PakistanTalk Forum

 

Go Back   PakistanTalk Forums > Defence & Geostrategy > Military History


Military History Discussing historical aspects of warfare, including the conflicts of '48,'65,'71,'99

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-09-2009, 01:33 AM   #1 (permalink)
Senior Member
Lt. Colonel
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 882
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default The guns of August

The guns of August
By Ahmad Faruqui
Monday, 31 Aug, 2009 | 08:02 AM PST |


No official history of the 1965 war was ever written even though President Ayub wanted one. — File Photo
PAKISTAN
Pros & cons of incumbency
Some of the writing about the Indo-Pakistan war of September 1965 borders on mythology. It is no surprise that generations of Pakistanis continue to believe that India was the aggressor and that one Pakistani soldier was equal to 10 Indian soldiers.

A few have argued that the war began in August when Pakistan injected guerrillas into the vale of Kashmir to instigate a revolt and grab it before India achieved military dominance in the region. That was Operation Gibraltar.

When it failed to trigger a revolt and drew a sharp Indian riposte along the ceasefire line, Pakistan upped the ante and launched Operation Grand Slam on Sept 1. Infantry units of the army backed by armour overran the Indian outpost in Chamb, crossed the Tawi river and were headed towards Akhnur in order to cut off India’s line of communication with Srinagar.

In the minority view, the Indian response on Sept 6 across the international border at Lahore was a natural counter-response, not an act of aggression.

I asked Sajjad Haider, author of the new book, Flight of the Falcon, to name the aggressor. He retired as an air commodore in the Pakistan Air Force. A fighter pilot to the bone, he does not know how to mince words: ‘Ayub perpetrated the war.’

In April, skirmishes had taken place in the Rann of Kutch region several hundred miles south of Kashmir. In that encounter, the Pakistanis prevailed over the Indians. Haider says that the humiliation suffered by the Indians brought Prime Minister Shastri to the conclusion that the next round would be of India’s choosing.

The Indian army chief prepared for a war that would be fought in the plains of Punjab. Under ‘Operation Ablaze’, it would mount an attack against Lahore, Sialkot and Kasur. Of course, the trigger would have to be pulled by the Pakistanis.

On May 12, says Haider, an Indian Canberra bomber flew over the Pakistan border on a reconnaissance mission. To quote him: ‘The PAF scrambled interceptors which got within shooting range of the intruder. Air Marshal Asghar Khan’s permission was sought to bring down the intruder. He sought clearance from the president on the newly installed direct line but Ayub denied permission fearing Indian reprisal.’ Laments Haider, ‘If this was not an indication of Indian intentions, what else could have been?’

Oblivious to what had just taken place in the skies above Punjab, and failing to anticipate how India was gunning to equalise the score, Ayub gave the green light to Operation Gibraltar on the advice of his foreign minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (later president and prime minister). Bhutto had sought out the opinion about Indian intentions from Chinese Foreign Minister Chen Yi during a meeting at the Karachi airport and concluded from the latter’s body language that India would not respond.

So Ayub gave the green light to send 8,000 infiltrators into Indian-held Kashmir. These, says Haider, were mostly youth from Azad Kashmir who had less than four weeks of training in guerrilla warfare. The entire plan was predicated on a passive Indian response, evoking Gen Von Moltke’s dictum: ‘No war plan survives the first 24 hours of contact with the enemy.’

It is also worth recalling what the kaiser said to the German troops that were heading off to fight the French in August 1914: ‘You will be home before the leaves have fallen off the trees.’ The three-month war turned into the Great War which lasted for four years.

Operation Grand Slam abruptly ground to a halt. An Indian general cited by Haider says in his memoirs: ‘Akhnur was a ripe plum ready to be plucked, but providence came to our rescue.’ The Pakistani GHQ decided to switch divisional commanders in the midst of the operation. The new commander, Maj-Gen Yahya (subsequently army chief and president), claimed later he was not tasked with taking Akhnur.

I asked Haider whether the Pakistani military was prepared for an all-out war with India, a much bigger country with a much bigger military. He said it was the army’s war, since the other services had been kept in the dark. The army was clearly not prepared for an all-out war since a quarter of the soldiers were on leave. They were only recalled as the Indian army crossed the border en route to Lahore, a horrific sight which Haider recalls seeing from the air as he and five of his falcons arrived on the outskirts of Lahore.

Maj-Gen Sarfraz was the general officer commanding of the No.10 Division which had primary responsibility for the defence of Lahore. Along with other divisional commanders in the region, he had been ordered by GHQ to remove all defensive landmines from the border. None had been taken into confidence about the Kashmir operation. The pleas of these generals to prepare against an Indian invasion were rejected by GHQ with a terse warning: ‘Do not provoke the Indians.’

Haider notes that the gateway to Lahore was defended by the 3rd Baloch contingent of 100 men under the intrepid Major Shafqat Baluch. He says, ‘They fought to the last man till we (No.19 Squadron) arrived to devastate the invading division. There could have been no doubt even in the mind of a hawaldar that an Indian attack would come. But the ostriches at the pulpit had their heads dug in sand up to their necks.’

In the 1965 war, the Pakistani Army repeated the mistakes of the 1947-48 Kashmir war, but on a grander scale. No official history of the 1965 war was ever written even though President Ayub wanted one. Gen Yahya, his new army chief, just sat on the request until Ayub was hounded out of office by centrifugal forces triggered by the war.

Pakistan’s grand strategy was flawed. None of its strategic objectives were achieved. And were it not for the tactical brilliance of many mid-level commanders, the country would have been torn apart by the Indians. Ironically, in Ayub’s autobiography, one would be hard pressed to find any references to the war of 1965. One is reminded of De Gaulle’s history of the French army which makes no reference to the events that took place in Waterloo in 1815.

War, as Clemenceau put it, is too serious a business to be left to the generals.

The writer has authored Rethinking the National Security of Pakistan.



http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/...f-august-hs-06
Adux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2009, 02:26 AM   #2 (permalink)
Senior Member
Major General
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,274
Thanks: 85
Thanked 91 Times in 72 Posts
Default Re: The guns of August

Well, for Indians it is obvious that Pakistan was the perpetrator of the 1965 war by its actions in Kashmir.

It was their folly to expect India not to react to the provocation in the manner of its choosing.

Also, this talk of attack at "night" betrays the same naive mentality about how modern wars are fought and surprise achieved.
__________________
There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don’t..

जननी जन्मभूमि च स्वर्गात अपि गरीयसी (The mother and motherland are greater than heaven)
vinod2070 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2009, 03:39 AM   #3 (permalink)
Senior Member
Lt. Colonel
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 882
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: The guns of August

I wonder wether Ayub ever passed kindergarten?This is not Gulli Danda Rulebook! As Generals planning war, they should have stood in India's shoes, gaueged their responses and reactions to the acts committed by Pakistan, For India J&K as much as territory of India as is Kerala,

But anyways that war, was a war fought and led by idiots, it was a comedy of errors with due respect to all those who died on both sides.
Adux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2009, 11:05 AM   #4 (permalink)
PDR Ambassador
Brigadier
 
Xeric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,046
Thanks: 9
Thanked 48 Times in 37 Posts
Default Re: The guns of August

Hadn't it been better if the writer had interviewed and Army Officer?

Nevertheless, as a warmer here's a book for those who say no official history has been written on '65 War: The Pakistan Army, War 1965 compiled by Major General Shauket Riza from hundreds of interviews and documents.
__________________
!! ھیمت ہے تو پاس کر ، ورنہ برداشت کر
Those who like me please raise your hands, those who don't, please raise your standards!

If you are not criticized, you may not be doing much.


i don't speak for the Army; DG ISPR does!
Xeric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2009, 02:32 PM   #5 (permalink)
Administrator
Lt. Colonel
 
DarkStar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 928
Thanks: 32
Thanked 49 Times in 30 Posts
Default Re: The guns of August

What I gather from even this article, that the strategy that Pakistan took to achieve its objectives was sound, although tactical errors were committed that led to the failure of our objectives in Kashmir.

Now if we had more co-ordinated planning, especially after the laungh of op. Gebraltar, and if certain mistakes had not been comitted, srinagar and the valley would have fallen into our lap.

Of course, that did not happen, due to tactical - not strategic - failures.
DarkStar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2009, 02:43 PM   #6 (permalink)
PDR Ambassador
Brigadier
 
Xeric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,046
Thanks: 9
Thanked 48 Times in 37 Posts
Default Re: The guns of August

Another angle:

Indo-Pak War [September, 1965]

The long-standing border disputes, communal tensions, and conflict over the question of Kashmir flared up in a full-scale war between India and Pakistan in September 1965.

The War of Rann of Kutch

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

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

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

At the Commonwealth Conference in Britain, the British Prime Minister Harold Wilson successfully persuaded both India and Pakistan to sign an agreement on June 30 to resolve the dispute. Failing to do so bilaterally, a tribunal was set up to resolve this dispute. This tribunal announced its verdict on February 19, 1965. It gave 350 sq. miles in the northern part to Pakistan and the rest of the Rann area to India.

The War in Kashmir


Events in Kashmir were also moving towards a climax. The Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri added more fuel to the fire by taking steps to absorb Kashmir further into the political body of India and stated that the Kashmir problem occupied a secondary place in successful relations between India and Pakistan.

The application of articles 356 and 357 of the Indian Constitution to the Kashmir State which enabled the President of India to establish Presidential Rule in Kashmir and legislate, there was an effort to amalgamate Kashmir completely into the Indian Union.

Sheikh Abdullah, the Kashmiri leader took extensive foreign tours to enlist international support for the Kashmir cause. But he was arrested and the Kashmir Legislative Assembly adopted the Constitutional Amendments Bill on March 30, providing:

1. The Sardar-i-Riyasat would henceforth be known as Governor and would be appointed by the President of India instead of being elected by the local assembly.

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


The Kashmiri people called for an all out war against Indian imperialism and established a National Government of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. In a spillover effect, Azad Kashmir became increasingly restive. The Indian army made a series of new moves across the ceasefire line with her regular armed forces.

The Lahore Offensive

At 3:00 AM on September 6, 1965, without a formal declaration of war, Indians crossed the international border of West Pakistan and launched a three-pronged offensive against Lahore, Sialkot and Rajasthan. There was a fierce tank battle on the plains of Punjab. The domestic Indo-Pak conflict transformed into an international conflict and raised Super Power concerns.

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

The main diplomatic effort to stop the fighting was conducted under the auspices of the United Nations and a ceasefire came into effect on September 23, 1965.

The Soviet Union, which had remained neutral while India and Pakistan were at war, played broker at Tashkent afterwards. A Soviet Government communique formally announced on December 8 that the Indian Prime Minister Shastri and the Pakistani President Ayub would meet at Tashkent on January 4, 1966.

The Tashkent Conference lasted from January 4 to January 10. The Soviet Premier Kosygin earned praise as a peacemaker. The main achievement of the Conference was to withdraw, no later than February 25, 1966, all armed personnel to the position held before August 5, 1964.

http://www.storyofpakistan.com/artic...rtid=A068&Pg=1
__________________
!! ھیمت ہے تو پاس کر ، ورنہ برداشت کر
Those who like me please raise your hands, those who don't, please raise your standards!

If you are not criticized, you may not be doing much.


i don't speak for the Army; DG ISPR does!
Xeric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2009, 02:44 PM   #7 (permalink)
Senior Member
Lt. Colonel
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 882
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: The guns of August

Darkstar,


Then you lost the plot completely, It was tactical tenacity of pakistan that shined, It was the top leadership, ie Strategic Thinking they lost. If India attacking through International Border, was not a tactical decision, rather a strategic one.
Adux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2009, 02:47 PM   #8 (permalink)
Senior Member
Lt. Colonel
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 882
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: The guns of August

Xeric,

You article from the Indian Perspective matters next to nothing, It assumes and implies, that princely state doesnt have the right to choose and Hari Singh's accession is not valid, which are all wrong in the world and Indian context. There was no need of any formal Declaration of war, according to India, Attacking J&K is equal to attacking any other part of India, Kashmir never was and never will be going anywhere.
Adux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2009, 02:53 PM   #9 (permalink)
Administrator
Lt. Colonel
 
DarkStar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 928
Thanks: 32
Thanked 49 Times in 30 Posts
Default Re: The guns of August

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adux View Post
Darkstar,


Then you lost the plot completely, It was tactical tenacity of pakistan that shined, It was the top leadership, ie Strategic Thinking they lost. If India attacking through International Border, was not a tactical decision, rather a strategic one.
The Strategic thinking in launching the OG was sound, the tactical mistake was in not taking into confidence the army/airforce mid-brass after the operation was launched, as was the decision to recall troops from the borders, and not make preperations for the impending Bharati attack.

It is true, that many officers and soldiers showed military nous when in battle, so there were tactical successes too, as you pointed out.

However, it was the mistakes pointed to above, which let the strategy down in the end.

If you believe the launching of OG and the subsequent run for akhnoor was strategically flawed, please tell us why?

Pakistan gambled, and if the gambe paid off, it had a lot to gain...If the gamble did not pay off, what did Pakistan lose?

The USSR acted as peacemaker, and we all went to our previous lines.
DarkStar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2009, 02:54 PM   #10 (permalink)
PDR Ambassador
Brigadier
 
Xeric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,046
Thanks: 9
Thanked 48 Times in 37 Posts
Default Re: The guns of August

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adux View Post
Xeric,

You article from the Indian Perspective matters next to nothing, It assumes and implies, that princely state doesnt have the right to choose and Hari Singh's accession is not valid, which are all wrong in the world and Indian context. There was no need of any formal Declaration of war, according to India, Attacking J&K is equal to attacking any other part of India, Kashmir never was and never will be going anywhere.
i am impressed!

Ok , boy another indian is claiming a disputed territory (as per UN declarations, ethics and realities) as its own.

No wonder tomorrow you may say that attacking Pakistan was also akin to attacking just any other indian state, no doubts we were once part of india!
__________________
!! ھیمت ہے تو پاس کر ، ورنہ برداشت کر
Those who like me please raise your hands, those who don't, please raise your standards!

If you are not criticized, you may not be doing much.


i don't speak for the Army; DG ISPR does!
Xeric is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 - Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.