1965 War: A Different Kind of Legacy?

Athar Osama September 8th, 2007

By: Athar Osama        

pk9-1965.jpgToday, over a hundred and fifty million Pakistanis celebrate the 42nd Defense of Pakistan Day. It was 6th of September 1965 when Pakistan’s armed forces faced off against India’s in the first full-scale war between the two countries. Much to the credit of the brave men (and women) in uniform that day–and for next 2-3 weeks following that–the enemy attack on the City of Lahore was repulsed and the General J. N. Chaudhary’s dream of having his drink at Lahore Gymkhana on the evening of September the 6th was squashed.

Tomorrow, the country celebrates the Airforce Day to pay tribute to the defenders of the country’s air space. PAF’s performance during the 1965 War was truly remarkable given the comparative state of balance between the two airforces. It managed to shoot down 110 of India’s aircrafts while itself incurring the loss of only 18 of its own. Not only did PAF establish itself as a qualitatively superior airforce in the 1965 War but also established its credentials as one of the best airforces of the world.  

(Figure: The Supreme Commander, Field Marshall Ayub Khan, with one of his favorites, Maj. General A. M. Yahya Khan who was appointed as a last-minute replacement of Maj. General  Akhtar Hussein Malik, for an important operation in Kashmir, presumably to allow him an opportunity to “outshine”. The delay caused due to this un-anticipated change in command botched that operation, and the War)

While much has been written, by official and unofficial quarters, on the history of the 1965 War and a lot more continues to be written every year, there are several gross misconceptions about this event in Pakistan’s history that need to be tackled with and addressed. In Pakistan, ever since (or soon after) its creation in 1947, the writing of history has been an almost exclusive domain of the establishment whereby an official “doctrine” or “mythology” is often disseminated to ensure a homogeneity of thought and conformity of actions.  

Murder of History?

Noted historian, K. K. Aziz, in his “Murder of History: A Critique of History Textbooks Used in Pakistan” (1998) notes that “In Pakistani schools and colleges what is being taught as history is really national mythology, and the subjects of Social Studies and Pakistan Studies are nothing but vehicles of political indoctrination. Our children don’t learn history. They are ordered to read a carefully selected collection of falsehoods, fairy tales and plain lies.”  The myth and mystery around the 1965 War is no exception.

One would not be surprised that a normal–perhaps even average college educated–Pakistani believes–or is led to believe–that on Sept 6th 1965, India invaded Pakistan (specifically Lahore) and that once thrust into this battle, Pakistan came out to be victorious over its archrival. Both of these facts, on close examination, are quite far from reality. True, India did attack Lahore on September 6th 1965, but it was not the one to force a war on Pakistan in the first place. It was Pakistan’s provocation in the form of Operation Gibralter that led India towards opening the Western front in Pakistan.  

It is also true that by the end of the 3rd week of war, both countries had found themselves in a virtual military stalemate. While Pakistan’s armed forces had successfully defended Lahore–thanks, primarily to men like Raja Aziz Bhatti who, despite the failure of leadership at the top-most levels, gave up their lives but not inch of the country’s territory, but also due to the strategic position of the BRB Canal that formed a natural defense for Lahore–all of Pakistan’s offensive maneuvers had come to a naught.  

pk9-1965d.jpgThe Operation Gibralter that began in May-June of 1965 to take Indian territory in Kashmir and create an insurgency and popular uprising in the region was frustrated. This launched Operation Grand Slam that was aimed at cutting the Jammu-Rajouri road at Akhnur and to ultimately capture the latter. This operation was unnecessary delayed because of a change in top-military commander–a change widely perceived as unwarranted at that time. Despite these delays, however, as Pakistani troops gained some territory, India launched a full-scale offensive aimed at Lahore (0530 hrs on the 6th) and Sialkot (night between 7th and 8th). The rest as they say is history.  

In the ground war itself, there was a military stalemate on virtually all, northern (Kashmir), central ( Lahore), and southern, axes. At the time of the ceasefire, India held 450 square miles of Pakistan’s territory and Pakistan held 1600 square miles of Indian territory. General K. M. Arif, in his book Khaki Shadows, though, highlights that the Indian land gains were mainly in the fertile Sialkot and Kashmir sectors while Pakistani land gains were primarily in deserts opposite Sindh. While Pakistan came out with better numbers in terms of casualties (dead, injured, and missing) and equipment losses, it hardly was victorious as is often claimed by the establishment. Unless you define victory as being able to defend oneself during an offensive operation — hardly a definition indeed.  (Figure: Pakistani Soldier Penetrates into India, Source: ISPR)

Why did the 1965 War Take Place?

Apart from the unfortunate myth about who actually started the war itself, another factor that has received much less attention, and for obvious reasons, is why it was started in the first place. At the time of the 1965 War, Pakistan did not really have a full-time Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. General Ayub Khan was, at best, a part-time military commander, as he was too engaged in political affairs of the country. He had chosen General Musa Khan as his full-time Chief of Army Staff but only on the basis of his loyalty to the former rather than merit, competency or professionalism. This lack of leadership and competency at the highest levels of Pakistan’s military during the 1965 became legendary and is well-documented.  

This was also something that was consequently taken advantage of by none other that Foreign Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Bhutto was, at the time of the 1965 war, at the peak of his power as Ayub’s foreign minister and a foreign policy hawk, par excellence. He single handedly molded the opinion of the foreign office and his friends at the GHQ to plan operation Gibralter. Ayub was informed about the plans but only to an extent. 

Most importantly, Bhutto and his colleagues at the GHQ were able to dupe everyone who mattered into believing that capturing Kashmir was in sight, that an insurgency would immediately create an uprising, and that India would never declare full-scale war on Pakistan. Ayub’s indifference to this whole affair can be estimated from the fact that the Supreme Commander was vacationing in Swat during the last week of August 1965 when Pakistani troops were dying in Kashmir.  

Each one of the above assumptions was grossly incorrect and both Ayub and Pakistan paid a heavy price for it. For his part, Bhutto was able to walk away from his created mess and managed to turn the tide against Ayub and actually benefit from the situation. The 1965 War was the turning point of Ayub’s career at the helm. Bhutto rode this wave of dissatisfaction with the war as well as the Tashkent Agreement to power in 1970.  

pk9-MUSA.jpgSetting the record straight on what the 1965 War was all about, who started it, and why did it get started is not only a important constitutional right of Pakistani citizens but also is critical to learning from our own mistakes. Unfortunately, that is something that  Pakistan has never been good at. General K. M. Arif in Khaki Shadows writes that in the immediate aftermath of the 1965 War “Pakistan suffered a loss of a different kind…Soon after the War the GHQ ordered all the formations and units of the Pakistan Army to destroy their respective war diaries and submit completed reports to this effect by a given date. This was done…Their [the war diaries’] destruction, a self-inflicted injury and an irreparable national loss, was intellectual suicide.”  

Clearly, the political-military nexus had an interest in ensuring that nobody should find out what actually happened during the 1965 War — the former because of its incompetence and lack of leadership and the latter because of its culpability in taking Pakistan to war. While considerable second-hand material has become available since then, first hand information and accounts of the war remain a national secret whose disseminator could be charged under the Official Secrets Act. The organizational and legal paraphernalia to ensure that nobody ever learns from this tragic event in Pakistan’s history is complete and foolproof.  (Figure: Genernal Mohammad Musa Khan, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff during 1965 War)

What could have happened differently if Pakistanis had actually learnt from what happened before, during, and after the 1965 War?  

One, Mr. Bhutto would probably have found it difficult to ride the wave of anti-Ayub discontent as easily as he did for he was equally, if not more, culpable for what was solely blamed on Ayub Khan.  

Two, Mr. Bhutto would not have found it as easy to continue to befriend army generals and exercise the kind of influence at GHQ that he did during the 1971 debacle. Perhaps Pakistan would have been intact.  

Three, the army leadership would have received its fair share of blame for its professional incompetence, and preoccupation with civilian and political affairs at the expense of their military duty.  

Four, Perhaps Pakistan would have learnt its lessons and Kargil-II (1965 War was, in fact, Operation Kargil-I) would not have happened. Consequently, Sharif government would not have been toppled and Musharraf would have been living a retired existence for the last 5 years.  

The chains of causality run fairly deep and dense in Pakistan’s history. Our inability and unwillingness to learn from our own mistakes merely reinforces these events and brings us closer to a new–and more challenging–disaster every time. The 1965 War should be remembered as a day of courage and sacrifice of Pakistani people–most notably our men and women in uniform–who were wronged by their civilian and military leaders, but more importantly it should be remembered as a missed opportunity to learn and improve our lot. That is the test we continue to fail each year.

————— 

[Editor’s Note: I am definitely lagging behind in my writings here. I wanted to do a larger piece on the 1965 War before I did this one. But today is the anniversary of that war and I didn’t want to deprive the readers of this. I will definitely try to make up over the weekend. -Ed.]

10 Responses to “1965 War: A Different Kind of Legacy?”

  1. Sohaib Athar on 07 Sep 2007 at 1:21 am

    I didn’t ‘celebrate’ the day - did you?

  2. Bahadur Ali UNITED KINGDOMon 07 Sep 2007 at 5:31 am

    Actually, I think celebration of the 6 and 7th September comes with the rise and fall of military’s fortunes in Pakistan. I come from an Army family so I remember during Zia’s days how this used to be a major event in our home. I went to the airforce academy so I also know how 7th September is a major celebration in PAF circles and, for that matter, those in and around the bases.

    These days, thanks to Mr. Musharraf’s ill-deeds, it is not really a good time for our defense forces who are trying more to save their skins than to display their uniforms. I too, noticed how even newspapers haven’t carried much coverage of the day.

    Lets hope that some day respectability and honor will once again return to the men and women in uniform and that they’ll learn to use it wisely. .

  3. Adnan Gill UNITED STATESon 07 Sep 2007 at 5:31 am

    Dear Osama Sahib,

    Very informative and well written article. Thanks for sharing.

    I agree with almost all of your article with couple of exceptions.

    1. I disagree with your following statement, “Unless you define victory as being able to defend oneself during an offensive operation — hardly a definition indeed.” And here is why:

    During the Vietnam war, by any account, the US caused more damage and casualties, and ran over the North Vietnamese time and again, but at the end they had to leave in a disgraced manner without achieving their objectives. Once again, even today the US is causing unimaginable losses and casualties upon the Iraqi resistance, but strategically they are losing. People are already calling the Iraqi war as a loss for. Why? Because, the US has failed to achieve its objectives.

    Last summer, Israel reduced the southern Lebanon into rubble along with killing at least 1000 Lebanese at the cost of losing couple of hundred Israelis, but whole world, including Israelis, credit Hezbollah with the victory. Why? Because Israel miserably failed in achieving its stated goals.

    Therefore, I would dare to say, sometimes merely coming out of a conflict or war alive is considered a victory. In other words, when a superior aggressor/offender fails to achieve its stated goals, they fail.

    It can be argued, that since Kashmir was and to this day is a disputed territory, technically, Pakistan did not commit any aggression by entering into a territory that it claims to be its own. Therefore, Pakistan did not start the war.

    On the other hand, India first crossed the international borders into the internationally recognized Pakistani territory, therefore, they invaded Pakistan and not the other way around. However, there is not much of a dispute on who or what forced India to cross the international borders.

    Since Indians failed to capture Lahore (or drink tea in Gymkhana), a stated Indian objective/goal, India lost.

    In technical terms, to me, it wasn’t even a war, because if I’m not mistaken, neither countries’ parliaments officially declared a war, nor (I believe) they signed a mutual treaty declaring end of the war.

    2. I think Kargil was a very timely and appropriate tactical oppression had it succeeded. If it was not of Nawaz Sharif’s cold feet there was a very good chance that Pakistanis would have won despite their lack of vision to prepare on diplomatic and propaganda/information fronts too.

    Had Nawaz Sharif stalled for another month or two Kargil was a done deal with the exceptions of handful peaks. This would have brought India to negotiating table and Siachin issue would have been settled by now. It was an excellent message that India made a blunder by showing its nuclear cards. It would have also reinforced our nuclear doctrine by proving that India indeed respects the power of nuclear weapons, and in the foreseeable future will think thrice before interfering into Pakistani interests.

    In addition, it would have automatically placed us in a better bargaining position with the US after they told us, either ‘you are with us, or against us.’

    Sincerely,

    Adnan Gill

  4. Waheed UNITED KINGDOMon 08 Sep 2007 at 2:30 pm

    Some more references on 65 war:

    New Book Exposes the Failure of Operation Gibraltar
    http://www.satribune.com/archives/sept04/P1_habook 1.htm

    Read the para on 1965 war
    http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/special01/pak-a rchiv.htm

    baithak
    http://baithak.blogspot.com/2005/11/general-akhtar -malik-sat.html

    Relevant para
    http://pakistandrift.blogspot.com/2005/03/book-rev iew-news.html

    SURPRISE, SURPRISE
    http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/His tory/1965War/Surprise.html

  5. Sohaib Athar on 09 Sep 2007 at 7:00 am

    @Bahadur
    Good point. I’m sure they have a lot of other belongings at stake besides their skins.

    I wish I still had the books from my 8th class for reference. I had to switch from a Cambridge system to the local Matriculation system in 8th class, and the switch from the relatively unbiased Oxford Univ. Press history books in English to the Punjab Text Book Board Muasharati Aloom books was shocking to say the least. Until then, I was completely unaware of the level of enmity India and Indians held against us.
    Does anyone remember the Nishan-e-Haider series of stories in our Urdu text books? I happened to talk to a few of the army guys who actually knew a couple of the recipients, and the version they told had more to do with happenstance and getting killed rather than selfless bravery. Abraham Lincoln is Lincoln to the Americans, yet Jinnah will always be Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah Rehmat-ullah-Alaihe to us. Any Pakistani soldier killed is a shaheed, all our national heroes are demigods, and God is always on our side. Come to think of it, there’s not much difference there with the average American mind.
    Thankfully, I managed to grow up with a mostly neutral (rather than jingoistic) mindset, but there are millions of gullible kids who grew up and were brainwashed that Zia era with such propaganda, and are now adults. With the dish culture, the intensity of the hatred and hero-worship seems to have eased, and Hopefully, thanks to the internet and efforts like this project, the coming generations will have access to all versions of information to counter the propaganda.

  6. Jehanzeb on 10 Sep 2007 at 3:56 am

    Salam Athar
    If you are implying BRB was the major factor in helping Pakistan Army defend Lahore, perhaps no army in the world should have conquered any major city throughout the world ever. (The point being almost every major city is situated alongside a river, and in the bygone days cities, forts etc were built with rivers constituting an essential part of defensive strategy)

    Regards
    Jehanzeb

  7. Rehmat Yazdani on 10 Sep 2007 at 3:01 pm

    I think ‘murder of history’ is very normal in an un-democratic state like Pakistan. I still can recall all that rubbish which I was forced to read at school about Pakistan. I at times wonder, If a mediocre Pakistani after reading all that distorted version of history at school would be able to listen to anything that differs from what he/she has read / is asked to believe. There are people in Pakistan who consider Ayub Khan [ for 1965 war, we celebrate 6th September every year because of the created general impression that Pakistan had won the war ] and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto [ because he ran his political campaign on socialist principles of Roti, Kapra aur Makaan although he forgot about his slogans and accommodated feudals after winning election ] as national heroes because they are not fully aware of Pakistan’s political history. I agree with Athar that Z A Bhutto was a close adviser to / real influence on Ayub Khan during 1965 war and that Indian attack on Pakistan was an aftermath of covert operation Gibraltar initiated by Pakistan. I here would like to add Rann of Kutch [April 7, 1965] attack. At that time Ayub Khan was in Moscow and was notified by a telegram which simply explains how much aware was Ayub Khan of that attack. As far as covert operation Gibraltar is concerned, Ayub Khan was not in favor of that and he had rejected it initially. But as has been discussed by Athar, the ‘hawkish’ foreign minister Z. A. Bhutto convinced Ayub Khan to infiltrate in Kashmir and thus we had the 1965 war.

    Schofield, J. (2000). Militarized Decision-Making for War in Pakistan: 1947-1971. Armed Forces & Society, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 131-148.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/indo-pak_1965.htm

  8. Anwar on 13 Sep 2007 at 5:26 pm

    1965 war was a foolish war from the very start. In UK, experts had predicted that both countries could not continue with the war for more than 18 days (economic/capital reserves) if fought at that level. And that turned out to be fairly accurate.
    Propaganda of victories only strengthened the “Jehadi” resolve and false pride of martial race that was shattered in 1971.
    Kargil was another one dimensional thought process.
    Pakistan has spent too much on keeping the Kashmir issue alive and also lost a lot. It is about time a political settlement is reached with India and mark permanent boundaries to finally work for the prosperity and education of the masses.
    Regarding ZAB - he was Machiavellian character not rooted in the soil and no different from his father who loaded trains with his wealth and migrated from Junagarh to settle in the new country.

  9. sharjeel khan on 24 Dec 2009 at 2:05 pm

    1965 war has significance but more significance i give to tashkent declaration which,due to ayub khan, gave away all the land that we gained in the war back to india. it doesnot matter if it was a barren dessert in sindh rajhastan border because recently huge coal reserves are found in sindh desert. It would be a pain which indian leaders would rather forget,especially indira gandhi, who might have died when she heard it.

  10. AA on 10 Sep 2011 at 10:21 pm

    Appreciate the desire to deal with the truth but the facts seem incongruous with what independent sources record. There are pictures of Indian soldiers on the outskirts of Lahore. Pakistan held around 240 Sq Miles of Indian territory but India held 760 Sq Miles of Pakistani territory. Finally, almost all sources observe that Pakistan stood on the verge of defeat and appealed to UN for ceasefire. It was this diplomacy that saved Lahore and Pakistan, not the tanks.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Security Question: This is no trick question--only to keep the automated ones of out of out of this website. Write the name of the country this website is primarily about? (Hint: it starts with a capital P)