Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:26, 3 September 2014

Indo-Pakistani War of 1965
Part of the Indo-Pakistani Wars
Indian disputed areas
Date August – 23 September 1965 Location South Asia Result United Nations mandated ceasefire. No permanent territorial changes (see Tashkent Declaration).
Belligerents
India	Pakistan
Commanders and leaders
Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (President of India) Lal Bahadur Shastri (Prime Minister of India) J.N Chaudhuri (Chief of the Army Staff) Lt.Gen. Harbaksh Singh (Western Army Command) ACM Arjan Singh (Chief of the Air Staff) Maj.Gen. Gurbaksh Singh (GOC, 15th Infantry Division)	Ayub Khan (President of Pakistan) Gen Muhammad Musa (Chief of Army Staff) AM Noor Khan (Chief of Air Staff) Adm S.M. Ahsan (Chief of Naval Staff) LGen Bakhtiar Rana (Commander, I Corps) MGen Tikka Khan (GOC, 12th Regiment Artillery) MGen A.H. Malik (GOC, 12th Army Infantry) MGen Iftikhar Janjua BGen A.A. Malik (24th Army Infantry) Cdre S.M. Anwar (Commander, 25th Navy Group)
Strength
720 Tanks 186 Centurions 346 Shermans 90 AMX 90 PT-76 628 Artillery 66x 3.7"How 450x 25pdr 96x 5.5" 16x 7.2" 700,000 Infantry	150 aircraft 756 Tanks 352 Pattons 308 Shermans 96 Chaffees 552 Artillery 72x105mm How 234X25pdr 126x155mm How 48x8" How 72x3.7" How POK Lt Btys 260,000 Infantry
Casualties and losses
Neutral claims 3,000 men 150-190 tanks 60–75 aircraft 540 km (210 mi) of territory lost (primarily in Rann of Kutch) Indian claims 75 aircraft lost 322 km territory lost Pakistani claims 8,200 men killed or captured 110, 113 aircraft destroyed 500 tanks captured or destroyed 2602, 2575 km territory gained	Neutral claims 3,800 men 200-300 Tanks 20 aircraft Over 1,840 km (710 mi) of territory lost (primarily in Sialkot, Lahore, and Kashmir sectors) Pakistani claims 19 aircraft lost Indian claims 5259 men killed or captured 43, 73 aircraft destroyed 471 tanks destroyed 1920, 1078 km gained

The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 was a culmination of skirmishes that took place between April 1965 and September 1965 between Pakistan and India.

This conflict became known as the Second Kashmir War and was fought by India and Pakistan over the disputed region of Kashmir, the first having been fought in 1947. The war began following Pakistan's Operation Gibraltar, which was designed to infiltrate forces into Jammu and Kashmir to precipitate an insurgency against rule by India. The five-month war caused thousands of casualties on both sides. It ended in a United Nations (UN) mandated ceasefire and the subsequent issuance of the Tashkent Declaration.

Much of the war was fought by the countries' land forces in Kashmir and along the International Border between India and Pakistan. This war saw the largest amassing of troops in Kashmir since the Partition of British India in 1947, a number that was overshadowed only during the 2001–2002 military standoff between India and Pakistan. Most of the battles were fought by opposing infantry and armoured units, with substantial backing from air forces, and naval operations. Many details of this war, like those of other Indo-Pakistani Wars, remain unclear.

Pre-war escalation

Since Partition of India in 1947, Pakistan and India remained in contention over several issues. Although the Kashmir conflict was the predominant issue dividing the nations, other border disputes existed, most notably over the Rann of Kutch, a barren region in the Indian state of Gujarat. The issue first arose in 1956 which ended with India regaining control over the disputed area. Pakistani patrols began patrolling in territory controlled by India in January 1965, which was followed by attacks by both countries on each other's posts on 8 April 1965. Initially involving border police from both nations, the disputed area soon witnessed intermittent skirmishes between the countries' armed forces. In June 1965, British Prime Minister Harold Wilson successfully persuaded both countries to end hostilities and set up a tribunal to resolve the dispute. The verdict, which came later in 1968, saw Pakistan awarded 350 square miles (910 km) of the Rann of Kutch, as against its original claim of 3,500 square miles (9,100 km).

After its success in the Rann of Kutch, Pakistan, under the leadership of General Ayub Khan, believed the Indian Army would be unable to defend itself against a quick military campaign in the disputed territory of Kashmir as the Indian military had suffered a loss to China in 1962. Pakistan believed that the population of Kashmir was generally discontented with Indian rule and that a resistance movement could be ignited by a few infiltrating saboteurs. Pakistan attempted to ignite the resistance movement by means of a covert infiltration, codenamed Operation Gibraltar. The Pakistani infiltrators were soon discovered, however, their presence reported by local Kashmiris, and the operation ended unsuccessfully.

The war

On 5 August 1965 between 26,000 and 33,000 Pakistani soldiers crossed the Line of Control dressed as Kashmiri locals headed for various areas within Kashmir. Indian forces, tipped off by the local populace, crossed the cease fire line on 15 August.

Initially, the Indian Army met with considerable success, capturing three important mountain positions after a prolonged artillery barrage. By the end of August, however, both sides had relative progress; Pakistan had made progress in areas such as Tithwal, Uri and Poonch and India had captured the Haji Pir Pass, 8 km into Pakistan-Administered Kashmir.

On 1 September 1965, Pakistan launched a counterattack, called Operation Grand Slam, with the objective to capture the vital town of Akhnoor in Jammu, which would sever communications and cut off supply routes to Indian troops. Ayub Khan calculated that "Hindu morale would not stand more than a couple of hard blows at the right time and place" although by this time Operation Gibraltar had failed and India had captured the Haji Pir Pass. Attacking with an overwhelming ratio of troops and technically superior tanks, Pakistan made gains against Indian forces, who were caught unprepared and suffered heavy losses. India responded by calling in its air force to blunt the Pakistani attack. The next day, Pakistan retaliated, its air force attacked Indian forces and air bases in both Kashmir and Punjab. India's decision to open up the theater of attack into Pakistani Punjab forced the Pakistani army to relocate troops engaged in the operation to defend Punjab. Operation Grand Slam therefore failed, as the Pakistan Army was unable to capture Akhnoor; it became one of the turning points in the war when India decided to relieve pressure on its troops in Kashmir by attacking Pakistan further south.

India crossed the International Border on the Western front on 6 September, marking an official beginning of the war. On 6 September, the 15th Infantry Division of the Indian Army, under World War II veteran Major General Prasad, battled a massive counterattack by Pakistan near the west bank of the Ichogil Canal (BRB Canal), which was a de facto border of India and Pakistan. The General's entourage itself was ambushed and he was forced to flee his vehicle. A second, this time successful, attempt to cross the Ichhogil Canal was made over the bridge in the village of Barki, just east of Lahore. These developments brought the Indian Army within the range of Lahore International Airport. As a result, the United States requested a temporary ceasefire to allow it to evacuate its citizens in Lahore. However, the Pakistani counterattack took Khem Karan from Indian forces which tried to divert the attention of Pakistanis from Khem Karan by an attack on Bedian and the adjacent villages.

The thrust against Lahore consisted of the 1st Infantry Division supported by the three tank regiments of the 2nd Independent Armoured Brigade; they quickly advanced across the border, reaching the Ichhogil (BRB) Canal by 6 September. The Pakistani Army held the bridges over the canal or blew up those it could not hold, effectively stalling any further advance by the Indians on Lahore. One unit of the Indian Jat Regiment, 3 Jat, had also crossed the Ichogil canal and captured the town of Batapore (Jallo Mur to Pakistan) on the west side of the canal. The same day, a counter offensive consisting of an armoured division and infantry division supported by Pakistan Air Force Sabres forced the Indian 15th Division to withdraw to its starting point. Although 3 Jat suffered minimal casualties, the bulk of the damage being taken by ammunition and stores vehicles, the higher commanders had no information of 3 Jat's capture of Batapore and misleading information led to the command to withdraw from Batapore and Dograi to Ghosal-Dial. This move brought extreme disappointment to Lt-Col Desmond Hayde, CO of 3 Jat. Dograi was eventually recaptured by 3 Jat on 21 September, for the second time but after a much harder battle due to Pakistani reinforcements.

On 8 September 1965, a company of 5 Maratha Light Infantry was sent to reinforce a Rajasthan Armed Constabulary (RAC) post at Munabao – a strategic hamlet about 250 kilometres from Jodhpur. Their brief was simple. To hold the post and to keep Pakistan's infantry battalions from overrunning the post at bay. But at Maratha Hill (in Munabao) – as the post has now been christened – the Indian company could barely manage to thwart the intense attack for 24 hours. A company of 3 Guards with 954 heavy mortar battery ordered to reinforce the RAC post at Munabao could never reach. The Pakistani Air Force had strafed the entire area, and also hit a railway train coming from Barmer with reinforcements near Gadra road railway station. On 10 September, Munabao fell into Pakistani hands, and efforts to capture the strategic point did not succeed.

On the days following 9 September, both nations' premiere formations were routed in unequal battles. India's 1st Armoured Division, labeled the "pride of the Indian Army", launched an offensive towards Sialkot. The Division divided itself into two prongs, was forced back by the Pakistani 6th Armoured Division at Chawinda and was forced to withdraw after suffering heavy losses of nearly 100 tanks. The Pakistanis followed up their success by launching Operation Windup, which forced the Indians back farther. Similarly, Pakistan's pride, the 1st Armoured Division, pushed an offensive towards Khem Karan, with the intent to capture Amritsar (a major city in Punjab, India) and the bridge on River Beas to Jalandhar.

The Pakistani 1st Armoured Division never made it past Khem Karan, however, and by the end of 10 September lay disintegrated by the defences of the Indian 4th Mountain Division at what is now known as the Battle of Asal Uttar (lit. meaning – "Real Answer", or more appropriate English equivalent – "Fitting Response"). The area became known as 'Patton Nagar' (Patton Town), because of the large number of US-made Pakistani Patton tanks. Approximately 97 Pakistani tanks were destroyed or abandoned, with only 32 Indian tanks destroyed or damaged. The Pakistani 1st Armoured Division less 5th Armoured Brigade was next sent to Sialkot sector behind Pakistani 6th Armoured Division where it didn't see action as 6th Armoured Division was already in process of routing Indian 1st Armoured Division which was superior to it in strength.

The war was heading for a stalemate, with both nations holding territory of the other. The Indian army suffered 3,000 battlefield deaths, while Pakistan suffered 3,800. The Indian army was in possession of 710 miles² (1,800 km²) of Pakistani territory and the Pakistan army held 210 mile² (550 km²) of Indian territory. The territory occupied by India was mainly in the fertile Sialkot, Lahore and Kashmir sectors, while Pakistani land gains were primarily south in deserts opposite to Sindh and in Chumb sector near Kashmir in north.

Aerial warfare

The war saw aircraft of the Indian Air Force (IAF) and the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) engaging in combat for the first time since independence. Though the two forces had previously faced off in the First Kashmir War during the late 1940s, that engagement was very limited in scale compared to the 1965 conflict.

The IAF was flying large numbers of Hawker Hunter, Indian-manufactured Folland Gnats, de Havilland Vampires, EE Canberra bombers and a squadron of MiG-21s. The PAF's fighter force comprised 102 F-86F Sabres and 12 F-104 Starfighters, along with 24 B-57 Canberra bombers. During the conflict the PAF was out-numbered by around 5:1.

The PAF's aircraft were largely of American origin, whereas the IAF flew an assortment of British and Soviet aeroplanes. It has been widely reported that the PAF's American aircraft were superior to those of the IAF, but according to some experts this is untrue because the IAF's MiG-21, Hawker Hunter and Folland Gnat fighters actually had higher performance than their PAF counterpart, the F-86 Sabre. Although the IAF's de Havilland Vampire fighter-bombers were outdated in comparison to the F-86 Sabre, the Hawker Hunter fighters were superior in both power and speed to the F-86 according to Air Cdre (retired) Sajjad Haider, who led the PAF's No.19 Squadron in combat during the war.

According to the Indians, the F-86 was vulnerable to the diminutive Folland Gnat, nicknamed "Sabre Slayer." The PAF's F-104 Starfighter of the PAF was the fastest fighter operating in the subcontinent at that time and was often referred to as "the pride of the PAF". However, according to Sajjad Haider, the F-104 did not deserve this reputation. Being "a high level interceptor designed to neutralise Soviet strategic bombers in altitudes above 40,000 feet," rather than engage in dogfights with agile fighters at low altitudes, it was "unsuited to the tactical environment of the region." In combat the starfighter was not as effective as the IAF's far more agile, albeit much slower, Folland Gnat fighter. Yet it zoomed into an ongoing dogfight between Sabres and Gnats, at supersonic speed, successfully broke off the fight and caused the Gnats to egress. An IAF Gnat, piloted by Squadron Leader Brij Pal Singh Sikand, landed at an abandoned Pakistani airstrip at Pasrur and was captured by the Pakistan Army. The pilot claimed that most of his equipment failed and even if he could get some chance on that, the star-fighters snuffed it. This Gnat is displayed as a war trophy in the Pakistan Air Force Museum, Karachi. Sqn Ldr Saad Hatmi who flew the captured aircraft to Sargodha, and later tested and evaluated its flight performance, was of view that Gnat was no "Sabre Slayer" when it came to dog fighting.

The two countries have made contradictory claims of combat losses during the war and few neutral sources have verified the claims of either country. The PAF claimed it shot down 104 IAF planes and lost 19 of its own, while the IAF claimed it shot down 73 PAF planes and lost 59. According to one independent source, the PAF flew 86 F-86 Sabres, 10 F-104 Starfighters and 20 B-57 Canberras in a parade soon after the war was over. Thus disproving the IAF's claim of downing 73 PAF fighters, which at the time constituted nearly the entire Pakistani front-line fighter force.

Indian sources have pointed out that, despite PAF claims of losing only a squadron of combat craft, Pakistan sought to acquire additional aircraft from Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Turkey and China within 10 days of the beginning war. But this could be explained by the 5:1 disparity in numbers faced by the PAF.

"India retained much of its air force in the East, against the possibility of Chinese intervention, and as a result the air forces were quite evenly balanced in the West."

"The PAF lost some 25 aircraft (11 in air combat), while the Indians lost 60 (25 in air combat). This was an impressive result, but it was simply not good enough. Pakistan ended the war having depleted 17 percent of its front line strength, while India's losses amounted to less than 10 percent. Moreover, the loss rate had begun to even out, and it has been estimated that another three week's fighting would have seen the Pakistani losses rising to 33 percent and India's losses totalling 15 percent. Air superiority was not achieved, and were unable to prevent IAF fighter bombers and reconnaissance Canberras from flying daylight missions over Pakistan. Thus 1965 was a stalemate in terms of the air war with neither side able to achieve complete air superiority.

Tank battles

The 1965 war witnessed some of the largest tank battles since World War II. The tank battles fought in the area between Charwa and Chawinda from 8th to 21 September 1965 were the most decisive battles of the 1965 War . Initially the Indians were very close to victory while in the last stages the Pakistan Army was in a relatively better position to launch a counterstroke which could have forced the Indians to abandon all gains made inside the Shakargarh Bulge from 7 September. The Chawinda Battles also gave birth to many myths as far as the Pakistan Army was concerned. Many conflicting claims were made about ‘Military Effectiveness’ ‘Martial Fervour’ etc citing the ‘Battles of Chawinda’ as an example. The Indian commanders were also criticised for phenomenal incompetence, but somehow they rationalised their failures as a case of normal failure in face of technically superior tanks.

Source: http://defence.pk/threads/battle-of-chawinda-1965-the-largest-tank-battle-after-wwii.248368/#ixzz3CDuKkuRV

At the outbreak of war in 1965, Pakistan had about 15 armoured cavalry regiments, each with about 45 tanks in three squadrons. Besides the Pattons, there were about 200 M4 Shermans re-armed with 76 mm guns, 150 M24 Chaffee light tank and a few independent squadrons of M36B1 tank destroyers. Most of these regiments served in Pakistan's two armoured divisions, the 1st and 6th Armoured divisions – the latter being in the process of formation.

The Indian Army of the time possessed 17 cavalry regiments, and in the 1950s had begun modernizing them by the acquisition of 164 AMX-13 light tanks and 188 Centurions. The remainder of the cavalry units were equipped with M4 Shermans and a small number of M3A3 Stuart light tanks. India had only a single armoured division, the 1st 'Black Elephant' Armoured Division, which consisted of the 17th Horse (The Poona Horse), also called 'Fakhr-i-Hind' ('Pride of India'), the 4th Horse (Hodson's Horse), the 16th Cavalry, the 7th Light Cavalry, the 2nd Lancers, the 18th Cavalry and the 62nd Cavalry, the two first named being equipped with Centurions. There was also the 2nd Independent Armoured Brigade, one of whose three regiments, the 3rd Cavalry, was also equipped with Centurions. Indian War Plan The Main Indian Attack was aimed at decisively disrupting the Pakistani defensive layout and resultantly forcing Pakistan to commit its main armoured reserves for defence was to be launched by the newly formed Indian 1 Corps comprising the 1st Armoured Division and three infantry divisions (6 Mountain Division 14 Division and 26 Division) in the Ravi-Chenab Corridor from Samba area on the general axis Samba-Chawinda-Phillora-MRL Link and eventually secure line Daska-Dhallewali-Mandhali6. In other words the Indian aim as stated by another Indian military writer was to ‘cut off Sialkot from Lahore’. As per the wording of the decisions taken at the planning conference of the Indian Chief of Army Staff held on 9 August the object of the 1 Corps attack aimed at Daska was ‘with a view to relieving Jammu’. This meant that the Indian Army Chief viewed a Pakistani attack on Jammu with a view to severe the Indian line of communication as most likely. This attack was rightly termed as ‘Riposte’ by some Indian authors.Riposte has been defined as ‘Striking a vulnerable point thus forcing the enemy to abandon his attack’. Pakistani Dispositions and Plans:- 15 Division (four infantry brigades, four tank regiments) was designated to defend the area of responsibility while the newly formed 6 Armoured Division (previously known as 100 Armoured Brigade) was the main strategic reserve in the area. The total frontage of 15 Division was 180,000 yards. http://defence.pk/threads/battle-of-chawinda-1965-the-largest-tank-battle-after-wwii.248368/#ixzz3CEAAnAia

The 26 Division Fixing Manoeuvre against Sialkot from 7 to 8 September:– The aim of 26 Division attack against Sialkot was not to capture Sialkot but to contain the Pakistani forces in Sialkot so that they could not pose a threat to the northern flank of the main Indian attack force consisting of the 1st Armoured and 6 Mountain Division.Keeping in view the Indian superiority in this sector this was an easy to achieve objective.The Pakistani 15 Division had relatively better mobile forces in the shape of one tank regiment, one TDU tank regiment and one R & S Company but just three infantry battalions (two from 101 Brigade and one being from the divisional reserve i.e. 104 brigade) against one Indian tank regiment and eight infantry battalions. The Indian attack commenced two brigade up against the border villages of Niwe Wains, Bajragarhi etc from 2330 hours night 7/8 September. Both the brigades captured their insignificant objectives.In any case the troops opposite Sialkot were too weak to interfere with the advance of the main Indian attack. The Indians however remained obsessed with defence of Jammu and later brought a fourth brigade i.e. the 52 Mountain Brigade(three battalions) on 11 September 1965.29

The Main Indian Attack and 25 Cavalry (24 Brigade) Counter actions 0n 8 September 1965:–We have already discussed that 25 Cavalry and 24 Brigade minus one unit in defence opposite Charwa was despatched to Jassar on 7 September and that 25 Cavalry returned to Pasrur at approximately 0500 hours on 8 September. While 25 Cavalry and 24 Brigade were moving to Jassar and moving back to Pasrur the third battalion of 24 Brigade i.e. 3 FF which was holding defences opposite Maharajke-Chrawa extended as a screen for over 10,000 yards30 was overrun by the concerted attack of the 69 and 99 Mountain Brigades on the night of 7/8 September. This news about the overrunning of 3 FF was received at 0600 hours at Pasrur by the 24 Brigade headquarter which had just reached Pasrur from Jassar at 0500 hours on 8 September. The news was shocking! Brigadier Abdul Ali Malik the 24 Brigade Commander knew little about tank warfare and had no idea of the quantum of troops opposite him. However the Commanding Officer of 25 Cavalry Lieutenant Colonel Nisar, was a capable armour officer. In adition 25 Cavalry was,to Pakistan Army’s good luck, a newly raised but extremely fine tank regiment, having on its strength some very outstanding officers, not merely on paper but in terms of bravery in face of enemy and in extraordinary situations. Malik who like Nisar had no clue about the situation in his front and asked Nisar to do something.31 Thus Malik abdicated the conduct of battle to the commanding officer of a tank regiment which was under his command! The regiment was refuelling at this time having poofed up all the fuel going to Jassar (Major Shamshad, a direct participant and later referred to, states that only Charlie Squadron went to Pasrur) and coming back. Nisar immediately ordered tank squadron (B Squadron) commanded by Major Ahmad (originally from Guides Cavalry and an extremely brave leader of men) to advance in an extended order towards Charwa the reported point of enemy breakthrough!After tasking one of the squadrons to advance towards Charwa Nisar alerted the remaining part of the regiment to move towards Chawinda. At 0730 hours Nisar sent another squadron (A Squadron) towards Tharoah on receiving reports that Indian armour was seen opposite Tharoh area. At 1130 hours Nisar sent ‘A’ Squadron to area west of Gadgor.In short by 1200 hours the whole of 25 Cavalry was deployed three squadrons in line abreast opposite the Indian 1st Armoured Brigade leading the advance of the Indian 1st Armoured Division. ‘B’ squadron of 25 Cavalry came in contact with the advancing tanks of the Indian 1st Armoured Division near Gadgor.The Indian 1st Armoured Division which had commenced its advance from the bridgehead secured by the 6 Mountain Division in Charwa-Maharajke area after crossing the international border at 0600 hours on the morning of 8 September.It was advancing two regiments up;with an inter regiment gap of approximately 3500 to 4000 metres in between,each regiment one squadron up, 16 Light Cavalry supported by a Gurkha infantry battalion on the right,advancing towards Phillora 17 Poona Horse on the left advancing towards Tharoah cross roads.Both the tank regiments had a clean run during the first 15 kilometres of their advance inside Pakistan.According to the Indian armoured corps historian the Pakistan Airforce aircrafts attacked the leading Indian armour elements at about 8.40 Am. at Chobara but were unable to hit any tank. The Indian 16 Light Cavalry advancing two troops up came in contact with 25 Cavalry’s tanks advancing in extended order towards Chobara without a clue that the Indian 1st Armoured Division was just a few miles away. 25 Cavalry ‘s ‘Bravo Squadron’ commanded by Major Ahmad ,suddenly at approximately 50 to 200 metres ranges at about 0900 or 0945 hours came into contact with two leading tank troops of 16 Light Cavalry. Some of Ahmad’s tanks had taken firepositions while some were in the open .The Indians were on the move. A confused firefight followed in which both sides lost tanks, Pattons burning on being hit while Centurions getting shot through both sides! Both the Indian leading tank troop leaders were killed, thus leaving the leading squadron commander of 16 Light Cavalry clueless.32 Major Ahmad of 25 Cavalry carried the day by fighting from the front, thus inspiring his men to fight till death, rather than withdraw an inch. It was during this firefight that Major Ahmad, who had already changed his tank once was also severely burnt after having personally destroyed four tanks.33 There is no doubt that it was Major Ahmad who saved the Pakistani position at Gadgor by fighting from the front and injecting in his men real steel. He was the only squadron commander in 25 Cavalry who led from the front and was the only major who proved himself equal to the crisis in 25 Cavalry! Major Shamshad one of the direct participant in that battle gave the same verdict.34 16 Light Cavalry CO tried to bring up another squadron, commanded by an Indian Muslim officer Major M.A.R Shiekh to outflank the Pakistani position in front from the the east. The space for manoeuvre was however extremely limited Poona Horse the left forward Indian unit being just 4000 metres away from the right forward unit. In the process of manoeuvring this second squdron exposed its broadsides to 25 Cavalry tanks of ‘ Alpha Squadron’ losing many tanks including that of Major Shiekh who received a head injury35 and died on the spot. Finally this second squadron was held up having lost its squadron commander and unable to manoeuvre due to limited visibility and lack of space to manoeuvre. As per General Gurcharan Singh once the second squadron was held up CO 16 Light Cavalry passed ‘exaggerated’ reports to the 1 Armoured Brigade Commander who in turn ordered 16 Light Cavalry not to advance any further36. We will not go in the details of what 25 Cavalry or 16 Light Cavalry did since this in itself would require a whole book.In brief 16 Light Cavalry’s advance was checked at Gadgor by 1000 hours 8 September. 17 Poona Horse which was advancing on the left towards Tharoah commenced its advance two squadrons up but soon changed to one squadron up because of the limited fields of fire and observation that made command and control, extremely difficult.It came in contact with 25 Cavalry at 0945 hours in Tharoh area and was also checked like 16 Light Cavalry. According to Gurcharan Singh some firing took place in between the tanks of 16 Light Cavalry and 17 Poona Horse37. This happened because the inter regiment gap between both the regiments was too less. ‘C’ Squadron 62 Cavalry which was tasked to provide left flank protection to the 1st Armoured Division’s advance was delayed as its tanks got bogged down while inside Indian territory .When half of this squadron did finally got going and crossed the border at 1000 hours it went south towards Zafarwal by some misunderstanding after crossing the Degh Nala instead of advancing parallel and north of the Degh Nala as originally ordered!This squadron crossed the Degh Nala and reached Zafarwal in Pakistani territory absolutely unopposed and later recrossed the Degh Nala to go north once it probably realised that it was supposed to stay north of Degh Nala!Once this squadron was recrossing the Degh Nala it was engaged by an Indian artillery battery providing fire support to the 1st Armoured brigade,which naturally mistook it for Pakistani tanks seeing it approach from south of Degh Nala.In turn this squadron also opened fire on the Indian battery which they thought to be a Pakistani battery destroying several guns and vehicles!38 By 1300 hours Brigadier K.K Singh Commander 1st Armoured Brigade was a mentally defeated man.He reached the conclusion that ‘He was held up by at least two Patton regiments and that there was no possibility of advancing direct towards Phillora without suffering unacceptable losses’.He was further unnerved by reports of a ‘raid by enemy tanks on guns and soft vehicles’ (which in reality was the firing between 62 Cavalry’s tanks coming recrossing Degh Nadi!)39 Commander 1 Armoured Brigade concluded that ‘his line of communication was not secure’40 and ‘decided to adopt a defensive posture for the security of his command at 1400 hours issued orders withdrawing the brigade into a ‘box’ around Sabzpir cross roads! The 17 Poona Horse which had encountered opposition but was taking positive measures to deal with it was also withdrawn and deployed to cover the eastern flank in the area,and the 4 Hodson’s Horse was also detailed to defend the southern flank41. All this was happening at a time when there was just 25 Cavalry in front of the whole 1st Indian Armoured Division! The readers may note that the Indians were not lacking in valour as cheap propaganda conducted in Pakistan after 1965 claimed but phenomenally incompetent at unit and brigade level. Their right forward unit 17 Poona Horse could have easily outflanked 25 Cavalry’s ‘Alpha Squadron’. Major Shamshad a direct participant thus rightly observed in his article that ‘There is a big gap, about six miles wide, between Hasri Nala and Degh Nala which could have provided a safe passage to 17 Poona Horse up to Pasrur. No troops were deployed to defend this area. It appears that they did try to advance but the higher headquarters held them back. I say so because I saw trackmarks of Centurions in Seowal on 19 September.’ 42 It may be noted that the 43 Lorried Brigade advance on the other axis also went diasastorously, less due to enemy opposition and more due to poor as well as inefficient execution.The 43 Lorried Brigade which was supposed to commence advance at 0600 hours commenced advance five hours late at 1100 hours because its leading unit 8 Garhwal reached the start line much later than planned,and got delayed as soon as it commenced advance due to poor traffic control ! No men with landmines tied to their chests were needed in face of such phenomenally incmpetent staff and battle procedures! 43 Lorried Brigade led by 2 Lancers finally reached Sabzpir cross roads at 1530 hours where tanks of the Indian 1st Armoured Brigade opened fire on Indian Armoured Corps’s 2 Lancers mistaking them for Pakistani tanks and in the process destroyed two Indian tanks including CO 2 Lancers tank!43 Thus 43 Lorried brigade also harboured at Sabzpir cross roads.Gurcharan Singh’s verdict on the Indian 1st Armoured Division’s performance is worth quoting and is also a tribute to 25 Cavalry, the only unit of the Pakistan Army that did on 8 September 1965 what no other unit of Pakistan Army ever did and most probably would ever do again.44 Gurcharan thus wrote; ‘The first days battle could not have got off to a worse start. The Armoured Brigade had been blocked by two squadrons of Pattons and in the first encounter the brigade had lost more tanks than the enemy had….whole of 1 Corps had gained a few kilometres… The worst consequence of the days battle was its paralysing effect on the minds of the higher commanders. It took them another 48 hours to contemplate the next offensive move. This interval gave the Pakistanis time to move up and deploy their 6 Armoured Division with five additional armoured regiments.In fact the golden opportunity that fate had offered to the 1st Armoured division to make worthwhile gains had been irretrievably lost’.45 Harbaksh Singh also accurately summed up the Indian failure; ‘both 16 Cavalry and 17 Horse failed to determine the strength of the opposing armour and displayed little skill in outmanoeuvring it… the Brigade Commander made the unfortunate decision to withdraw 17 Horse from Tharoah for countering an alleged serious tank threat on the Left flank. This was a grave error of judgement as 4 Horse which by this time had been released to the Brigade by GOC 1 Armoured Division, could have been used to meet any flank threat posed by the enemy armour. The blunder cost us dearly.We made an advance of only four miles beyond the bridgehead when a much deeper penetration could have been achieved. The fleeting chance that could have been exploited to gain a striking success, was lost forever…. and while we were fumbling about ineffectively in a chaotic situation of our own creation, the enemy had that vital breathing space so essential for a quick rally round from the stunning impact of surprise. We courted a serious setback through faulty decision and immature handling of armour which the enemy was not slow to exploit. From now onwards,the thrust intended to keep the enemy off balance and reeling until the final blow by sheer speed of advance, turned into a slow slogging match—a series of battering-ram actions’.46 I have not come across any finer summing up of the Battle of Chawinda than the one done by Harbaksh Singh. I have specifically quoted it to show that 8 September was the most critical day of the otherwise long series of actions around Chawinda which dragged on till cease-fire on 22 September 1965. It was on 8th September or 0n 9th when the Indians could have easily outflanked the Pakistanis at Chawinda,had their higher armour commanders not been paralysed into a state of inertia indecision and inaction because of 25 Cavalry’s memorable extended line stand in Gadgor area. Major Shamshad states that ‘Instead of wasting two days in planning, If Poona Horse had advanced from Dugri to Shehzada and captured Pasroor on 9th we would have been in serious trouble.Alternatively, 2 Royal Lancers could have moved unopposed from Bhagowal to Badiana and cut Sialkot-Pasrur Road’.47 After 9 September when the Pakistani 6 Armoured Division and later the 1st Armoured Division beefed up Pakistani strength it was no longer a question of valour or superior generalship but simple,unimaginative frontal battle with both sides having equal number of tanks.Keeping this background in mind we will not waste much stationery on the battles around Chawinda after 9 September.48 These battles like Phillora etc are good motivational topics for indoctrinating the other ranks but little else. The real issue was decided on 8 September 1965 and not by Tikka Khan 49 etc but by Nisar and his officers and men around Gadgor!

Operational Situation on 9 and 10 September:– The Indians had not suffered a physical defeat on 8 September.It was their higher command that was afflicted by paralysis and in this state they ‘exaggerated’ dimensions of the force in front of them and imagined something much larger than one battered regiment in front of them! On 9 September they had two absolutely fresh regiments (4 Horse and 2 Lancers), one reasonably fresh regiment (62 Cavalry), and two regiments with relatively weaker tank strength against 25 Cavalry whose tank strength was down to two tank squadrons.50 In infantry they were vastly superior having twelve battalions against one. Had they possessed a resolute general nothing could have stopped them, not even Tikka Khan projected by Shaukat as ‘one ‘known for his firmness and endurance’.51 But their brigade divisional and corps headquarters was paralysed due to the trauma of Gadgor! In words of the Indian armoured corps historian on 9 and 10 September ‘The 1st Armoured Brigade with its three Centurion regiments and its motor battalion remained ‘boxed’ in its defensive position during these two days’.52 25 Cavalry found the Indian Operation Order regarding ‘Operation Nepal’ (the 1 Corps Offensive) in one of the abandoned/hit tank of 16 Light Cavalry and came to know that the formations opposite them were the Indian 1st Armoured Division, 6 Mountain Division and 14 Division and that these were functioning as part of 1 Indian Corps.53 This operation order enabled the Pakistani High Command to understand the entire Indian plan aimed at destruction of the 6 Armoured Division and the fact that Chawinda was on the axis of the main Indian line of advance. The 6 Armoured Division whose headquarters were located at Bhalowali east of MRL 54 was alerted in the evening of 8 September and assigned the mission ‘be prepared to destroy enemy penetration in area east of MRL canal, on further orders’.Shaukat Riza’s account of what followed on 8 and 9 September is not reliable and therefore extremely vague. No sane reader can make head or tail of what Shaukat assisted by his team of GHQ’s so called cream officer material was trying to say about 6 Armoured Divisions actions in the aftermath of the Indian attack. In all probability Shaukat was trying to put a smokescreen on the Pakistani High Command which was as unnerved as the Ist Indian Armoured Brigade and Division! Brigadier Amjad Chaudhry who did not become a general and therefore did not belong to the trade union of Pakistani generals had a better explanations per Brigadier Amjad Chaudhry ‘the presence of the Indian 1st Armoured Division was discovered from the copy of the operation order found in an Indian tank which had been knocked out in the first encounter. This information was immediately transmitted to GHQ. The GHQ took 48 hours to decide upon their next move. Our operational plans had perhaps not taken into consideration all the options open to the aggressor’.55 GOC 1st Armoured Division issued the following ‘ be prepared’ contingency orders at 2200 hours 8 September 1965:– (1) Guides Cavalry to move to Badiana extending northwest towards Sialkot. (2) 11 Cavalry to move to Pasrur to deal with any outflanking enemy move towards MRL from east of Degh Nala.(11 Cavalry at this stage was moving from Chhamb back to 6 Armoured Division’s command and reached Pasrur on night 9/10 September) .56 (3) 22 Cavalry to stay in concentration area and send its recce troop to screen area north of Badiana (4) 9 FF (Motorised Infantry) to deploy in area Phillaura-Degh Nala with at least one platoon at Zafarwal. 57 It may be noted that Shaukat did not describe what 6 Armoured Division actually do on 9 and 10 September!Nor did Shaukat state the precise location of 6 Armoured Division between 7 and 9 September. The period 9 and 10 September can be very exactly described by a Clausewitzian term ‘SUSPENSION OF ACTION’ which has been defined by Clausewitz as a situation when ‘Action in war temporarily stops for a variable duration due to a variety of reasons which may be broadly classified into four distinct categories; ie; firstly—want of resolution in the military commander; secondly—imperfect human perception;thirdly—inherent strength of defence and fourthly—imperfect knowledge of the situation.58

We have already seen that the Indians were immobilised due to primarily the first factor identified by Clausewitz.During this period the various units of 6 Armoured Division were slowly arriving in general area Chawinda-Badiana-Pasrur and various advisors were thrust upon GOC 6 Armoured Division like Brigadier Riaz ul Karim who was made deputy GOC 6 Armoured Division and Major General Sahibzada Yaqub Ali Khan who was appointed Deputy Corps Commander 1 Corps59 (probably keeping in view the fact that General Bakhtiar Rana however reliable and effective in the drill square type requirements of the Ayubian army, would not be able to understand the subtleties of armoured warfare!!!!). It appears that the GHQ realised the need to intellectually improve the performance of the eminent corps headquarter after seeing its deplorable performance during the Jassar Bridge panic when the corps headquarters was paralysed by inertia ! Brigadier Riazul Karim narrates an interesting incident about this advisor business. Oonce the war started Riaz volunteered for command of troops but was told by the VCO type Chief of General Staff Sher Bahadur ‘not to be unnecessarily excited as we had already got good commanders with the armoured formations’. Riaz narrates that ‘ as soon as news of failure of 1st Armoured Divison’s failure was confirmed, I was suddenly called up by General Musa who said that I should go immediately to join 6 Armoured Division and guide the GOC on armoured operations’. The role of the corps commander was nominal. Riaz states that ‘ Another senior armour officer was detailed by the GHQ to join corps headquarter….the general officer was reported to be discussing on telephone plans and events directly with C in C over the head of the corps commander and furthermore, also passing GHQ orders regarding even minor armour operations direct to GOC 6 Armoured Division ‘. There were too many cooks trying to prepare the Pakistani broth! Thus in words of Riaz ‘Whenever I advised the GOC on any matter,he told me that he had already received orders from C in C/CGS/DMO to do something else.My GOC was therefore usually in a flat spin.Fortunately however, there,was never any divisional battle as such’.60

During this period the Guides Cavalry was stationed in general area Bhureshah-Alhar while 11 Cavalry reached Pasrur on night 9/10 September. 22 Cavalry was in general area Badiana and 25 Cavalry alongwith 24 Brigade was holding general area Gadgor-Phillora and not in contact with the Indians who as we discussed earlier had gone temporarily on the defensive in box formation from the afternoon of 8 September. The 6th Armoured Division was not given any operational responsibility on 9 September and at this stage 24 Brigade and 25 Cavalry were still functioning under command 15 Division. Finally on the night of 9/10 September the much needed change in area of responsibility was made by Headquarter 1 Corps assigning the area expected to be soon threatened by the 1st Indian Armoured Division;ie area Charwa-Phillaurah-Chawinda-Chobara-Badiana-Pasrur; to the 6 Armoured Division;alongwith 24 Brigade and 25 Cavalry.61 At this stage GOC 6 Armoured Division made a plan to contain the Indian main attack which was based on the rationale that either the Indians would attack on axis Phillora-Chawinda-Pasrur-Daska or on axis Bhagowal-Badiana and west of Sialkot towards general area Ugoke-Umman with the aim of isolating Sialkot.Based on this assumption about enemy intentions Major General Abrar issued the following orders:– (1) Phillora-Gadgor to be continued to be held by 24 Brigade-25 Cavalry battlegroup (2) Chawinda to be prepared/earmarked as alternative position for 24 Brigade or as depth position for reinforcements (3) Badiana to be covered by one tank regiment (4) Zafarwal to be thinly masked by elements of the R & S Battalion (13 FF) (5) Pasrur to be held by 14 Para Brigade which was previously Corps Reserve (5) Artillery Brigade 4 Corps to support 6 Armoured Division Operation.62 At 0900 hours on 10 September Shaukat Riza claims that the Indians attacked 25 Cavalry opposite Gadgor and lost seven tanks 63, but the Indians did not mention any such attack! GOC 6 Armoured Division was called to 1 Corps Headquarter at 0900 hours on 10 September and asked to make the following amendments to his plan on the recommendations of Major General Yaqub in the capacity of Deputy Corps Commander:– (1) Zafarwal to be held by 14 Para Brigade with one TDU tank squadron from 33 TDU and one company R & S under command (2) 11 Cavalry and 9 FF to hold Phillauarah (3) Guides Cavalry and 14 FF to hold Badiana area (4) 22 Cavalry in area track junction (5) Pasrur to be held by 24 Brigade and 25 Cavalry.64 In the afternoon on the same day Yaqub arrived in 6 Armoured Division Headquarter to ensure implementation of his amendments in Abrar’s plan, with particular emphasis on 11 Cavalry relieving 24 Brigade and 25 Cavalry at Gadgor.This decision was criticised by both Shaukat Riza and General K.M Arif who was grade two operations staff officer in 6 Armoured Divisional Headquarter during the war.65

Battle of Phillora– 11 September 1965:-' The Indian 1 Corps/1 Armoured Division finally gathered greater resolution and recommenced their advance on 11 September. It may be noted that by now two more infantry brigades i.e. 58 and 116 Brigades (Originally on the ORBAT of 14 Division) moving up from Pathankot had joined the Indian attack force.116 Brigade minus one battalion joined 14 Division for operations opposite general area Zafarwal while 35 Brigade and one battalion of 116 Brigade were placed under command 1st Armoured Division.58 Brigade was placed under command 6 Mountain Division.66 The Indian plan of attack was based on a preliminary deception plan to impress upon the Pakistanis that the main Indian attack was coming from the direction of Sabzpir, while the 1st Armoured Brigade was to mount an attack originating from Rurki Kalan67. Details of this plan were as following:– (1) 43 Lorried Brigade (two battalions) to capture area Rurki Kalan by first light 11 September .In the next phase it was assigned the be prepared task of assisting 1 Armoured Brigade in reducing Phillora (2) 1 Armoured Brigade (three tank regiments) to break out at first light 11 September with two regiments i.e. 4 Horse and 17 Poona Horse encircling Phillora from both flanks by a pincer movement (17 Poona Horse isolating Phillora from the west and 4 Horse from the east) while the third regiment 16 Light Cavalry was to advance towards road junction area near Khakan wali on Phillora-Sialkot road with the aim of intercepting any Pakistani armour from interfering with the main armour attack against Phillora.(3) 62 Cavalry and one infantry battalion functioning as a separate battlegroup directly under command 1st Armoured Division were to function as right flank protection force against any threat from Sialkot. The whole brunt of the Indian tank attack was directed against 11 Cavalry and 9 FF who had just relieved 25 Cavalry and 24 Brigade during the night of 10/11 September and had had no opportunity to orientate themselves with the terrain during day time. The assault on Rurki Kalan commenced at 0600 hours and Rurki Kalan was captured by 0640 hours. The main tank battles took place on line Libbe-Nathupur-Saboke and 11 Cavalry with two tank squadrons of Pattons and one of obsolete Tank destroyers and not knowing the area ,was no match to the overwhelming Indian superiority68 of six squadrons of Centurions with intimate infantry support of two battalions. 6 Armoured Division ordered Guides Cavalry and 14 FF to mount an attack from Bhagowal-Bhureshah area against the right flank of the Indians aimed at area Libbe-Chahr at 1130 hours on 11 September. The aim of this attack was to relieve pressure on 11 Cavalry. This Guides had a severe firefight with 16 Light Cavalry losing many tanks as well as destroying some enemy tanks but was unable to make any impression and the main Indian attack against 11 Cavalry holding Phillora proceeded smoothly .Phillora was captured by the Indians on 1530 hours on 11 September. I1 Cavalry fought well and lost so many tanks that from 11 September onwards it ceased to function as a complete tank regiment. The Indians fought well but in the overall strategic context capture of Phillora was of little consequence. Had the Indians shown similar resolution and a little more coup d oeil and modified their plans at the brigade and divisional level on the 8th of September, by 11 September they would have been leisurely holding the east bank of MRL. Gurcharan Singh accurately described the situation from 11 September onwards as one in which; ‘there was little hope of a battle of manoeuvre any longer’.69 The Pakistani position on the night of 11/12 September was serious but luckily Pakistan possessed an extremely resolute man in the person of Major General Abrar Hussain (an MBE of Second World War). Abrar remained calm and unperturbed and luckily the Indian higher commanders opposite him failed to understand that by remaining inactive on 11 th and 12 September they were losing their last opportunity to inflict a decisive defeat on Pakistan at a time when fresh tank regiments from the 1st Pakistani Armoured Division had not yet reinforced 6 Armoured Division. Operational Situation 12th and 13 September:– Swiftness in decision making was certainly not the cardinal command attribute of personality of higher commanders in both Indian and Pakistan Armies!After capturing Phillora the Indian higher headquarters again wasted 48 hours in planning their next move.The Indian troops at this stage were motivated and they had some excellent commanders at regiment and squadron level like Colonel Tarapur who was as brave as any Pakistani. Subconsciously higher commanders on both sides were still behaving like platoon commanders and company commanders;the primary role of Indians in the British Indian Army; rather than brigade divisional or corps commanders.It never occurred to them that Phillora in itself was of little military value and every day that they were wasting was enabling the Pakistanis to reinforce their defence opposite Phillora.GOC 6 Armoured Division Major General Abrar Hussain now firmly resolved to make the final stand at Chawinda.Abrar made the following readjustments on 12 September:- (1) Remnants of 11 Cavalry to collect south of Chawinda (2) 25 Cavalry to move forward to Chawinda (3) 14 FF to move to Chawinda (4) 24 Brigade to move to Chawinda (5) 14 Para Brigade to move to Zafarwal from Pasrur.70 Luckily for Pakistan the Indians did nothing like advancing on 12th as well as 13 September! During this Godsend period of much needed rest and recuperation the 3rd Armoured Brigade (one tank regiment and one self propelled artillery regiment) arrived at Sambrial near Chawinda at 1500 hours on 12 September and was designated as 1 Corps reserve.71 Its tank regiment 19 Lancers was absolutely fresh as far as having participated in actual combat was concerned and was equipped with brand new Pattons.In afternoon 12 September as per Gurcharan Singh the Indians captured Zafarwal employing a tank squadron of 2 Lancers which was withdrawn back across Degh Nala by 116 Brigade the same day. Harbaksh Singh however states that this tank squadron ‘ made no attempt to push forward to Zafarwal and having idled away the rest of the day returned to Kangre’.72 Once the Indians tried to recapture Zafarwal on 13 September it was already strongly held by six tank troops,one R & S Platoon and five infantry companies.What had happened was that on 12 September after getting the correct report from army aviation’s air observer at 1500 hours (which Shaukat Riza has naively dismissed as questionable and doubtful ) 6 Armoured Division had directed 14 Para Brigade to send an infantry battalion and tank squadron (ex 22 Cavalry) to Zafarwal. Brigadier Niazi (of East Pakistan fame) commanding 14 Para Brigade sent a report later that day that Zafarwal was occupied by Indians and requested the GOCs permission to recapture it.We have already seen that Zafarwal was not in enemy occupation and this report of Commander 14 Para Brigade was not correct.In any case even if the Indians occupied it for a short duration as Gurcharan claims but Harbaksh Singh (a relatively more reliable authority denies) it was not occupied by the Indians when according to Shaukat Riza 14 Para Brigade (employing one infantry battalion less one company-4 FF) secured it by 0100 hours night 12/13 September.73 At 0600 hours 13 September i.e. five hours after 4 FF (14 Para Brigade) had occupied Zafarwal (without any enemy holding it) a squadron of 22 Cavalry (with one infantry company of 4 FF tank mounted) which had been ordered at 1335 hours on 12 September from Pasrur also reached Zafarwal. Shaukat Riza has repeated another false claim regarding capturing of Zafarwal which in reality was held by none other than ghosts by an R & S company and a tank troop of 32 TDU sent to Zafarwal by 115 Brigade entirely on its own initiative! According to Shaukat 115 Brigade commander came to know through unspecified sources (probably some angels helping 115 Brigade)Indians on 12 September had squandered their last opportunity to outflank the Pakistani 6 Armour that the Indians had captured Zafarwal at 0800 hours 12 September and sent the above mentioned force which recaptured Zafarwal at mid day 12 September. Later Shaukat claims that this force was ordered to withdraw to Dhamtal!74 Shaukat has repeated a claim which appears to be as false as the one advanced by Gurcharan Singh regarding the 2 Lancers squadron having occupied Zafarwal on 12 September and later withdrwaing from it on orders of the 116 Indian Brigade! The Indians squandered 12 September in inactivity and failed to exploit the last opportunity to outflank the Pakistani 6 Armoured Division from the open flank of Zafarwal and thereby again regain the initiative and employ their armour in a meaningful war of manoeuvre rather than the medieval methods of frontal ramming as they were employing at Phillora!Harbaksh Singh hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that ‘These piecemeal and disjointed attempts on Zafarwal in which the armour had shown no interest,were our undoing.For while we were making ineffective jabs at the objective the enemy had reinforced the town with armour and infantry’.75 Finally on 13 September the Indians did launch an attack on Zafarwal with an infantry brigade and a tank squadron (116 Brigade and squadron 2 Lancers) but in words of Harbaksh Singh ‘the squadron of 2 Lancers in keeping with its performance all along came to a halt in the Degh Nadi when opposed by some recoilless gun fire and hence failed to contact 5/5 Gurkha Rifles (the battalion attacking Zafarwal) and the attack fizzled out short of the objective’. Harbaksh Singh is by no means exaggerating when he said that; ‘What could have been a cheap victory,was thrown to the winds by dilatory tactics and a want of proper coordination’.76 Shaukat Riza in a bid to glorify the odds faced by 14 Para Brigade in beating the Indian attack on Zafarwal states that some Indian tanks came to within few yards of the forward defended localities. Harbaksh Singh’s findings prove otherwise and even Gurcharan Singh does not glorify Indian tanks so much as to have reached ‘within few yards’ from the Pakistani defences!77 Shaukat’s account is good as a motivational speech for other ranks or for school children or may be a good citation for getting gallantry awards but definitely not good military history! Another development on 13 September was the capture of Pagowal (Bhagowal) by the 69 Mountain Brigade assisted by a tank squadron. The last major development of this period was the arrival of the 4th Armoured Brigade comprising one tank regiment,one motorised infantry battalion and one self propelled artillery regiment (5 Horse,1 FF and 15 SP ) from Khem Karan adding yet another fresh tank regiment to assist 6 Armoured Division. This brigade had been pulled out from Khem Karan on 11/2 September and reached Sambrial a little west of Sialkot by train on the night of 12/13 September 1965. It was commanded by Brigadier Riaz ul Karim an MC from Burma who had taken over from Brigadier Lumbs on 11 September 1965 and was also deputy GOC 6 Armoured Division.78

Indian attack on Chawinda-14 & 15 September:– By early morning 14 September the 6 Armoured Division was deployed as following:– (1) Guides Cavalry, 22 Cavalry and 14 FF organised under a headquarter known as Combat Command-Colonel Wajahat from Gunna Kalan west of Pagowal till Jassoran in the south a frontage of 12,000 yards (2) 24 Brigade comprising three infantry battalions,one R & S Company and one tank regiment (2 Punjab,3 FF, 14 Baluch, B Company 13 FF and the indomitable 25 Cavalry) was holding the pivot of the whole battle i.e. Chawinda area (3) 14 Para Brigade with three and a quarter infantry battalions,one R & S Company and a tank squadron holding Pasrur and Zafarwal79. The Indians who thought in steps and at the tactical level now decided to capture Chwainda. Salient features of the Indian plan to capture Chawinda, which was to be put into execution at first light 14 September were as following:– (1) 4 Horse to advance from Chahr to Fatehpur and cut road Badiana-Pasrur in area Buttar and then swing Southeast towards Sarangpur with a view to destroying Pakistani armour which may try to escape from or attempt to reinforce Chawinda (2) 17 Poona Horse to thrust toward Kalewali-Chawinda and be prepared to support 43 Lorried Infantry Brigade’s assault on Kaliwal-Wazirwali and later Chawinda if ordered (3) 69 Mountain Brigade Group (including 16 Cavalry) to ensure that Pakistani armour was prevented from joining the main armour battle in area south of Phillora and Chawinda from direction of Sialkot (4) 43 Lorried Brigade with under command one infantry battalion from 35 Infantry Brigade to advance and attack Chawinda from firm base at Phillora. (5) 1 Artillery Brigade to concentrate in area Saboke in support of 1 Armoured Division 80. As it was obvious the Indian assault being frontal did not make much progress and by last light 14 September the Indians made nominal progress capturing the villages of Kalewali, Wazirwali and Alhar. The area captured was so limited that the tactical pre condition of an infantry assault was not satisfied due to limited space for manoeuvre and the planned infantry attack on Chawinda was not launched. Harbaksh Singh who unlike Shaukat Riza and some other Pakistani historians does not distort history to prove that the Indians were intrinsically superior to the Pakistanis by virtue of belonging to some superior religion or some martial race (particularly the north of Chenab races!) is honest enough to admit that in the attack of 14 September ‘Inspite of our superiority in forces,we had failed to capture Chawinda and with that 1 Armoured Division threw away a cheap success and added another failure to its spate of lost opportunities’81. It should be noted however that Harbaksh’s criticism though to some extent valid, does not take into account the fact that even three tanks against one in defence cannot succeed. This is so not because the defender is a Hindu or a Sikh or a Muslim but because of the devastating power of modern weapons. Tank as a weapon is not meant to be used as a ramming device because the lethality of modern munitions reduces this ramming device into chunks of scrap within few minutes. The second aspect dealing with comparative strength is also debatable. The Indians being attackers had naturally suffered more casualties than the defenders. The Pakistanis had three tank regiments in Chawinda and surrounding country against four Indian regiments involved in the attack on 14 September.In addition two fresh tank regiments had reached Sambrial close to the battle area by the morning of 14 September. In any case by 14th September the battle had degenerated into futile frontal bloody clashes of armour at close ranges and were an apology of real armoured warfare. In this regard Harbaksh’s criticism was to some extent influenced by an anti armour bias which was common to both the armies. A dispassionate analysis of all tank battles till 14 September clearly prove that it was not the Indian armour which failed at the troop squadron and regimental level, but the Indian commanders at Brigade and Divisional level.No evidence proves that there was any difference in Pakistani and Indian armour in terms of valour,tank gunnery or tactical proficiency at the regimental and squadron level. There was another aspect in the fighting of 14 and 15 September. More casualties were caused by artillery and air attack than in actual tank to tank battles!It is but natural that the tank corps men on both sides will never agree that any such thing happened.In this regard the Pakistani artillery being qualitatively superior to the Indian artillery by virtue of having the most modern US guns and by virtue of having the qualitatively superior 4 Corps Artillery Brigade 82 led by Brigadier Amjad Chaudhry, described by many contemporaries as one of the finest artillery officers that the sub continent produced played a crucial role.15 September did not bring much change in the situation and the Indian I Corps Commander reached the conclusion that unless more infantry was brought in the built up area terrain of Chawinda and surrounding villages tanks wont be able to make any headway.Thus the Indian I Corps Commander instead of dynamic modification of plans aimed at achieving a decisive decision remained obsessed with Chawinda which had become sort of a mini Verdun; and issued orders that Chawinda was to be captured by 6 Mountain Division assisted by 1 Armoured Division,Badiana by 1 Armoured Division and Zafarwal by 14 Division. During the afternoon of 15 September 19 Lancers also joined the battle.It was deployed in area west of Mundeke Berian.83

Indian bid to capture Chawinda-16 September 1965:– The Commander of 1st Indian Armoured Division had come to the conclusion that it was necessary to outflank Chawinda before attacking it with infantry and selected Jassoran-Buttar Dograndi area to the west of Chawinda for this purpose 84. The Indian plan for conduct of operations on 16 September was as following:– (1) Poona Horse with under command one infantry battalion to first capture Jassoran and then advance to Buttur Dograndi, (2) 4 Horse to cross the railway line and secure area Sodreke crossing covering roads Chawinda-Badiana and Badiana-Pasrur (3) The places captured by Poona Horse and 4 Horse were to serve as firm base from where 6 Mountain Division would mount a night attack on Chawinda on night 16/17 September85. The Indian attack commenced at 0600 hours 16 September and Buttur Dograndi was captured by 1030 hours. After this the Indians did not make much headway and at 1615 hours abandoned Buttur Dograndi since they did not have sufficient infantry to hold it. Later an attack was made to recapture Buttur and it was during this attack that Colonel Tarapur of 17 Horse died as a result of artillery fire. The Indians recaptured Buttur Dograndi again on the same day late in the evening but failed to make any more progress. The planned attack on Chawinda on the night of 16/17 September was not launched because the Indian 6 Mountain Division was not yet ready for the attack due to lack of recce and other reasons.86 Artillery fire played a major role in defeating the Indian armour whose failure was made 100 percent certain thanks to singularly unimaginative orders for headlong advance in area of extremely limited dimensions!Shaukat Riza describes the situation on 16 September in the following words; ‘Indian armour must have been particularly inept (it was the 1 Corps Commander who was inept) that with the support of six artillery brigades (there were three artillery brigades) they managed to advance only 3000 yards in 15 hours. And they must have been particularly thick skinned to continue advance while being hit by 90 artillery pieces including twelve 8 inch howitzers for 15 hours. In fact Indian artillery was scattered all along the front. There was hardly a place where it could provide the quality of concentrated fire necessary for blasting a hole in our defences. Indian armour scattered whenever hit by the concentrated fire of our 4 Corps Artillery’.87 The Indian failures in making any worthwhile progress on 15 and 16 September had a more intimate connection with poor higher leadership that pigheadedly insisted on a modern charge of heavy brigade of tanks, than with Pakistani artillery, which off course took advantage of the errors of enemy leadership at brigade and divisional level in the employment of armour, which was unnecessarily sacrificed in a suicidal manner, rather than being employed in a dynamic war of movement. Amjad Chaudhri the man who had trained the 4 Corps artillery brigade in peace and handled it in a most masterly and resolute manner at Chawinda noted that ‘most of the attacks mounted by the enemy were broken up by artillery fire…. On the east of Chawinda, the enemy was prevented from coming close to our positions by our artillery though he made repeated efforts to outflank Chawinda from this direction…. The nearest he came to this position was approximately 600 yards when he was forced to withdraw after his leading tanks had been destroyed and accompanying infantry badly mauled…. On two occasions the enemy succeeded in partially overrunning the western flank of our defences but these attacks too were repulsed with massed fire of all the guns… casualties inflicted on the attacking troops by our shelling were so heavy that in one of the actions even after he had left our main defensive position behind him,the enemy’s will to continue the attack was broken and he was forced to withdraw… Up to 16 September the Indians concentrated their tanks and infantry and attacked on a narrow front….’88 Despite unimaginative leadership the Indians did come close to a breakthrough on the 16th September. General K.M Arif who was a general staff officer in headquarter 6 Armoured Division at Chawinda in 1965 described the critical situation on 16 September in the following words ‘The battle raged with considerable intensity on September 16. After its failure to capture Chawinda the enemy attempted to envelop it by a two pronged attack. In the process the villages of Jassoran and Sodreke fell and Butur Dograndi came under attack. The severe fighting resulted in many casualties. The situation was confused and the outcome uncertain. So fluid became the battle situation that at 1630 hours 24 Brigade requested permission to take up a position in the rear. Abrar (the GOC) told the brigade commander on telephone, ‘You know what is there in the kitty. There is no question of falling back. We shall fight till the bitter end from our present positions’. His words provided a timely tonic. 24 Brigade fought gallantly. Soon the danger subsided.89 Major Shamshad who participated in the Buttur Dograndi action ascribed poor unit and brigade level command as the principal reason for the Indian failure. Shamshad states that he never saw a general officer in the entire war ! Shamshad states that the Indians could have carried the day by just pushing one tank troop supported by artillery fire to the railway line ahead of Buttur Dograndi or simply moving to Chawinda Railway Station which was undefended , thus winning the ‘Battle of Chawinda’.90 However Shamshad states that ‘the enemy was no good or in other words the enemy squadron commander felt contended after capturing Buttur Dograndi without any losses and destroying eight of our tanks in the process’.91 Shamshad states that the Indians remained inactive for one hour and this lull was fatal for the Indians.

The Operational Situation from 17 September till ceasefire:– The Indians withdrew from Buttar Dograndi at 0600 hours on 17 September because of heavy casualties caused as a result of artillery shelling.Gurcharan Singh states that it was decided that Jassoran would suffice as a firm base for launching an assault on Chawinda and it was decided to abandon Buttur Dograndi. At 1200 hours 17 September 4 Armoured Brigade’s 19 Lancer was ordered by 6 Armoured Division to clear line Buttar Dograndi-Purab-Mundeke Berian. This was done by 1600 hours since the Indians were demoralised due to heavy casualties suffered on 16 September. By the evening of 17 September the Indians withdrew their armour north of the railway line; and took up the same dispositions as on 15 September. There is considerable confusion about why the Indians withdrew their tanks north of the railway line while there was no significant reason to do so. Harbaksh Singh thinks that tanks were withdrawn north of the railway line, ‘Through an inexplicable misunderstanding from Jassoran’ on 18 September. It appears that the Indian Army was afflicted by an almost as serious inter arm bias as the Pakistan Army and this withdrawal was a clear proof of this bias.Infantry and armour commanders did not see eye to eye and the Indian armour was not interested in fighting the infantry’s battle. Indian general Menezes admitted the existence of this inter arm rivalry and lack of communication. Menezes thus said; ‘A regrettable lack of understanding between certain commanders often thwarted cohesive action so essential in achievement of a common goal. There were misunderstandings galore between the infantry and armour commanders in the Second Battle of Chawinda’.92 Harbaksh states that 1st Armoured Division was asked to recapture Jassoran as it was intended to be used as the firm base,from where Indian infantry was to mount the main infantry attack on Chawinda. At this stage it appears that the Indian 1 Armoured Brigade Commander who was ordered by the GOC 1st Armoured Division to recapture Jassoran had lost all the will to fight.Harbaksh states that the 1 Armoured Brigade Commander gave a plea that he could not recapture Jassoran at such a short notice but would be able to do so on first light 19 September (8 hours after the planned assault time of Indian infantry attack on Chawinda!) .This left the Indian 6 Mountain Division Headquarter which was tasked to command the infantry attack on Chawinda with no other option but to recapture Jassoran without Indian armour’s support…This was done by employing one infantry battalion of 35 Brigade and Jassoran was recaptured on the evening of 18 September.Finally the long planned and many times postponed infantry attack on Chawinda was launched on night 18/19 September employing 35 (two infantry battalions) and 58 Infantry Brigade (two infantry battalions) under command of the 6 Mountain Division.Both the brigades were to attack Chawinda from the west simultaneously with the railway line as interbrigade boundary.At this stage the Indian troops were demoralised more because of a perception that their higher commanders were employing them in senseless as well as futile frontal attacks.Any army in this state of mind ceases to function like a well oiled military machine and there comes a point when it becomes extremely difficult to prod the under command units into action. The same was the fate of the planned Indian attack on night 18/19 September. Harbaksh Singh praised the efficiency of Pakistani artillery in dislocating the Indian attack from the very beginning by effectively shelling both the assaulting Indian brigades in an extremely decisive and effective manner. Harbaksh Singh thus wrote praising Pakistan artillery’s performance in the following words; ‘Enemy shelling created such confusion that all control was lost. The leading troops lost direction and 14 Rajput barged into our own neighbouring position in Wazirwali held by a company of 5 Jat and a squadron of 2 Lancers of 43 Lorried Brigade. There was a brisk exchange of fire between our forces. 5 Jat taken completely by surprise, abandoned their positions!14 Rajput equally stunned by the unexpected opposition en route to their objective also dispersed in confusion…next morning 5 Jat reoccupied their positions-14 Rajput were still out in the blue. Two companies of 4 JAK Rifles (the second infantry battalion of 58 Brigade) which managed to reach Chawinda were thrown back by the enemy’s combined infantry and tank fire.By that stage all control at battalion and brigade level was lost and the formation (6 Mountain Division attacking Chawinda) ceased to be a cohesive force’.A similar fate befell the other assaulting brigade i.e. 35 Infantry Brigade. First its ‘ Forming Up Place’ was effectively shelled by the Pakistani artillery while the Indian troops were in the process of deploying in the formation of attack. This caused significant dislocation but one of its battalions reached Chawinda while the other was repulsed half way.After first light the battalion which had reached the outskirts of Chawinda was also forced to withdraw to Jassoran in face of heavy Pakistani pressure93. As per Shaukat Riza both Pakistani artillery and armour played a major role in defeating the Indian infantry attack on 19 September. According to Shaukat ‘C Squadron 25 Cavalry saw some men of 3 FF and 2 Punjab (in face of Indian infantry attack of 35 and 58 Brigade) moving towards the rear….at 0400 hours 19 September Lt Col Nisar (25 Cavalry) ordered his tanks to engage the area of railway line west of Chawinda….the combined fires of 25 Cavalry and artillery 4 Corps broke the enemy attack’94 Thus ended the last Indian major attack on Chawinda.This was followed by a counter attack by the 6 Armoured Division employing 19 Lancers and two infantry companies which forced the Indians to abandon Jassoran by 1800 hours 19 September. This counterattack was launched when some Indian tanks were observed advancing towards Jassoran. These were tanks of two squadrons of 4 Horse which had been already ordered by 1Armoured Brigade to position themselves in Jassoran and Sodreke area by first light 19 September to protect the western flank of 6 Mountain Division which it was thought would have occupied Chawinda by then. 6 Mountain Division had not informed 1st Armoured Division about failure of its infantry attack and the 1st Armoured Division sent 4 Horse to Jassoran as earlier planned to protect 6 Mountain Divisions flank against a Pakistani counter attack. The Pakistani 6 Armoured Division resultantly ordered 19 Lancers to attack Jassoran as it thought that the Indians were again launching a major attack involving tanks.95 After 19 September fighting in and around Chawinda was reduced to routine exchange of fire rather than any more futile frontal assaults. On 20 September the Indian High Command finally realised that it was impossible to achieve a decisive breakthrough in Chawinda area.Keeping this in mind they decided to hand over the defence of the area opposite Chawinda to the 6 Mountain Division (with two tank squadrons of 1st Armoured Division under command 6 Mountain Division) and to relieve 1st Armoured Division. 1st Armoured Brigade was to be in the rear of 6 Mountain Division at Rurki Kalan while 43 Lorried Brigade was to hand over its defended area to 99 Mountain Brigade and withdraw to area cross roads.Nothing significant happened till cease-fire at 1410 hours 22 September 1965 96

23 Mountain Division and Pakistan’s Operation Windup In the last stages of the war the Indian GHQ had decided to employ 23 Mountain Division initially designated as ‘Army Reserve’ in the Western Command area.As per Harbaksh Singh initially the Indian GHQ had contemplated during the period 15–18 September, using this formation in Kasur area with the aim of ‘wearing down Pakistani military potential’ in the Ravi-Sutlej Corridor. Later it was decided to use 23 Division in Dera Nanak area for an offensive across the Ravi on axis Dera Nanak-Narowal-Pasrur and orders for this offensive were issued on 20 September 1965 directing 23 Division to concentrate for the proposed operation in area Dera Nanak by 26 September 1965 but the planned operation was abandoned in the end. It is doubtful whether the Indian High Command possessed any resolve to launch this formation whose success keeping in view the lack of sufficient armour and hesitation to attempt any operation involving an assault across a major water obstacle by both sides would have succeeded.As a matter of fact at this stage the Indian Army was as keen as cease-fire as Ayub Khan! This can be imagined from the following incident. As per General Menezes the Indian Army Chief had already portrayed a picture of ammunition shortage, a pet excuse of soldiers, once the Indian Prime Minister asked General Chaudhry whether ‘the Army would be able to achieve significant results on the ground’ whereas later as per Menezes it was discovered that only 14 to 20 percent of the Indian ammunition stocks had been used! 94

The Pakistani GHQ behaved in a remarkably similar way. General Musa thus vetoed the proposed Pakistani Counterstroke against the Indian penetration at Chawinda codenamed ‘Operation Windup’. According to the Pakistani C in C the operation was cancelled since ‘both sides had suffered heavy tank losses……would have been of no strategic importance….’ and above all ‘the decision…was politically motivated as by then the Government of Pakistan had made up their mind to accept cease fire and foreign sponsored proposals’.95 Musa was definitely in no mood to attempt any further manoeuvre that would test Pakistani generalship at strategic or operational level, just like General Chaudhri!

CONCLUSION The real heroes of Chawinda were Colonel Nisar and his unit ∏ whatever their perception or misperception,not knowing what was in front of them , and thankfully so,for this may have reduced their resolution to make a resolute stand, saved Pakistan on 8 September by their most heroic resistance in Gadgor area. General Ibrar who entered the scene albeit after the really decisive engagement of Gadgor had been fought played a decisive role in keeping the Pakistani position intact after fiascos like Phillora and by prodding Brigadier Abdul Ali Malik not to panic on the fateful 16 September. The Indians made the Pakistani task easier by pure and unadulterated military incompetence at unit and brigade level ! There is no doubt that nothing could have stopped them from reaching the MRL on 8th 9th 10 and 11 September, had they possessed, an armoured brigade or divisional commander of even a medium calibre! The Indian failure commenced from division and brigade and not from troop and squadron level. At tank, tank troop and tank squadron level, both sides fought equally level ! It was at brigade and divisiona level that the Indians failed on 8th 9th 10 and 11 September , and thank God there was no brigade headquarter (Abdul Ali Malik having nothing to do with Gadgor) controlling 25 Cavalry on the Pakistani side.I say this with conviction with what I saw of the Pakistan Army and this is true till 1993 when I left service ! From what I have assessed the Indians are equally illustrious to date at brigade and higher levels ! This mutual incompetence has saved both the countries in all three wars ! Abrar later played a decisive role in saving Pakistan by his most resolute leadership during the highly critical period from 11 to 19 September when the Indians came close to victory on at least three different occasions. During one of the most critical moments of the Battle of Chawinda , on 16 September , Abrar as we discussed earlier dismissed the request of 24 Brigade Commander to abandon Chawinda. This if done would have seriously jeopardised the Pakistani position ! And yet after the war Abrar was superseded and 24 Brigade Commander promoted to general rank finally retiring as a three star general! The third factor in the Pakistani success was 4 Corps Artillery Brigade under the indomitable as well as extremely able leadership of Brigadier Amjad Chaudhry. All three were sidelined. Abrar never went beyond Major General’s rank since Yahya Khan did not like his face, and Abrar was not from Ayub’s unit !Chaudhry also suffered on the same count and retired as a brigadier while the much more mediocre gunner Tikka rose to the highest rank!Nisar did become a brigadier but was sidelined even before the 1971 war broke out, since he was not from the infantry, and did not have the right push and pull or patrons in higher positions after 1971! It was an irony of Pakistani history that Abrar since he was on the wrong side of the army chief was placed on a much lower rung in the heroes of 1965 war than men like Tikka Khan (in whose area of responsibility no major fighting took place) etc.On the other hand many like Niazi (14 Para Brigade Commander) etc rose to the rank of Lieutenant General by virtue of push and pull based on parochial and personal relations with Ayub being from his unit, while the real heroes were sidelined.

END NOTES 1Shaukat Riza does not says anything about the TDUs or Tank Delivery Units. All evidence indicates that TDUs were full fledged tank regiments. Theoretically a TDU was organised at the scale of one TDU per armoured division. A TDU consisted of a Regiment Headquarter and two ‘Holding Squadrons’ with a Squadron Headquarter and two tank troops of six tanks each and a Signal Platoon and Maintenance Detatchment known as the LAD or the Light Aid Detatchment (Page-288 & 289-Armoured Regiment in Battle-1980). The theoretical aim of a TDU which was mistakenly called a Tank Destroyer Unit by the Indians was (a)-Receive manpower from reinforcements camps and tanks from the vehicle depots (b)- Impart limited refresher training to tank crews and to form them into a well knit team (c)- Deliver the tanks with crews to the divisional administrative area (d)- Maintain, Inspect and conduct limited field repairs to the tanks. These units were raised shortly before the war and in Musa’’ words (in case of TDUs Musa has been far more truthful and straightforward than Shaukat Riza) ‘Integral Armoured Regiments (Tank Delivery Units-TDUs—as they were called for deception purposes) allotted to the infantry divisions provided the divisional commanders concerned with a powerful armoured unit directly under their command. They did not have to request higher headquarters for for close armoured support. Nor did the need arise for us to fall back on our armoured divisions for this purpose, thereby dissipating their resources, and diverting them from their main tasks. All the units were used with very good results, in particular against the enemy tanks supporting their Infantry. In the Sialkot and Kasur sectors integral armoured regiments already deployed their effectively co-operated with 6 and 1 Armoured Divisions respectively when the latter went into action and thus we achieved an accretion of armoured strength in these areas.The presence of the regiments on the fronts held by infantry formations,and as they were available for immediate deployment there had a favourable effect not only tactically but also psychologically‘ (Pages-107 & 108- My Version -General Musa Khan-Wajid Alis -Lahore-1983).Compare this with Shaukat Riza who is practising deception more than two decades after 1965 war and hardly gives any importance to the TDUs in his book on the 1965 war. See The Pakistan Army-War 1965 -Major General Shaukat Riza (Retired)-Army Education Press-Rawalpindi-1984. This was Shauakat’s first book on the history of Pakistan Army and was, in fact it was more of an official version of the events of the 1965 war as the dictator and usurper Zia wanted to be written. Considerable part of the book was thus devoted to anti Bhutto diatribes, since Bhutto’s People’s Party was Zia’s main political rival!Despite being having official blessings and full support of the Pakistani GHQ the book was an extremely poor specimen of all that a book must be in order to be graded as a serious military historical work.The meticulousness or lack of meticulousness of the so called blue eyed GHQ Staff officers who assisted Shaukat Riza who was described as semi senile by one staff officer who assisted him, can be gauged from the fact that there is no map,depicting the on ground battle dispositions of the main 1965 War except one(which is highly inaccurate and a horror of a military map in terms of having no relevance at all to the ground that it sought to depict-there are some maps showing battle dispositions of battalion level of the Rann of Kutch which was an insignificant part of the pre war skirmishes).In addition this marathon effort of the GHQ does not have any figures about casualties suffered by the Pakistan Army in the 1965 War.Perhaps it was thought that they were too martial to suffer any casualties!

Page-21-Musa Khan and Pages-139 page-144-Shaukat Riza-1965-Op Cit.

Page-175-Memoirs of General Gul Hassan Khan- Lieutenant General Gul Hassan Khan-Oxford University Press-Karachi-1993. Page-21-Musa Khan-Op Cit. Page21-Ibid.

Page-19-War Despatches- Lieutenant General Harbaksh Singh-Lancer Books-New Delhi-1990.

[http://Page-395-The%20Indian%20Army%20Since%20Independence-Major%20K.C%20Praval%20(Retired)-Lancer%20International-New%20Delhi-1990. Page-395-The Indian Army Since Independence-Major K.C Praval (Retired)-Lancer International-New Delhi-1990.]

Page-18-Paragraph no-33 (a)-War Despatches-Op Cit.

Page-39- An Introduction to Strategy-General Andre Beaufre-Faber and Faber-London-1965 …This attack was a ‘Classic Riposte’ in the sense that it forced the Pakistan Army to abandon both the attacks i.e. ‘Grand Slam’ as well as the ‘Counter Offensive’ in Khem Karan.In this respect the Indians achieved their strategic object but without having captured any significant objectives on ground!

10 Gul Hassan has thrown some light on this heavy weights possession or lack of decisiveness, intellect etc in considerable detail in his memoirs .(See pages-192 , 194-Gul Hassan Khan-Op Cit). Pages-139 to 145-Shaukat Riza-Op Cit.

Page-21-Musa Khan-Op Cit. Musa ‘s words cannot be taken on the face value since he stated these in a book written 18 years after the war.

Page-175-Gul Hassan-Op Cit.

Pages-140,141 and 147-Shaukat Riza-Op Cit.

Page-395-K.C Praval-Op Cit.

Page-385- The Indian Armour-History of the Indian Armoured Corps-1941-1971-Major General Gurcharan Singh Sandhu-Vision Books-Delhi-1994.

Pages-141,142,163,164,165-War Despatches-Op Cit.

Page-136-War Despatches-Op Cit.

Pages-61,129,136 & 135-War Despatches-Op Cit.The Indian High Command was greatly unnerved by the swift Pakistani thrust towards Akhnur and on 3 September 1965 was forced to rush the 28th Infantry Brigade which was originally responsible for defence of Pathankot/Madhopur Headworks to Akhnur.As a result the 14 Division was forced to leave its 58 Infantry Brigade for defence of Madhopur .As per the original Indian plan the 28 Brigade was to be 6th Mountain Division’s third brigade for the bridgehead operation.But 28 Brigade was forced to move to Akhnur due to the Grand Slam thrust scare.As a result the Indian high Command placed 14 Division’s 35 Infantry Brigade under 6 Mountain Division command in lieu of 28 Brigade for the bridgehead operation while 58 Infantry Brigade was temporarily left at Madhopur since the main Pakistani attack location was not known till 8 September and the Indians feared that Madhopur/Pathankot area was one of the likely areas of the expected Pakistani thrust.Thus for the offensive the 14 Division was left with just one brigade i.e. the 116 Infantry Brigade.In addition the rapid pace of events in first week of September forced the Indians to shorten the move period of concentration of the I Corp’s formations from the actual planned period of ten to four days.As a result it was not possible for 14 Division to concentrate in time for taking part in the offensive as far as the initial two days were concerned.

20Page-395-The Indian Armour-Op Cit,Page-144-War Despatches -Op Cit.

Page-135,138 & 141-War Despatches-Op Cit.

22False Alarm at Jassar :–Page-147-Shaukat Riza-Op Cit.According to Gul Hassan Headquarter 1 Corps was the main culprits responsible for the exaggerated reports sent toGHQ.Gul thinks that it was not Brigadier Muzaffaruddin i.e. 115 Brigade Commander who was unnerved but GOC 15 Division (Brigadier Sardar Ismail and his Colonel Staff Colonel S.G Mahdi known with the nickname of Killer Mahdi) and Commander 1 Corps.Shaukat Riza who had a better access to war diaries/records however maintains that it was Brigadier Muzaffaruddin who was the main reason for the false alarm at Jassar.(Page-191-Gul Hassan Khan-Op Cit and Page-147-Shaukat Riza-1965-Op Cit). Musa placed the entire blame for the Jassar false alarm on the shoulders of GOC 15 Division and his Colonel Staff Colonel S.G Mahdi.According to Musa ‘During this period,the headquarters of this division (15 Division) appeared to be in a state of delirium.Its Colonel Staff (a Military Cross from Burma) was sending messages to GHQ and its lower formations that enemy commandos had infiltrated and were operating behind Sialkot town….it regained sanity only after the acting Divisional Commander and the Colonel Staff were relieved of their jobs’ (Pages-65 & 66-Musa Khan-Op Cit) . It may be noted that HQ I Corps was commanded by one who was not famous for any intellectual prowess but owed longevity in his post as Corps Commander to proven loyalty,yesmanship and extreme lack of imagination.This was the opinion of about fifteen different officers who had served with Lieutenant General Bakhtiar Rana in various capacities and who were interviewed by the author during the period 1985-99.In the opinion of Brigadier Amjad Chaudhry a relatively more reliable authority than both Gul and Shaukat, and one who was present on the spot as Commander 4 Corps Artillery Brigade Lieutenant General Bakhtiar Rana said ‘the Indians had established a bridgehead with one infantry battalion (a tribute to the level of thinking of Ayub’s handpicked and Pakistan Army’s only corps commander !!!!) and his assessment was that they would build it up to a brigade strength by next morning…he ordered me to get corps artillery into action to support the counterattack to be launched next morning to destroy the bridgehead…when I reached the brigade headquarter in Narowal I found Commander 15 Division (Brigadier Ismail) and Brigadier Abdul Ali commander 24 Brigade already there.We were all surprised to learn from the local brigade commander Brigadier Muzaffaruddin that the situation on his front was nothing like what it had been made out to be (Amjad does not explain who made it out,why and how on earth did GOC 15 Division was in 115 Brigade area if no alarming report was sent or why was General Bakhtiar convinced that the main Indian attack was coming from Jassar) and that after demolition of the bridge (only one span was demolished) only four or five Indian soldiers had managed to crawl up to the near end of the bridge and he was taking action to deal with them (!!!!)’ (Page-73- September 65 -Before and After -Brigadier Amjad Ali Khan Chaudhry-Ferozesons Lahore-1977). Amjad Chaudhri and Musa Khan as late as 1976 and 1983 respectively, mistakenly thought that the Indian effort opposite Jassar was the part of some grand deception plan ans that the Indians were trying to ‘make us look towards Jassar while they crossed the international border at Charwa from the direction of Samba (Pages-73 & 74-Ibid) or that the Indian move at Jassar was a ‘Feint’ or ‘Diversionary Effort’ (Pages-65 & 66-Musa Khan-Op Cit).According to Harbaksh Singh no such grand strategic deception was intended but all that happened at Jassar was a figment of the 115 Brigade Commander,15 Division Commander and 1 Corps Commander’s extremely disturbed and nervous imagination as on 6/7 September!Compare the comparative lethargy of Pakistani Commander 1 Corps with Harbaksh Singh. While Harbaksh personally went to revive the spirits of local commanders in face of perceived or real enemy threats Bakhtiar Rana preferred forwardly reports received from lower formations without moving out of his headquarter,to check the situation in person as Harbaksh Singh that indomitable Jat did!It must however be remembered that before the war the Pakistani GHQ had a preconceived notion that the Indians would go through the inconvenience of crossing the Ravi at Jassar and launch their main offensive from Jassar (Page-18-Ibid) . It is quite possible that both 15 Division acting GOC and Commander Pakistani 1 Corps were influenced by this preconceived notion in currency in the Pakistani GHQ and passed on this false report without rechecking.Later once the perceived threat petered out Brigadier Ismail was made a scapegoat while Rana escaped Scot free by virtue of having closer bonds with Ayub-Musa and his higher rank.Musa in his book (informed sources think that it was beyond Musa’s capability to write a single page without assisatnce!!!!) criticises GOC 15 Division for ‘demolishing the bridge (Jassar Bridge)’ on page- 65 of his book but also states on page-18 of the same book that before the war he as C in C had assessed that one of the two important aspects of the Indian invasion plan in case of war was to ‘Capture Jassar and the railway bridge intact’ (Page-18-Ibid). Musa nowhere explains the royal lethargy of his handpicked man i.e. 1 Corps Commander Lieutenant General Rana who as per Musa ‘Ably Commanded’ I Corps (Page-64-Ibid) in not personally checking the actual situation at Jassar or even sending a senior staff officer from Headquarter 1 Corps for doing so.

Page-111-War Despatches-Op Cit.

Page-146-Shaukat Riza-Op Cit.

Page-111-War Despatches-Op Cit.

Page-147-Shaukat Riza-Op Cit

Page-147-Ibid.

28Page-28-Article- “A Subaltern in Action-1965 War”- Major Shamshad Ali Khan Qaimkhani (Retired)-Defence Journal-October 1997-Karachi-1997. Shaukat Riza claims in his official acount that the whole of 25 Cavalry was sent to Jassar and the unit was recalled when its head (i.e leading troops had reached Narowal).

Page-147-War Despatches.

30Page-148 & 149-Shaukat Riza-Op Cit.Shaukat Riza has painted an exaggerated picture about the extreme length of 3 FF defences. The reader must note that in the initial pre war plan 3 FF was supported in depth by a whole tank regiment i.e 25 Cavalry .Firstly 15 Division did not have sufficient troops to man the entire area of responsibility.Secondly thanks to the extremely incompetent Pakistani intelligence agencies both military and civil of that time (as well as now) who were/are good only in petty reporting against their own officers and in making personal fortunes,no one in the Pakistani GHQ had the slightest idea that the Indian 1st Armoured division was in Kashmir

Page-150-Shaukat Riza-Op Cit.

32 The description of the fight is based on Gurcharan Singh‘s account.Refers Page-392-Gurcharan Singh-Op Cit.

33Pages-150 to 154-Ibid.There are various conflicting accounts about who in 25 Cavalry did what.These are largely irrelevant in the broader context.There is one thing in this whole affair about which all historians whether Indian or Pakistani completely agree;ie it was ‘25 Cavalry alone which stopped the Indian 1st Armoured Division on 8 September from advancing towards MRL’.It was 25 Cavalry’s show alone and it is historically irrelevant whether some one says that it was Nisar or Ahmad or Shamshad who saved the day.

34Page -46-Article – ‘A Subaltern in Action’- Major Shamshad Ali Khan Qaimkhani (Retired) -Defence Journal— November 1997-Karachi. The level of interest in military history in Pakistan may be imagined from the following incident. A close friend of this scribe asked a senior Pakistan Armoured Corps officer whether he reads the ‘Defence Journal’ or not.The armoured corps officer replied, ‘ I don’t read magazines which publishes trash written by people like Major Shamshad’. This senior officer and many like him have never written anything to do with military history but have highly inflated egos,probably based on their peactime records,good ACRs ,good career appointments and course reports!

Page-392-The Indian Armour-Op Cit.

Page-392-The Indian Armour-Op Cit.

Page-393-Ibid.

This false and factually totally incorrect misconception about threat on the flank or that the Indians advanced too fast on 8 September was advanced by various authors like Verghese, Kar etc and repeated as late as 1999 by Cloughley.The 1 Armoured Brigade had not dashed forward rashly as mistakenly asserted by Verghese (Pages-120 & 121- A History of the Pakistan Army-Wars and Insurrections- Brian Cloughley- Oxford University Press-Karach-1999-). The 1 Armoured Brigade had advanced reasonably cautiously despite the fact that keeping in view the overwhelming Indian tank strength vis a vis Pakistani tank strength on 8 September the Indians could have taken the risk of advanced much more rapidly; and could have easily outflanked 25 Cavalry by simply pushing their third regiment from east of Degh Nala.In reality as we have seen the Indians did not even use their two complete regiments advancing in front and two others (62 Cavalry and 4 Horse) who were free did nothing at all.Cloughley has even modified history by asserting that the force which struck on 8 September (i.e. 25 Cavalry) was under direct command of Headquarter 1 Corps! (Page-120-Ibid). In reality 1 Corps, or even 15 Division Headquarter had nothing to do with what 25 Cavalry did on 8 September.The only two men who acted with considerable coup d oeil and saved the situation were Nisar and Abdul Ali Malik.Another Indian author Kar was under the false impression that the Indian 1st Armoured Division had exposed its flank on 8 September (Page-664-A Military History of India- Lt Col H.C Kar-Firma KLM-Calcutta-1993) . There was no Pakistani force on 1st Armoured Division’s flank on 8 September except some ‘Jinns’ which were the product of Indian 1st Armoured Brigade Commanders extremely graphic and fertile imagination!

Pages-393 & 394-Ibid.

Page-47-Major Shamshad Ali Khan Qaimkhani (November 1997 Issue) -Op Cit.

Page-394-Indian Armoured Corps-Op Cit.

44People in Pakistan even today do not know how much Pakistan owes to 25 Cavalry.It is ironical that the myopic brains of Ayub and Musa in line with their anti armour bias ignored 25 Cavalry when gallantry awards were distributed. 25 Cavalry should have received at least one NH. But then 25 Cavalry was not the Punjab Regiment and had no Godfathers ! Nisar later retired as a brigadier while none of the squadron commanders and troop leaders (those who were in tanks on 8 September) went beyond brigadiers rank!Only one who was sitting many miles behind at the regimental headquarters did go beyond brigadier.During Zia’s time some officers from armoured corps were promoted because of family connections and sycophancy with Zia or for baby sitting Zia’s mentally retarded daughter.

Page-394-The Indian Armour-Op Cit.

Page-143-War Despatches-Op Cit.

Page-47- Article- ‘A subaltern in action in 1965-Critique’- Major Shamshad Ali Khan Qaimkhani (Retired)-Defence Journal-February 1998 – Karachi. We will discuss more of this aspect in the next chapter.The battles around Chawinda were later portrayed in Pakistan as a propaganda theme to illustrate that the Indians were defeated despite their massive numerical superiority.While useful to a reasonable extent as a propaganda theme;this assertion is conceptually incorrect and a partial distortion of facts of history.This is good opium for the cheap popular imagination but trash in terms of real military instruction. The issue or the deciding factor at Chawinda was not Islam versus Hinduism,but an excellent unit consisting of a large number of excellent officers who by their resolute stand imposed a severe check on the imagination of an irresolute and intellectually myopic leadership. At unit level both the Indian units i.e. Poona Horse and 16 Light Cavalry fought as bravely and heroically as 25 Cavalry losing in the process more tanks than 25 Cavalry. But these units were handicapped by an incompetent and irresolute higher headquarter who became mentally paralysed.The rot in the Indian command structure started from brigade headquarters downwards and not from squadron or regiment upwards.At this time commander Indian 1st Armoured Brigade had the liberty to employ the third unit i.e. 4 Horse and two squadrons of Poona Horse and one squadron of 16 Light Cavalry.It was the 1st Armoured Brigade Commander who lost his nerve and stopped the advance.The conclusion is that at regimental and squadronlevel both the Indians and the Pakistanis fought equally well!Tarapur leading the Poona Horse was as good and as brave an officer as Nisar (and both had served before partition at the same station Aden), the difference being We must not forget that the same Hindus under British officers humbled many tough foes including the Afghans, the Sikhs ,the Turks,Japanese Germans.The factor which went against the Indians on 8 September was not that Hindus were less brave, or the Pakistani (or Punjabi Muslims braver) as is foolishly propagated in Pakistan, but the fact that their higher headquarter, the brigade level in particular and divisional in general failed to preserve their mental equilibrium in face of the stress of battle and the friction of war.Luckily for Pakistan there was no brigade headquarter,controlling 25 Cavalry, with a timid,equally cautious (like the Indians) brigadier more concerned with his personal safety in the immediate present and promotion in future than with taking any dynamic decisions in battle.Thus while on the Indian side higher command was poor, no such comparative armoured brigade headquarter existed, luckily I would say;keeping in view similarly mediocre performances on the Pakistani side as amply proved in 4 and 5 Armoured Brigades,and the whole show was that of Colonel Nisar and his squadron commanders and tank commanders.Brigadier Malik the 24 Brigade Commander only told Colonel Nisar to do something but after that it was Nisar alone who did everything.All the so called heroes later projected after the war like Tikka Khan had nothing to do with all that happened on 8 September.

49After the war much projection was given to Tikka Khan since he was the same drill square type ex serviceman breed like Musa and Ayub and both must have seen in him one who was unimaginative and intellectually mediocre enough to be groomed for higher command ranks in line with the Ayubian philosophy of ‘Goof Selection Syndrome’.Luckily for history Tikka took over 15 Division from afternoon of 8 September;when Gadgor was already being fought;otherwise all the glory for what 25 Cavalry did would also been laid at his feet!Tikka survived the 1971 war and the notoriety in the genocide of the Bengali Muslims in 1971, because he was viewed by Bhutto as a good pawn and a yes man!

Page-154-Shaukat Riza-Op Cit.

Page-153-Ibid.

Page-395-The Indian Armoured Corps-Op Cit.

Page-154 & 155-Shaukat Riza-Op Cit

54Page-4-Article-Abrar’s Battlefield Decisions-General K.M Arif (Retired) — The Pakistan Army Green Book-1992-The Year of the Senior Field Commanders-Pakistan Army General Headquarters-1993.

Page-75-Amjad Chaudhry-Op Cit.

56Page-159-Shaukat Riza-Op Cit.11 Cavalry as we have already discussed in the section dealing with Grand Slam had received orders to move to 6 Armoured Division concentration area on 6 September.Between 6th and 9th September these orders were amended and Shaukat Riza has used the term ‘fragmentary’ for these orders amending 11 Cavalry’s final destination which is a polite way of saying that the GHQ and 1 Corps were quite confused and nervous.It may be noted that 11 Cavalry has been much criticised (and that too most unjustly) for not having done well later at Chawinda.11 Cavalry had already seen some very hard fighting in Chhamb and had already suffered more than 50 casualties by 6 September including 19 killed,one of which was 11 Cavalry’s finest officer Major Mian Raza Shah.In addition one squadron of 11 Cavalry consisted of M-36-B -2 tanks which were quite obsolete by 1965.

57Page-155 & 156-Shaukat Riza-Op Cit.

Page-115,290,291,292-On War-Carl Von Clausewitz-Edited by Anatol Rapoport- Pelican Books London-1974.

59Page-155 & 158-Shaukat Riza-Op Cit.Both Yaqub Ali Khan and Riaz ul Karim were recipients of ‘Military Cross’ of Second World War and were Hindustani Muslims.Yaqub Ali Khan was one of the most intellectually gifted officers of the army and one who later created history by agreeing to military action against the Bengali Muslims in 1971 and resigned his commission when ordered to take military action.

60Page-12-Article- ‘Higher Conduct of 1965 Indo Pak War- Brigadier Riaz ul Karim Khan, LOM, MC-Defence Journal-Special Issue-Volume Ten-Numbers-1 & 2-1984- Karachi.

Page-155-Ibid.

Page-157 & 158-Ibid.

Page-158-Ibid.

Page-158 & 159-Ibid.

65Page-159 -Ibid and Page-5-Pakistan Army Green Book-1992-Op Cit.Arif while criticising Yaqub, at one time his Commanding Officer in 11 Cavalry in the 1950s has just stated that the ‘plan had been jointly evolved with some experts’, meaning Yaqub.This relief of 25 Cavalry by 11 Cavalry was very unpleasant for 11 Cavalry since it had no idea about the area, while 25 Cavalry knew the area like the palm of their hand, but was not as serious an error of judgement as portrayed by both Shaukat and Arif.After all 25 Cavalry deserved some rest after all that it achieved on 8 September and in any case remained available as a valuable reserve with the 6 Armoured Division!

66Page-144 & 145-War Despatches-Op Cit.

67This illustrates the narrow vision of basically glorified JCO type armour commanders of the Indo Pak regardless of the fact whether they were from Indian or Pakistan Armies.This new Indian armour operation which was supposed to be a grand deception was being mounted from just four or five west of the old location of the Indian 1st Armoured Brigade; but it was thought that it was a major change of direction and would disorient and confuse the Pakistanis.On the Pakistani side already everyone in the 6 Armoured Division was clear that Phillora was the next major Indian objective.Even the Indian armoured corps historian was visibly amused by this few kilometres sideways shift of armour and drily noted; ‘The 1st Armoured Brigade moved from Sabzpir crossroads on the evening of 10 September in order to get to the southwest of Maharajke.The move took time because of heavy going due to rain and the enemy shelled the regiments throughout their move. The Pakistanis were apparently fully aware of the new location of the formation. They must have wondered what the purpose of a sideways shift of a few kilometres,which could have been covered in minutes by day, was’ (Page-395-The Indian Armour-Op Cit). Gurcharan Singh very correctly pointed out that ‘ there was little possibility of either side achieving surprise because shifting the point of thrust a few kilometres this side or that hardly matters where half a dozen armoured regiments were deployed in defence…it was a head on encounter….’ (Page-398-Ibid).

6811 Cavalry has been most unjustly criticised for not fighting well at Phillora-Gadgor on 11 September. The Indian attack on 11 September was a very deliberate and well planned affair with full artillery support and overwhelming concentration of force against Phillora.Unlike 8 September when the Indians and 25 Cavalry just unknowingly crashed into each other; on 11 September the Indians had a fair idea about the extent of Pakistani armour’s defensive dispositions and had made detailed artillery preparation.25 Cavalry had been in the area before the war since it was integral armoured regiment of 15 Division.11 Cavalry had never served in this area being a part of 6 Armoured Division based in Kharian and had reached Phillora-Gadgor after last light 10 September having fought for six days in Chhamb, where it had suffered more than 50 casualties including 19 killed; and having carried out a long journey on tracks and train all the 80 miles distance from Chhamb to Gadgor.The Indian armoured corps historian described the odds faced by 11 Cavalry at Gadgor-Phillora in the following words; ‘The weight of fire brought down by a whole regiment of Centurions was to much for the enemy who started to withdraw….the enemy left behind 23 tanks destroyed or burnt’ (Page-397-The Indian Armour-Op Cit).

Page-396-The Indian Armour-Op Cit

Page-164 & 165-Ibid.

72Page-398 & 399-The Indian Armour-Op Cit and Pages-148 & 149-War Despatches-Op Cit. It appears that Harbaksh was right since Shaukat Riza also did quote an air observer who saw some Indian tanks moving towards Zafarwal on 12 September,but never reached Zafarwal (Page-165-Shaukat Riza-1965-Op Cit). Shaukat thought that the air observer made a false claim (Shaukat’s assertion being incorrect as is proved by Indian account), but it appears that 2 Lancers made some token movement towards Zafarwal on 12 September. Gurcharan and Harbaksh were both Sikhs but Gurcharan was defending armoured corps motivated by espirit de corps while Harbaksh Singh not being from armour was being more factual!Personally I would believe Harbaksh Singh since he had greater integrity as a historian than any other Indian or Pakistani participant including all Pakistani generals who wrote any books on 1965 war.

Page-165-Shaukat Riza-Op Cit.

Pages-165 & 166-Ibid Page-149-War Despatches-Op Cit.

Page-166-Shaukat Riza-Pages 399 & 400-The Indian Armour and Page-149-War Despatches-Op Cit

Page-171 & 172-Shaukat Riza-Op Cit.

Page-168-Ibid. Page-151-War Despatches-Op Cit.

The Pakistani Chief of General Staff General Malik Sher Bahadur was a man of limited vision and had little understanding of the decisive role of artillery in modern warfare!The outcome of Battle of Chawinda may have been different had Sher Bahadur succeeded in disbanding 4 Corps artillery as he very much wanted! Gul Hassan has described in his memoirs in some detail Sher Bahadur’s myopic wish to disband Headquarter 4 Corps Artillery and distribute its units piecemeal to other formations, just before Grand Slam in which this headquarter played the most decisive role. Luckily two men Brigadier Reilly the Anglo Indian Director Artillery and Brigadier Amjad Choudhry convinced Gul to take a stand in his capacity as DMO. (Pages-171 & 172-Gul Hassan Khan-Op Cit). Amjad stated in his book without naming Sher Bahadur (since it was 1976) that it was the intention of GHQ to make headquarter artillery 4 Corps do the work of a ‘traffic control centre’.Amjad stated that ‘I argued with him (Gul Hassan) that our corps artillery should not be employed in penny packets. I suggested to him that if the Corps Artillery was used as a GHQ reserve of firepower, it would enable the GHQ to influence the course of battle in any sector which needed reinforcing. Brigadier Gul Hassan saw my point and agreed with me and and ordered us to concentrate between Wazirabad and Sialkot’ (Page-35-Brig Amjad Chaudhry-Op Cit) .

Page-170-Shaukat Riza-Op Cit.

84Page-401-K.C Praval-Op Cit.

85Page-402 & 403-The Indian Armoured Corps-Op Cit and Page-152 & 153-War Despatches-Op Cit.

Page-404-The Indian Armour-Op Cit.

Page-171-Shaukat Riza-Op Cit.

, Page-75 & 76-Amjad Chaudhry-Op Cit. Pakistani armour and infantry officers will never admit this fact.See how armour and infantry fared without artillery support at Bara Pind in 1971 in the same Sialkot area in a scenario where about one Indian tank regiment and three infantry battalions humbled three Pakistani tank regiments and two infantry battalions!

Page-6-Pakistan Army Green Book-1992-Op Cit. Major General Mitha in his book/polemic against Gul also mentioned that the senior armoured corps attached to 6 Armoured Division Headquarter as advisor advised Abrar to withdraw from Chawinda.Mitha has however neither named the officer who gave this advice nor mentioned the date on which this incident occurred (Pages-38 & 39-Major General A.O Mitha-Op Cit). Brigadier Zaheer Alam Khan in an article stated that on 15 or 16 September Brigadier Hissam-el Effendi an otherwise colourful and flashy personality (reputed to have married his British commanding officers wife) ‘ ordered withdrawal of the divisional headquarter (of 6 Armoured Division) when the news about Indian tanks at Badiana was received.Z.A states that Abrar on hearing about this order countermanded it and removed Brigadier Sardar Hissam-el Effendi from 6 Armoured Division’s Headquarters (Page-59- The Way it was-Brigadier Z.A Khan – Defence Journal – Karachi-May-1998).

90Page-22- Article- “Battle of Buttur Dograndi-16/17 September 1965”- Major Shamshad Ali Khan Qaimkhani (Retired)- Defence Journal-April 1998- Karachi.

Page-404-The Indian Armour-Op Cit. Gurcharan does not state the ‘inexplicable misunderstanding’ as Harbaksh had stated why the tanks were withdrawn north of the railway line. (Page-155-War Despatches-Op Cit). See page-496- Fidelity and Honour-Lt Gen S.L Menezes-Viking-India-1993.

Pages-154 & 155-War Despatches-Op Cit.

94Pages-173 & 174-Shaukat Riza-Op Cit.95Page-174-Ibid and Page-405-The Indian Armour-Op Cit.96Page-406-The Indian Armour-OpCit and Pages-158 & 159-War Despatches-Op Cit.

Page-70-Musa Khan-Op Cit.

Source: http://defence.pk/threads/battle-of-chawinda-1965-the-largest-tank-battle-after-wwii.248368/#ixzz3CECw8T5e

Naval hostilities

Naval operations did not play a prominent role in the war of 1965. On 7 September, a flotilla of the Pakistan Navy under the command of Commodore S.M. Anwar, carried out a bombardment of the Indian Navy's radar station coastal down of Dwarka, which was 200 miles (320 km) south of the Pakistani port of Karachi. Operation Dwarka, as it is known, is a significant naval operation of the 1965 war contested as a nuisance raid by some. The attack on Dwarka caused the Indian Navy led to questions being asked in India's parliament and subsequent post-war modernization and expansion, with an increase in budget from Rs. 35 crores to Rs. 115 crores.

According to some Pakistani sources, one submarine, PNS Ghazi, kept the Indian Navy's aircraft carrier INS Vikrant besieged in Bombay throughout the war. Indian sources claim that it was not their intention to get into a naval conflict with Pakistan, and wished to restrict the war to a land-based conflict. Moreover, they note that the Vikrant was in dry dock in the process of refitting. Some Pakistani defence writers have also discounted claims that the Indian Navy was bottled up in Bombay by a single submarine, instead stating that 75% of the Indian Navy was under maintenance in harbour.

Covert operations

The Pakistan Army launched a number of covert operations to infiltrate and sabotage Indian airbases. On 7 September 1965, the Special Services Group (SSG) commandos were parachuted into enemy territory. According to Chief of Army Staff General Muhammad Musa, about 135 commandos were airdropped at three Indian airfields (Halwara, Pathankot and Adampur). The daring attempt proved to be an "unmitigated disaster". Only 22 commandos returned to Pakistan as planned, 93 were taken prisoner (including one of the Commanders of the operations, Major Khalid Butt), and 20 were killed in encounters with the army, police or civilians. The reason for the failure of the commando mission is attributed to the failure to provide maps, proper briefings and adequate planning or preparation.

Despite failing to sabotage the airfields, Pakistan sources claim that the commando mission affected some planned Indian operations. As the Indian 14th Infantry Division was diverted to hunt for paratroopers, the Pakistan Air Force found the road filled with transport, and destroyed many vehicles.

India responded to the covert activity by announcing rewards for captured Pakistani spies or paratroopers. Meanwhile, in Pakistan, rumors spread that India had retaliated with its own covert operations, sending commandos deep into Pakistan territory, but these rumors were later determined to be unfounded.

Assessment of losses

India and Pakistan make widely divergent claims about the damage they inflicted on each other and the amount of damage suffered by them. The following summarizes each nation's claims.

Neutral assessments

There have been several neutral assessments of the losses incurred by both India and Pakistan during the war. Most of these assessments agree that India had the upper hand over Pakistan when ceasefire was declared. Some of the neutral assessments are mentioned below —

• According to the Library of Congress Country Studies conducted by the Federal Research Division of the United States –

The war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavy—on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government.

• TIME magazine reported that India held 690 mi of Pakistan territory while Pakistan held 250 mi of Indian territory in Kashmir and Rajasthan. Additionally, Pakistan had lost almost half its armour temporarily. The article further elaborates,

Severely mauled by the larger Indian armed forces, Pakistan could continue the fight only by teaming up with Red China and turning its back on the U.N.

• Devin T. Hagerty wrote in his book "South Asia in world politics" –

The invading Indian forces outfought their Pakistani counterparts and halted their attack on the outskirts of Lahore, Pakistan's second-largest city. By the time United Nations intervened on September 22, Pakistan had suffered a clear defeat.

• In his book "National identity and geopolitical visions", Gertjan Dijkink writes –

The superior Indian forces, however, won a decisive victory and the army could have even marched on into Pakistani territory had external pressure not forced both combatants to cease their war efforts.

• An excerpt from Stanley Wolpert's India, summarizing the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965,

In three weeks the second Indo-Pak War ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on U.S. ammunition and replacements for both armies forced cessation of conflict before either side won a clear victory. India, however, was in a position to inflict grave damage to, if not capture, Pakistan's capital of the Punjab when the cease-fire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to Ayub's chagrin.

• In his book titled The greater game: India's race with destiny and China, David Van Praagh wrote –

India won the war. It gained 1,840 km (710 sq mi) of Pakistani territory: 640 km (250 sq mi) in Azad Kashmir, Pakistan's portion of the state; 460 km (180 sq mi) of the Sailkot sector; 380 km (150 sq mi) far to the south of Sindh; and most critical, 360 km (140 sq mi) on the Lahore front. Pakistan took 540 km (210 sq mi) of Indian territory: 490 km (190 sq mi) in the Chhamb sector and 50 km (19 sq mi) around Khem Karan.

• Dennis Kux's "India and the United States estranged democracies" also provides a summary of the war,

Although both sides lost heavily in men and material, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the better of the war. New Delhi achieved its basic goal of thwarting Pakistan's attempt to seize Kashmir by force. Pakistan gained nothing from a conflict which it had instigated.

• BBC reported that the war served game changer in Pakistani politics,

The defeat in the 1965 war led to the army's invincibility being challenged by an increasingly vocal opposition. This became a surge after his protege, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, deserted him and established the Pakistan People's Party.

• "A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947" by Robert Johnson mentions –

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

• An excerpt from William M. Carpenter and David G. Wiencek's "Asian security handbook: terrorism and the new security environment" –

A brief but furious 1965 war with India began with a covert Pakistani thrust across the Kashmiri cease-fire line and ended up with the city of Lahore threatened with encirclement by Indian Army. Another UN-sponsored cease-fire left borders unchanged, but Pakistan's vulnerability had again been exposed.

• English historian John Keay's "India: A History" provides a summary of the 1965 war –

The 1965 Indo-Pak war lasted barely a month. Pakistan made gains in the Rajasthan desert but its main push against India's Jammu-Srinagar road link was repulsed and Indian tanks advanced to within a sight of Lahore. Both sides claimed victory but India had most to celebrate.

• Uk Heo and Shale Asher Horowitz write in their book "Conflict in Asia: Korea, China-Taiwan, and India-Pakistan" –

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

• Newsweek magazine, however, praised the Pakistani military's ability to hold off the much larger Indian Army.

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

Ceasefire

The United States and the Soviet Union used significant diplomatic tools to prevent any further escalation in the conflict between the two South Asian nations. The Soviet Union, led by Premier Alexei Kosygin, hosted ceasefire negotiations in Tashkent (now in Uzbekistan), where Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and Pakistani President Ayub Khan signed the Tashkent Agreement, agreeing to withdraw to pre-August lines no later than 25 February 1966.

With declining stockpiles of ammunition, Pakistani leaders feared the war tilting in India's favor. Therefore, they quickly accepted the ceasefire in Tashkent. Despite strong opposition from Indian military leaders, India bowed to growing international diplomatic pressure and accepted the ceasefire. On 22 September, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed a resolution that called for an unconditional ceasefire from both nations. The war ended the following day.

India's Prime Minister, Shastri, suffered a fatal heart attack soon after the declaration of the ceasefire. As a consequence, the public outcry in India against the ceasefire declaration transformed into a wave of sympathy for the ruling Indian National Congress. The ceasefire was criticized by many Pakistanis who, relying on fabricated official reports and the controlled Pakistani press, believed that the leadership had surrendered military gains. The protests led to student riots. Pakistan State's reports had suggested that their military was performing admirably in the war – which they incorrectly blamed as being initiated by India – and thus the Tashkent Declaration was seen as having forfeited the gains. Some recent books written by Pakistani authors, including one by ex-ISI chief titled "The Myth of 1965 Victory", allegedly exposed Pakistani fabrications about the war, but all copies of the book were bought by Pakistan Army to prevent publication because the topic was "too sensitive".

India and Pakistan accused each other of ceasefire violations; India charged Pakistan with 585 violations in 34 days, while Pakistan countered with accusations of 450 incidents by India. In addition to the expected exchange of small arms and artillery fire, India reported that Pakistan utilized the ceasefire to capture the Indian village of Chananwalla in the Fazilka sector. This village was recaptured by Indian troops on 25 December. On 10 October, a B-57 Canberra on loan to the PAF was damaged by 3 SA-2 missiles fired from the IAF base at Ambala. A Pakistani Army Auster was shot down on 16 December, killing one Pakistani army captain and on 2 February 1967, an AOP was shot down by IAF Hunters.

The ceasefire remained in effect until the start of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971.

Intelligence failures

Strategic miscalculations by both India and Pakistan ensured that the war ended in a stalemate —

Indian miscalculations

Indian military intelligence gave no warning of the impending Pakistan invasion. The Indian Army failed to recognize the presence of heavy Pakistani artillery and armaments in Chumb and suffered significant losses as a result.

The "Official History of the 1965 War", drafted by the Ministry of Defence of India in 1992, was a long suppressed document that revealed other miscalculations. According to the document, on 22 September when the Security Council was pressing for a ceasefire, the Indian Prime Minister asked commanding Gen. Chaudhuri if India could possibly win the war, were he to delay accepting the ceasefire. The general replied that most of India's frontline ammunition had been used up and the Indian Army had suffered considerable tank losses. It was determined later that only 14% of India's frontline ammunition had been fired and India held twice the number of tanks as Pakistan. By this time, the Pakistani Army had used close to 80% of its ammunition.

Air Chief Marshal (retd) P.C. Lal, who was the Vice Chief of Air Staff during the conflict, points to the lack of coordination between the IAF and the Indian army. Neither side revealed its battle plans to the other. The battle plans drafted by the Ministry of Defence and General Chaudhari, did not specify a role for the Indian Air Force in the order of battle. This attitude of Gen. Chaudhari was referred to by ACM Lal as the "Supremo Syndrome", a patronizing attitude sometimes held by the Indian army towards the other branches of the Indian Military.

Pakistani miscalculations

The Pakistani Army's failures started with the supposition that a generally discontented Kashmiri people, given the opportunity provided by the Pakistani advance, would revolt against their Indian rulers, bringing about a swift and decisive surrender of Kashmir. The Kashmiri people, however, did not revolt. Instead, the Indian Army was provided with enough information to learn of Operation Gibraltar and the fact that the Army was battling not insurgents, as they had initially supposed, but Pakistani Army regulars.

The Pakistani Army also failed to recognize that the Indian policy makers would order an attack on the southern sector in order to open a second front. Pakistan was forced to dedicate troops to the southern sector to protect Sialkot and Lahore instead using them to support penetrating into Kashmir.

"Operation Grand Slam", which was launched by Pakistan to capture Akhnoor, a town north-east of Jammu and a key region for communications between Kashmir and the rest of India, was also a failure. Many Pakistani commentators criticized the Ayub Khan administration for being indecisive during Operation Grand Slam. These critics claim that the operation failed because Ayub Khan knew the importance of Akhnur to India (having called it India's "jugular vein") and did not want to capture it and drive the two nations into an all-out war. Despite progress being made in Akhnur, General Ayub Khan relieved the commanding Major General Akhtar Hussain Malik and replaced him with Gen. Yahya Khan. A 24-hour lull ensued the replacement, which allowed the Indian army to regroup in Akhnur and successfully oppose a lackluster attack headed by General Yahya Khan. "The enemy came to our rescue", asserted the Indian Chief of Staff of the Western Command. Later, Akhtar Hussain Malik criticized Ayub Khan for planning Operation Gibraltar, which was doomed to fail, and for relieving him of his command at a crucial moment in the war. Malik threatened to expose the truth about the war and the army's failure, but later dropped the idea for fear of being banned.

Some authors have noted that Pakistan might have been emboldened by a war game – conducted in March 1965, at the Institute of Defence Analysis, USA. The exercise concluded that, in the event of a war with India, Pakistan would win. Other authors like Stephen Philip Cohen, have consistently commented that the Pakistan Army had "acquired an exaggerated view of the weakness of both India and the Indian military... the 1965 war was a shock".

Pakistani Air Marshal and Commander-in-Chief of PAF during the war, Nur Khan, later said that the Pakistan Army, and not India, should be blamed for starting the war. However propaganda in Pakistan about the war continued; the war was not rationally analyzed in Pakistan, with most of the blame being heaped on the leadership and little importance given to intelligence failures that persisted until the debacle of the 1971 war, when then East Pakistan was invaded by India and seceded from West Pakistan, leading to the creation of Bangladesh.

Involvement of other nations

Pakistan and the United States had signed an Agreement of Cooperation in 1959 under which the United States agreed to take "appropriate action, including the use of armed forces" in order to assist the Government of Pakistan at its request. However, following the start of the 1965 war, the United States was of the view that the conflict was largely Pakistan's fault and therefore, it cut all military supplies to the country. However, Pakistan did receive significant support from Iran, Indonesia and People's Republic of China.

Both before and during the war, the People's Republic of China had been a major military associate of Pakistan and had invariably admonished India, with whom it had fought a war in 1962. There were also reports of Chinese troop movements on the Indian border to support Pakistan. As such, India agreed to the UN mandate in order to avoid a war on both borders.

India's participation in the Non-Aligned Movement yielded little support from its members. Despite close relations between with India, the Soviet Union was more neutral than most other nations during the war and even invited both nations to talks that it would host in Tashkent.

Aftermath

India

Despite the declaration of a ceasefire, India was perceived as the victor due to its success in halting the Pakistan-backed insurgency in Kashmir. In its October 1965 issue, the TIME magazine quoted a Western official assessing the consequences of the war —

Now it's apparent to everybody that India is going to emerge as an Asian power in its own right.

In light of the failures of the Sino-Indian War, the outcome of the 1965 war was viewed as a "politico-strategic" victory in India. The Indian premier, Lal Bahadur Shastri, was hailed as a national hero in India.

While the overall performance of the Indian military was praised, military leaders were criticized for their failure to effectively deploy India's superior armed forces so as to achieve a decisive victory over Pakistan. In his book "War in the modern world since 1815", noted war historian Jeremy Black said that though Pakistan "lost heavily" during the 1965 war, India's hasty decision to call for negotiations prevented further considerable damage to the Pakistan Armed Forces. He elaborates —

India's chief of army staff urged negotiations on the ground that they were running out ammunition and their number of tanks had become seriously depleted. In fact, the army had used less than 15% of its ammunition compared to Pakistan, which had consumed closer to 80 percent and India had double the number of serviceable tanks.

As a consequence, India focussed on enhancing communication and coordination within and among the triservices of the Indian Armed Forces. Partly as a result of the inefficient information gathering preceding the war, India established the Research and Analysis Wing for external espionage and intelligence. Major improvements were also made in command and control to address various shortcomings and the positive impact of these changes was clearly visible during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 when India achieved a decisive victory over Pakistan within two weeks.

China's repeated threats to intervene in the conflict in support of Pakistan increased pressure on the government to take an immediate decision to develop nuclear weapons. Despite repeated assurances, the United States did little to prevent extensive use of American arms by Pakistani forces during the conflict which irked India. At the same time, the United States and United Kingdom refused to supply India with sophisticated weaponry which further strained the relations between the West and India. These developments led to a significant change in India's foreign policy – India, which had previously championed the cause of non-alignment, distanced itself further from Western powers and developed close relations with the Soviet Union. By the end of the 1960s, the Soviet Union emerged as the biggest supplier of military hardware to India. From 1967 to 1977, 81% of India's arms imports were from the Soviet Union. After the 1965 war, the arms race between India and Pakistan became even more asymmetric and India was outdistancing Pakistan by far.

Pakistan

At the conclusion of the war, many Pakistanis considered the performance of their military to be positive. 6 September is celebrated as Defence Day in Pakistan, in commemoration of the successful defence of Lahore against the Indian army. The performance of the Pakistani Air Force, in particular, was praised.

However, the Pakistani government was accused by foreign analysts of spreading disinformation among its citizens regarding the actual consequences of the war. In his book "Mainsprings of Indian and Pakistani foreign policies", S.M. Burke writes —

After the Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 the balance of military power had decisively shifted in favor of India. Pakistan had found it difficult to replace the heavy equipment lost during that conflict while her adversary, despite her economic and political problems, had been determinedly building up her strength.

Most observers agree that the myth of a mobile, hard hitting Pakistan Army was badly dented in the war, as critical breakthroughs were not made. Several Pakistani writers criticized the military's ill-founded belief that their "martial race" of soldiers could defeat "Hindu India" in the war. Rasul Bux Rais, a Pakistani political analyst wrote –

The 1965 war with India proved that Pakistan could neither break the formidable Indian defenses in a blitzkrieg fashion nor could she sustain an all-out conflict for long.

Pakistan airforce on the other hand gained a lot of credibility and reliability among Pakistan military and international war writers for successful defence of lahore and other important areas of Pakistan and heavy retaliation to India on the next day. The alertness of the airforce was also related to the fact that some pilots were scrambled 6 times in less than an hour on indication of Indian air raids. Pakistan airforce along with the army is celebrated for on Defence day and Airforce day in commemoration of this in Pakistan (6 and 7 September respectively).

Moreover, Pakistan had lost more ground than it had gained during the war and, more importantly, failed to achieve its goal of capturing Kashmir; this result has been viewed by many impartial observers as a defeat for Pakistan.

Many high ranking Pakistani officials and military experts later criticized the faulty planning of Operation Gibraltar that ultimately led to the war. The Tashkent declaration was also criticized in Pakistan, though few citizens realised the gravity of the situation that existed at the end of the war. Political leaders were also criticized. Following the advice of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Pakistan's foreign minister, Ayub Khan had raised very high expectations among the people of Pakistan about the superiority – if not invincibility – of its armed forces, but Pakistan's inability to attain its military aims during the war, created a political liability for Ayub. The defeat of its Kashmiri ambitions in the war led to the army's invincibility being challenged by an increasingly vocal opposition.

One of the most far reaching consequences of the war was the wide-scale economic slowdown in Pakistan. The cost of the 1965 war put an end to the impressive period economic growth Pakistan had experienced during the early 1960s. Between 1964 and 1966, Pakistan's defence spending rose from 4.82% to 9.86% of GDP, putting tremendous strain on Pakistan's economy. By 1970–71, defence spending comprised a whopping 55.66% of government expenditure. According to veterns of the war, the war had greatly cost Pakistan economically, politically, and militarily. Nuclear theorist Feroze Khan maintained that the 1965 war was a last conventional attempt to snatch Kashmir by military forces, and Pakistan's own position in international community, especially with the United States, began to deteriorated from the point the war started, while on the other hand, the alliance with China was indeed improved. Noted in the memoirs of war veteran, General Tariq Majid (later four-star general), Chou En-Lai had longed advised the government in the classic style of Sun Tzus: "to go slow, not to push India hard; and avoid a fight over Kashmir, 'for at least, 20-30 years, until you have developed your economy and consolidated your national power'." General Majid maintained in Eating Grass, that the "sane, philosophical and political critical thinking" was missing in Pakistan, and Pakistan had lost a tremendous human resource that it had fought the war with India.

Pakistan was surprised by the lack of support by the United States, an ally with whom the country had signed an Agreement of Cooperation. USA declared its neutrality in the war by cutting off military supplies to both sides, leading Islamabad to believe that they were "betrayed" by the United States. After the war, Pakistan would increasingly look towards China as a major source of military hardware and political support.

Another negative consequence of the war was the growing resentment against the Pakistani government in East Pakistan (present day Bangladesh), particularly for West Pakistan's obsession with Kashmir. Bengali leaders accused the central government of not providing adequate security for East Pakistan during the conflict, even though large sums of money were taken from the east to finance the war for Kashmir. In fact, despite some Pakistan Air Force attacks being launched from bases in East Pakistan during the war, India did not retaliate in that sector, although East Pakistan was defended only by an understrenghted infantry division (14 Division), sixteen planes and no tanks. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was critical of the disparity in military resources deployed in East and West Pakistan, calling for greater autonomy for East Pakistan, which ultimately led to the Bangladesh Liberation War and another war between India and Pakistan in 1971.

Military awards

Battle honours

After the war, a total of number of 16 battle honours and 3 theatre honours were awarded to units of the Indian Army, the notable amongst which are:

Gallantry awards

For bravery, the following soldiers were awarded the highest gallantry award of their respective countries, the Indian award Param Vir Chakra and the Pakistani award Nishan-e-Haider:

India

• Company Quarter Master Havildar Abdul Hamid (Posthumous)
• Lieutenant-Colonel Ardeshir Burzorji Tarapore (Posthumous)

Pakistan

• Major Raja Aziz Bhatti Shaheed (Posthumous)

See also

• India
• Pakistan
• 1970s

• Indo-Pakistani War of 1971
• Post–World War II air-to-air combat losses

References

1. ^ "Indo-Pakistani War of 1965". Global Security.
2. ^ Rakshak, Bharat. "Page 15" (PDF). Official History. Times of India. Retrieved 14 July 2011.
3. ^ SIngh, Lt.Gen Harbaksh (1991). War Despatches. New Delhi: Lancer International. p. 7. ISBN 81-7062-117-8.
4. ^ Thomas M. Leonard (2006). Encyclopedia of the developing world. Taylor & Francis. pp. 806–. ISBN 978-0-415-97663-3. Retrieved 14 April 2011.
5. "Indo-Pakistan Wars". Archived from the original on 1 November 2009. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
6. Tucker, Spencer (2004). Tanks: An Illustrated History of Their Impact. ABC-CLIO. p. 172. ISBN 978-1-57607-995-9.
7. ^ Praagh, David. The greater game: India's race with destiny and China. McGill-Queen's Press – MQUP, 2003. ISBN 0-7735-2639-0.
8. ^ Johnson, Robert. A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947. Reaktion Books, 2005. ISBN 1-86189-257-8.
9. ^ "Official History of IAF in 65 War" (PDF). Retrieved 27 July 2012.
10. ^ O' Nordeen, Lon (1985). Air Warfare in the Missile Age. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. pp. 84–87. ISBN 978-0-87474-680-8.
11. 1965 War: A Different Legacy: ALL THINGS PAKISTAN. Pakistaniat.com (1965-09-06). Retrieved on 2011-04-14.
12. 1965 War. Pakistan army (2009-09-01). Retrieved on 2011-04-14.
13. Tucker, Spencer (2004). Tanks: An Illustrated History of Their Impact. p. 172.
14. The Sunday Tribune – Spectrum. Tribuneindia.com. Retrieved on 2011-04-14.
15. Rakshak, Bharat. "Page 22" (PDF). Official History. Times of India. Retrieved 14 July 2011.
16. Chandigarh, India – Main News. Tribuneindia.com. Retrieved on 2011-04-14.
17. ^ Brecher, Michael; Wilkenfeld, Jonathan (November 1997). A study of crisis. University of Michigan Press. pp. 171–172. ISBN 978-0-472-10806-0. Retrieved 3 November 2011.
18. Press Trust of India, Islamabad bureau (14 September 2009). "Pak's intrusions on borders triggered 1965 war: Durrani". Times of India. Retrieved 3 November 2011.
19. Bhushan, Chodarat. "Tulbul, Sir Creek and Siachen: Competitive Methodologies". South Asian Journal. March 2005, Encyclopædia Britannica and Open Forum – UNIDIR
20. Defence Journal. September 2000
21. Mankekar, D. R. (1967). Twentytwo fateful days: Pakistan cut to size. Manaktalas. pp. 62–63, 67. Retrieved 8 November 2011.
22. ^ "Underestimating India". Indian Express. 4 September 2009. Retrieved 21 December 2011.
23. "Pakistan's Endgame in Kashmir - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace". Carnegieendowment.org. Retrieved 21 December 2011.
24. "Indian Air Force :: Flight of the Falcon". Bharat-rakshak.com. 28 August 2010. Retrieved 21 December 2011.
25. "1965 - last chance to get Kashmir by force - Bhutto". Defence.pk. Retrieved 21 December 2011.
26. "The Lahore Offensive". Storyofpakistan.com. 1 June 2003
27. Brigadier Desmond E Hayde, "The Battle of Dograi and Batapore", Natraj Publishers, New Delhi, 2006
28. The Tribune, Chandigarh, India – Opinions. Tribuneindia.com. Retrieved on 2011-04-14.
29. Wilson, Peter. Wars, proxy-wars and terrorism: post independent India. Mittal Publications, 2003. ISBN 81-7099-890-5.
30. Jaques, Tony. Dictionary of Battles and Sieges. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007. ISBN 0-313-33538-9.
31. Army cries out for a second railway line between Barmer and Jaisalmer. Hindustan Times (2009-12-17). Retrieved on 2011-04-14.
32. The Story of My Struggle By Tajammal Hussain Malik 1991, Jang Publishers, p. 78
33. Khaki Shadows by General K.M. Arif, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-579396-X, 2001
34. John Fricker, "Pakistan's Air Power", Flight International issue published 1969, p. 89, retrieved: 3 November 2009
35. ^ "Pakistan's Air Power", Flight International, issue published 5 May 1984 (page 1208). Can be viewed at FlightGlobal.com archives Retrieved: 22 October 2009
36. See the main article Sabre Slayer for the complete list on this issue including sources.
37. Ahmad Faruqui, "The right stuff", Dawn News, 14 September 2009, Retrieved: 1 November 2009. Also published as "The Debt Owed" on 16 September 2009 by
38. Edward V. Coggins; Ed Coggins (15 May 2000). Wings That Stay on. Turner Publishing Company. pp. 164–. ISBN 978-1-56311-568-4. Retrieved 14 April 2011.
39. Mike Spick (5 August 2002). The Illustrated Directory of Fighters. Zenith Imprint. pp. 161–. ISBN 978-0-7603-1343-5. Retrieved 14 April 2011.
40. "1965 War, Chapter 3." bharat-rakshak.com. Retrieved: 4 November 2010.
41. ^ Air Commodore M. Kaiser Tufail. "Run... It's a 104". Jang News.
43. John Fricker, "Pakistan's Air Power", Flight International issue published 1969, pp. 89–90. , . Retrieved: 3 November 2009
44. ^ The Encyclopedia of 20th Century Air Warfare Edited by Chris Bishop (amber publishing 1997, republished 2004 pages 384-387 ISBN 1-904687-26-1)
45. http://defence.pk/threads/battle-of-chawinda-1965-the-largest-tank-battle-after-wwii.248368/
46. http://books.google.com.pk/The M47 and M48 Patton Tanks
47. ": PAKISTAN NAVY :. A Silent Force to Reckon with... [a 4 dimensional force]". Paknavy.gov.pk. Retrieved 21 December 2011.
48. Pakistan Intelligence, Security Activities & Operations Handbook By IBP USA
49. India's Quest for Security: defence policies, 1947-1965 By Lorne John Kavic, 1967, University of California Press, pp 190
50. Working paper, Issue 192, Australian National University. Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University, 1989, isbn="0731508068, 9780731508068"
51. India's Foreign Policy, Ghosh Anjali, Dorling Kindersley Pvt Ltd, isbn="9788131710258"
52. Hiranandani, G. M. (January 2000). Transition to triumph: history of the Indian Navy, 1965-1975. Lancer Publishers. pp. 33–39. ISBN 978-1-897829-72-1. Retrieved 3 November 2011.
53. South Asia's Nuclear Security Dilemma: India, Pakistan, and China By Lowell Dittmer, pp 77
54. THE INDIAN END OF THE TELESCOPE India and Its Navy by Vice Admiral Gulab Hiranandani, Indian Navy (Retired), Naval War College Review, Spring 2002, Vol. LV, No. 2
55. Iqbal F Quadir – Pakistan's Defence Journal
56. ^ "SSG in the 1965 War". Defence Journal. Retrieved 27 July 2012.
57. ^ The Fighter Gap by Shoab Alam Khan in Defence Journal
58. Defence Journal: The Way it was Extracts from Pakistan Army Brigadier (Retd) ZA Khan's book
59. Ending the Suspense 17 September 1965, TIME magazine
60. Remembering Our Warriors Brig (Retd) Shamim Yasin Manto S.I.(M), S.Bt, Q&A session: ("How would you assess the failures and successes of the SSG in the 1965 War?") February 2002, Defence Journal
61. ^ "Ceasefire & After". Bharat-rakshak.com. Retrieved 27 July 2012.
62. "Grand Slam – A Battle of Lost Opportunities". Defencejournal.com. Retrieved 27 July 2012.
63. "onwar". onwar. Retrieved 27 July 2012.
64. Bharat-Rakshak.com http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Misc/Loss1965.html
65. Group Captain Cecil Chaudhry, SJ – Chowk: India Pakistan Ideas Identities.com. Chowk (2007-12-09). Retrieved on 2011-04-14.
66. Singh, Pushpindar (1991). Fiza ya, Psyche of the Pakistan Air Force. Himalayan Books. ISBN 81-7002-038-7.
67. "IAF war kills in 1965 war" (PDF). Orbat.com. Retrieved 29 December 2011.
68. ^ "Pakistan :: The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965". Library of Congress Country Studies, United States of America. April 1994. Retrieved 2 October 2010.
69. Silent Guns, Wary Combatants, 1 October 1965, TIME Magazine
70. ^ Hagerty, Devin. South Asia in world politics. Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. ISBN 0-7425-2587-2.
71. Dijkink, Gertjan. National identity and geopolitical visions: maps of pride and pain. Routledge, 1996. ISBN 0-415-13934-1.
72. India by Stanley Wolpert. Published: University of California Press, 1990
73. "India and the United States estranged democracies", 1941–1991, ISBN 1-4289-8189-6, DIANE Publishing, Pg 238
74. ^ Ali, Mahmud. (2003-12-24) South Asia | The rise of Pakistan's army. BBC News. Retrieved on 2011-04-14.
75. William M. Carpenter, David G. Wiencek. Asian security handbook: terrorism and the new security environment. M.E. Sharpe, 2005. ISBN 0-7656-1553-3.
76. John Keay. India: A History. Grove Press, 2001. ISBN 0-275-97779-X.
77. Uk Heo, Shale Asher Horowitz. Conflict in Asia: Korea, China-Taiwan, and India-Pakistan. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003. ISBN 0-8021-3797-0.
79. ^ Fortna, Virginia. Peace time: cease-fire agreements and the durability of peace. Princeton University Press, 2004. ISBN 0-691-11512-5.
80. Dilger, Robert. American transportation policy. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003. ISBN 0-275-97853-2.
81. Kashmir in Conflict: India, Pakistan and the Unending War By Victoria Schofield Published 2003, by I.B.Tauris ISBN 1-86064-898-3 pp112
82. CONTROVERSY: Why Gohar Ayub is wrong about 1965 – Khalid Hasan quoting Pakistan author Husain Haqqani: "The Pakistani people were told by the state that they had been victims of aggression and that the aggression had been repelled with the help of God."..."official propaganda convinced the people of Pakistan that their military had won the war." Daily Times, 10 June 2005
83. Can the ISI change its spots? By Akhtar Payami, Dawn (newspaper) 7 October 2006
84. Army attempts to prevent book sales by Amir Mir Gulf News 1 October 2006 Musharraf buys all copies of sensitive ‘65 war Daily News & Analysis
85. Inside Story of Musharraf-Mahmood Tussle by Hassan Abbas – (Belfer Center for International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government)
86. A Cease-Fire of Sorts 5 November 1965 – TIME
87. "The India-Pakistan Air War of 1965", Jagan Mohan and Samir Chopra, Manohar Publications, New Delhi, 2005
88. Musharraf, the ‘poor man's Ataturk' By Khalid Hasan 19 September 2004 Daily Times
89. The Crisis Game: Simulating International Conflict by Sidney F. Giffin
90. 1965 decided fate of the subcontinent An Impending Nuclear War Between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, by Susmit Kumar, Ph.D.
91. ^ Stephen Philip Cohen (2004). The Idea of Pakistan. Brookings Institution Press. ISBN 0-8157-1502-1. Pages 103, 73–74
92. Noor Khan for early end to army rule – Pakistan Daily The Nation
93. A word from Pak: 1965 was 'wrong' The Times of India 6 September 2005
94. Editorial: The army and the people Daily Times 1 June 2007
95. The Pakistan Army From 1965 to 1971 Analysis and reappraisal after the 1965 War by Maj (Retd) Agha Humayun Amin
96. "United States – Pakistan Alliance". Library of Congress Country Studies, United States of America. April 1994. Retrieved 29 October 2010.
97. "Story of Pakistan". Story of Pakistan. Retrieved 27 July 2012.
98. Asymmetric Conflicts By T. V. Paul Cambridge University Press 1994 ISBN 0-521-46621-0, pp119
99. Conley, Jerome. Indo-Russian military and nuclear cooperation: lessons and options for U.S. policy in South Asia. Lexington Books, 2001. ISBN 0-7391-0217-6.
100. Silent Guns, Wary Combatants, TIME magazine, 1 October 1965
101. The 1965 war with Pakistan – Encyclopædia Britannica
102. Sunday Times, London. 19 September 1965
103. Black, Jeremy. War in the modern world since 1815. Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. ISBN 0-7425-2587-2.
104. Perkovich, George. India's nuclear bomb: the impact on global proliferation. University of California Press, 1999. ISBN 0-520-23210-0.
105. Title: India and the United States estranged democracies, 1941–1991, ISBN 1-4289-8189-6, DIANE Publishing
106. Brzoska, Michael. Women's and Gender History in Global Perspective. Univ of South Carolina Press, 1994. ISBN 0-87249-982-0.
107. Sharma, Ram. India-USSR relations. Discovery Publishing House, 1999. ISBN 81-7141-486-9.
108. Duncan, Peter. The Soviet Union and India. Routledge, 1989. ISBN 0-415-00212-5.
109. Zeev, Maoz. Paradoxes of war: on the art of national self-entrapmen. Routledge, 1990. ISBN 978-0-04-445113-6.
110. Declassified telegram sent to the US Department of State
111. Pakistan And Its Three Wars by Vice Adm (Retd) Iqbal F Quadir – Defence Journal, Pakistan
112. Insurgents, Terrorists, and Militias: The Warriors of Contemporary Combat Richard H. Shultz, Andrea Dew: "The Martial Races Theory had firm adherents in Pakistan and this factor played a major role in the under-estimation of the Indian Army by Pakistani soldiers as well as civilian decision makers in 1965."
113. An Analysis The Sepoy Rebellion of 1857–59 by AH Amin The army officers of that period were convinced that they were a martial race and the Hindus of Indian Army were cowards. This myth was largely disproved in 1965
114. Rais, Rasul Bux. The Indian Ocean and the superpowers: economic, political and strategic perspectives. Routledge, 1986. ISBN 0-7099-4241-9.
115. Battle for Pakistan: the air war of 1965 - John Fricker - Google Boeken. Books.google.com. 1 January 1979. ISBN 9780711009295. Retrieved 21 December 2011.
116. Profile of Pakistan – U.S. Department of State, Failure of U.S.'s Pakistan Policy – Interview with Steve Coll
117. Speech of Bill McCollum in United States House of Representatives 12 September 1994
118. South Asia in World Politics By Devin T. Hagerty, 2005 Rowman & Littlefield, ISBN 0-7425-2587-2, p. 26
119. Dr. Ahmad Faruqui
120. Hassan Abbas (2004). Pakistan's Drift Into Extremism: Allah, the Army, and America's War on Terror. M.E. Sharpe. p. 52. ISBN 0-7656-1497-9.
121. Embassy of Pakistan
122. Second opinion: The insidious logic of war Khaled Ahmed's Urdu Press Review Daily Times 3 June 2002
123. Greg Cashman, Leonard C. Robinson. An introduction to the causes of war: patterns of interstate conflict from World War I to Iraq. Rowman & Littlefield, 2007. ISBN 0-7425-5510-0.
124. ^ Khan, Feroz Hassan. "The Reluctant Phase". Eating grass : the making of the Pakistani bomb. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. pp. 45–48 . ISBN 978-0804776011. Retrieved 21 February 2013.
125. Richard N. Haass "Economic Sanctions and American Diplomacy", 1998, Council on Foreign Relations, ISBN 0-87609-212-1 pp172
126. Makers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age By Peter Paret, 1986, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-820097-8 pp802
127. Rounaq Jahan (1972). Pakistan: Failure in National Integration. Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-03625-6. Pg 166–167
128. Reflections on two military presidents By M.P. Bhandara 25 December 2005, Dawn
129. The Pakistan Army From 1965 to 1971 Yahya Khan as Army Chief-1966-1971 by Maj (Retd) Agha Humayun Amin
130. Singh, Sarbans (1993). Battle Honours of the Indian Army 1757 - 1971. New Delhi: Vision Books. pp. 242–256. ISBN 81-7094-115-6. Retrieved 3 November 2011.

Further reading

• First & Further reflections on the second Kashmir War (South Asia series) – 2 books by Louis Dupree.
• Gupta, Hari Ram (1967). India-Pakistan war, 1965. Vol. 1 (1 ed.). Hariyana Prakashan. ASIN B0006FFBK8.
• Mohan, Jagan; Chopra, Samir (2005) . The India Pakistan Air War of 1965 (1 ed.). Manohar Publishers. ISBN 81-7304-641-7.
• Berindranath, Dewan (1966). The war with Pakistan: A pictorial narration of the fifty days which rocked the sub-continent. Asia Press.
• Ismail Siddiqui, Muhammad (1983). Die to live: A selection of short stories based on the 1965 Indo-Pakistan war (1 ed.). Wajidalis. ASIN B0006EL2OI.
• Ayub, Muhammad (2005). An army, its role and rule: a history of the Pakistan Army from Independence to Kargil, 1967–1999. RoseDog Books. ISBN 0-8059-9594-3.
• Haqqani, Hussain (2005). Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military. United Book Press. ISBN 0-87003-214-3. ISBN 0-87003-223-2.
• Singh, Lt. Gen. Harbaksh (1991). War despatches: Indo-Pak Conflict, 1965. Lancer InterConsult, Inc. ISBN 81-7062-117-8.
• Praval, Maj K C (2009). Indian Army after Independence. Lancer InterConsult, Inc. ISBN 1-935501-10-0.
• Asghar Khan, Mohammed (1979). The first round: Indo-Pakistan War, 1965. Islamic Information Services. ISBN 0-906041-11-2.
• Faruquii, Ahmad (2003). Rethinking the national security of Pakistan: the price of strategic myopia. Ashgate Publishing. ISBN 0-7546-1497-2.
• Singh, Bhupinder (1982). 1965 war, role of tanks in India-Pakistan war. B.C. Publishers. ASIN B0000CQ9GQ.
• Brines, Russell (1968). The Indo-Pakistan Conflict. Pall Mall P. ISBN 0-269-16232-1.
• Fricker, John (1979). Battle for Pakistan: the air war of 1965. Ian Allan. ISBN 0-7110-0929-5.

Sources and external links

• IAF Combat Kills – 1965 war,(Center for Indian Military History)
• Mohammed Muhammad Musa (1983). My Version: India-Pakistan War 1965. Wajidalis.
• United States Library of Congress Country Studies – India
• Official History of the Indian Armed Forces in the 1965 War with Pakistan
• Story of Pakistan
• GlobalSecurity.org Indo-Pakistan War 1965
• Pakistan Columnist AH Amin analyzes the war.
• Grand Slam – A Battle of lost Opportunities, Maj (Retd) Agha Humayun Amin – very detailed roll of events and analysis
• A Critical Look at the 1965 Operations, Air Chief Marshall (retd) PC Lal – dispassionate analysis
• The India-Pakistan War, 1965: 40 Years On – From Rediff.com
• Lessons of the 1965 War from Daily Times (Pakistan)
• Spirit of '65 & the parallels with today – Ayaz Amir

v t e Indian Armed Forces
Indian Army  Indian Navy  Indian Air Force
Leadership	President Prime Minister Minister of Defence Defence Secretary National Security Advisor Chief of Defence Staff (Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee) Chief of the Army Staff Chief of the Naval Staff Chief of the Air Staff Vice Chief of Defence Staff Director General Armed Forces Medical Services Serving generals Serving admirals Serving marshals
Organisation	Ministry and committees/councils Ministry of Defence Department of Military Affairs Department of Defence Research and Development Department of Ex-servicemen Welfare National Security Council Cabinet Committee on Security Standing Committee on Defence Defence Planning Committee Nuclear Command Authority Integrated Defence Staff Defence Intelligence Agency Commands Joint Integrated Theatre Commands Andaman and Nicobar Command Commander-in-Chief Strategic Forces Command Commander-in-Chief Northern Theatre Command (India) Western Theatre Command (India) Maritime Theatre Command Defence Cyber Agency Defence Space Agency Armed Forces Special Operations Division Army Central Command Eastern Command Northern Command Southern Command South Western Command Western Command Army Training Command Navy Western Naval Command Eastern Naval Command Southern Naval Command Air Force Central Air Command Eastern Air Command Southern Air Command South Western Air Command Western Air Command Training Command Maintenance Command Other components Indian Coast Guard National Cadet Corps Paramilitary forces Special forces Territorial Army Border Roads Organisation
Personnel	Military Academies Ranks and insignia Army Navy Air Force Coast Guard Border Roads Organisation Paramilitary forces Awards and Decorations
Operations	Wars Indo-Pakistani wars 1947–1948 1965 Battle of Asal Uttar Battle of Chawinda 1971 Naval War Air War Battle of Chamb Operation Trident Operation Cactus-Lilly Battle of Longewala Kargil War Sino-Indian War External conflicts Kashmir conflict Korean War Siachen conflict Indo-Pakistani border skirmishes Operation Parakram 2011 2013 2014–2015 2016–2018 2019 Balakot airstrike Congo Crisis Sino-Indian border skirmish 1987 Nathu La and Cho La clashes Doklam standoff 2020 Indian intervention in the Sri Lankan Civil War Operation Cactus Evacuation of Indian civilians from Kuwait Piracy off the coast of Somalia Operation Raahat Operation Devi Shakti Indo-Myanmar border strike Annexations Operation Polo (Hyderabad) Operation Vijay (Portuguese India - Goa, Damaon, Silvassa & Diu) Junagadh Dadra and Nagar Haveli Insurgencies Northeast India Punjab Operation Blue Star Operation Woodrose Kashmir Counter-insurgency operations LOC surgical strike
Equipment	Defence Research and Development Organisation Ordnance Factory Board Ballistic missiles Weapons of mass destruction Army List of equipment of the Indian Army Navy Active Ships Historical Ships Weapon Systems Future Air Force Active Aircraft Historical Aircraft Aircraft Squadrons Future
Documents	Indian Maritime Security Strategy
Other topics	President's fleet review History President's Colour Award Women in the Indian Armed Forces Armed Forces Flag Day Armed Forces Tribunal Indian Armed Forces rank flags Indian military bands National War Memorial Amar Jawan Jyoti
Category Army Navy Air Force

v t e Pakistan Armed Forces
Military history of Pakistan
Leadership	Commander-in-Chief President of Pakistan Chief Executive Prime Minister of Pakistan Parliament Senate Committee on Defence National Assembly Committee on Defence Cabinet Committee on National Security National Security Council Ministers Defence Secretary Defence Production Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Chief of Army Staff Chief of Air Staff Chief of Naval Staff
Services	Army Navy Marines Air Force Inter-Services Intelligence Public Relations Selection Board National Command Authority Nursing Service Armed Forces Band
Paramilitary	Civil Armed Forces National Guard Strategic Plans Division Force
Personnel	Awards and decorations Women Ranks and insignia Army Navy Marines Air Force
Business interests	Pakistani Defence Industry Defence Housing Authority Foundations Fauji (Joint) Askari (Army) Bahria (Navy) Shaheen (Air Force)
Criticism	Establishment Gang of Four Bangladesh genocide
Categories (Army • Air Force • Navy)

• Use dmy dates from January 2012
• Indo-Pakistani wars
• Indo-Pakistani War of 1965
• Wars involving India