Sure enough, All India Radio reported in a flash news item that Prime Minister Shastri had told parliament that Pakistan was moving troops from Sialkot towards Jammu.
Yet, there was no visible sense of urgency on the Pakistani side. At a higher level, yet again, there appeared to be no attempt to draw the air force or the navy into the strategic planning for the impending war. Indeed, the air force chief, Air Marshal Asghar Khan was replaced by Air Marshal Nur Khan during the summer months when the military action was heating up and plans were being made for the war to come. War was seen as purely a Pakistan Army affair, as Gul Hassan testifies. Yet, the army leadership too seemed unready, as it had since the Rann of Kutch crisis. On the Lahore front, for instance, in April 1965, at the height of the Rann of Kutch crisis, 10 Division had been moved to the border and made ready for action. Defensive positions were taken, mines deployed, barbed wires laid, and bridges over the BRB canal prepared for demolition. However, by July, when the political climate appeared to be cooling, all these preparations were undone and most of the 10 Division was withdrawn from the border. Then, when the action began in Kashmir, the GOC 10 Division, Lt. Gen. Sarfaraz Khan asked the Corps Commander General Bakhtiar Rana at a commander-in-chiefs’ conference in Kharian on 31 August: ‘Shall we occupy defensive positions?’ To which Rana replied:
‘Negative!’ When Sarfaraz pursued his argument and sought permission to at least ‘allow us to lay mines,’ Rana responded: ‘No. We do not want to provoke the Indians.’ It was in this mindset that Musa gave orders to his troops as late as 4 September to ‘take necessary defensive measures’ under a flash signal (carrying the highest priority), drafted by the military operations directorate.
Shaukat Riza thought the language was not peremptory enough. According to Gul Hassan, the message was quite clear but Lt. Gen. M. Sarfaraz Khan, GOC 10 Division in Lahore, perhaps influenced by his earlier instructions from General Rana, chose to interpret it in a more relaxed manner than the rest, merely asking troops to exercise greater vigilance’ and warning troops in the rear to guard against air attacks. He also suggested that troops move to defensive positions on the night of 5/6 September.


This is the short mid length version. The thing is that india has never tried again because there were alot of factors that worked for India during 1965 and despite those factors indian advance was halted and regions across the BRB were even recaptured and actual defensive lines made. Why? Because there are a few points where both india and pakistan can surprise each other. Take chamb jhuria sector. It is the best way to cut india off from kashmir and most effective and it can truly damage the indian military capabilities however attacking chamb jhuria is extremely difficult because it is the best place to attack india and india knows this so they have many back plans for when things go wrong. Same with Lahore. Even in surprise there are contingencies and back ups that immediately come to play.

This is a short version and if I go into details then we will be discussing things on a map and how offensives happened and how they stalled and what were the counter plans or where failure happened, command failures and that will be a long post.

@Paro yours is an interesting suggestion but I think that as toxicity increases positive discussion will be less and less and we will be confined to our forums and talk on our platforms solely. Frankly the best way is to actually talk about something else and only touch the subject like you put your toe in the water to see how the other would react. If the feeling is not good then you immediately return to the old topics.