What's new

1965 War Documentary Fath-e-Mobin

India & Pakistan will forever claim and counter claim on the outcome of the war, but
this is what the International observers and media saw and reported on the 1965 war. !!!!


During 1965 War, India’s General Chaudhry ordered his troops to march on Sialkot and Lahore – jauntily inviting his officers to join him for drinks that evening in Lahore Gymkhana. He did not reckon on the Pakistani troops.

“The first Indian regiment that found itself face to face with Pakistanis didn’t get clobbered,” said a report in Washington DC, America. “They just turned and ran, leaving all of their equipment, artillery supplies and even extra clothing and supplies behind”.

I have been a journalist now for twenty years, ‘reported American Broadcasting Corporation’s Roy Maloni, “and want to go on record that I have never seen a more confident and victorious group of soldiers than those fighting for Pakistan, right now.

“India is claiming all-out victory. I have not been able to find any trace of it. All I can see are troops, tanks and other war material rolling in a steady towards the front … These Muslims of Pakistan are natural fighters and they ask for no quarter and they give none. In any war, such as the one going on between India and Pakistan right now, the propaganda claims on either side are likely to be startling. But if I have to take bet today, my money would be on the Pakistan side. “

The London Daily Mirror reported, “There is a smell of death in the burning Pakistan sun. For it was here that India’s attacking forces came to a dead stop. “During the night they threw in every reinforcement they could find. But wave after wave of attacks were repulsed by the Pakistani troops.”

“India”, said the London Daily Times “is being soundly beaten by a nation which is outnumbered by four and a half to one in population and three to one in size of armed forces.” In Times reporter Louis Karrer wrote, “Who can defeat a nation which knows how to play hide and seek with death“.

“… I will never forget the smile full of nerve the conducting army officers gave me. This smile told me how fearless and brave are the Pakistani young men. “Playing with fire to these men — from the “jawan” to the General Officer Commanding — was like children playing with marbles in the streets.

“I asked the GOC how it was that despite a small number Pakistanis were overpowering the Indians? He looked at me, smiled and said: “if courage, bravery and patriotism were purchasable commodities, then India would have got them with American aid.”

“Pakistan has been able to gain complete command of the air by literally knocking the Indian planes out of the skies, if they had not already run away.”

Sunday Times London, Sep 19, 1965: “Indian pilots are inferior to Pakistani pilots and Indian officers’ leadership has been generally deplorable. India is being soundly beaten by a nation which is outnumbered by four and a half to one in population and three to one three to one in size of armed forces.”

“Pakistan’s success in the air means that she has been able to redeploy her relatively small army — professionally among the best in Asia — with impunity, plugging gaps in the long front in the face of each Indian thrust”.

Patrick Seale, “The Observer, London”, Sep 12, 1965: “By all accounts the courage displayed by the Pakistan Air Force pilots is reminiscent of the bravery of the few young and dedicated pilots who saved this country from Nazi invaders in the critical Battle of Britain during the last war”.

Roy Meloni, American Broadcasting Corporation, Sep 15, 1965: “India is claiming all out victory. I have not been able to find any trace of it. All I can see are troops, tanks and other war material rolling in a steady stream towards the front.”

“If the Indian Air Force is so victorious, why has it not tried to halt this flow? The answer is that it has been knocked from the skies by Pakistani planes. “

“Pakistan claims to have destroyed something like 1/3rd the Indian Air Force, and foreign observers, who are in a position to know say that Pakistani pilots have claimed even higher kills than this; but the Pakistani Air Force has been scrupulously honest in evaluating these claims. Pakistan Air Force is claiming credit for only those killings that can be checked from other sources.”

Peter Preston, “The Guardian, London” – Sep 24, 1965: “One thing I am convinced of is that Pakistan morally and even physically won the air battle against immense odds. “

“Although the Air Force gladly gives most credit to the Army, this is perhaps over-generous. India with roughly five times greater air-power expected an easy air-superiority. Her total failure to attain it may be seen retrospectively as a vital, possibly the most vital, of the whole conflict.”

“Nur Khan is an alert, incisive man of 41, who seems even less. For six years he was on secondment and responsible for running Pakistan’s civil air-line, which, in a country where ‘now’ means sometime and ‘sometime’ means never, is a model of efficiency. He talks without the jargon of a press relations officer. He does not quibble about figures. Immediately one has confidence in what he says.”

“His estimates proffered diffidently but with as much photographic evidence as possible speak for themselves. Indian and Pakistani losses, he thinks, are in something like a ratio of ten to one.”

“Yet, the quality of equipment, Nur insists, is less important than flying ability and determination. The Indians have no sense of purpose. The Pakistanis were defending their own country and willingly taking greater risks. ‘The average bomber crew flew 15 to 20 sorties. My difficulty was restraining them, not pushing them on.‘ “

“This is more than nationalistic pride. Talk to the pilots and you get the same intense story.”

Everett G. Martin, General Editor, Newsweek, Sep 20, 1965: “One point particularly noted by military observers is that the Indians in their first advances, the Indians did not use air power effectively to support their troops. In contrast, the Pakistanis, with sophisticated timing, swooped in on Ambala airfield and destroyed some 25 Indian planes just after they had landed and were sitting on the ground out of fuel and powerless to escape (NOTE: PAF has not claimed any IAF aircraft during its attacks on Ambala due to non-availability of concrete evidence of damage in night bombing.)

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

Indonesian Herald, Sep 11, 1965: “India’s barbarity is mounting in fury as the Indian army and Air Force, severely mauled, are showing signs of demoralisation. The huge losses suffered by the Indian Armed Forces during the last 12 days of fighting could not be kept from the Indian public and in retaliation, the Indian armed forces are indulging in the most barbaric methods.”

“The Chief of Indian Air Force could no longer ensure the safety of Indian air space. A well known Indian journalist, Mr Frank Moraes, in a talk from All-India radio, also admitted that IAF had suffered severe losses and it was no use hiding the fact and India should be prepared for more losses“.

AFP Correspondent, Reporting on Sep 9, 1965: Pakistani forces thrusting six miles deep into Indian territory the south-east of Lahore have checked the Indian offensive launched on Sep 6 against the capital of West Pakistan.

Pakistani infantry supported by armour and guns were today entrenched six miles east of the Indian border, and well beyond Indian town of Khem Karan, the capture of which last week forced Indian tanks and men to make a hasty retreat.

From Khem Karan, an evergreen village now deserted by its 15,000 people, a 40-mile road leads directly to Amritsar, holy capital of India’s restive Sikhs. And a Pakistani offensive along that road could threaten the rear of Indian forces still facing Lahore from East Punjab.

As I visited Khem Karan today with the first party of newsmen shown into India by Pakistani officers, evidence of the Indians’ hasty withdrawal lay everywhere in the flat dust blown fields. Intact mortars and American made ammunition, much of which was still crated, for 81 and 120 mm mortars, shells for 90 mm tank guns, rifle cartridges in hundred, stacks of fuel in barrel, had been left behind.

India had sent against Lahore one armoured brigade and two infantry divisions. The initial thrust on Sep 6 carried the Indians two and a half miles deep into Pakistan from Khem Karan and the Pakistanis say they were outnumbered six to one.

The Pakistanis pushed the Indians back at the cost of bitter fighting. One Pakistani armoured unit ran into an Indian armoured regiment, the Ninth Royal Deccan Horse… and no shots were spared. I saw two Indian Sherman tanks on the road to Khem Karan blown clean through, one in the rear and one in the front, each by a single Pakistani shell with the dead crew still inside. Indian dead lay unburied in the fields. An Indian border post was riddled with bullets and shells. This is real war, even though Pakistani infantry are now resting at forward posts, with Indians on the defensive and the main action in the air.

Indian British made Canberra’s, Soviet made MiG-21s and French made Mystere and Ouragons constantly swoop, strafe and bomb from a safe altitude, for Pakistani anti-aircraft units are very much on the alert. On the road from Lahore charred trucks lay twisted wrecks, one of them still aflame. It is war run by cool professionals, with every gun and tank well protected by camouflage nets, every trench where it should be, perfect discipline and very high morale.

Almost every Pakistani officer says, “We are not interested in territorial gains, but we are very keen to give the Indians a hard lesson and we won’t stop short of that”.

BBC Commentary by Charles Douglas Home, Sep 10, 1965: “Man for man, unit for unit, Pakistan’s smaller Army is at a higher standard of training than the Indian Army. The present Indian intention was to scatter Pakistan’s smaller Army by making several other thrusts apart from the main fighting area in the Lahore sector. The intense air activity had prevented the mass movement of Indian troops by air”.

Christian Science Monitor, Sep 10, 1965: The Pakistan-India conflict, in the Pentagon’s early assessment, pits tighter discipline, a higher morale, better training, and some superior equipment among the Pakistanis against considerably larger Indian Land, Air and Sea Forces.

Washington sources see Pakistan aiming to humiliate India in a short conflict. They judge India as depending on its juggernaut to crush Pakistanis under sheer military weight. Armoured strength between the two forces is about equal but the Pakistani tanks are more modern.”

The ‘New York Times’, Sep 10, 1965: Pakistan has a somewhat more homogeneous army with less ethnic and religious frictions. Its soldiers have a high reputation for will to fight; and in Mohammad Ayub Khan, the head of state and Sandhurst-trained professional soldier, the army has always had a sympathetic supporter.

Joe McGowan Jr., Washington Post, Sep 10, 1965: “We fought for you last time,” several Pakistanis told me, referring to their wartime service under British command. “But this time it is our war and we shall fight it to the finish”.

‘Top of the News’, Washington, Sep 6-10, 1965: Nehru was not worried much about aggression when India took Goa. But Shastri has plenty to worry about now, because he is facing penal and disciplinary action by one of the toughest and best trained armies in the world, excellently led, highly organized and totally dedicated. For him he has a motley, disorganized and low-morale force of four times as many men as Pakistan, but they cannot or will not fight. They only beg.

The Pakistan military hardware, including tanks, planes, and ground-warfare equipment of every kind is far superior to that of Indians, and one long time expert of the Indian-Pakistan picture told me this afternoon that in his military opinion, there is little doubt but that the Pakistanis will lick the Indians in the long run, despite the fact that the Indian army outnumbers the Pakistan army four to one.

This expert said, however, that there is great disparity between the qualities of the two armies, not to mention the disparity in equipment. The Indian soldier is soft while the Pakistan soldier is tough and determined. The Indian leadership is vacillating and uncertain, while the Pakistan leadership is well trained, highly talented, and decisive.

The Indian Air Force is somewhat larger than the Pakistan Air Force in numbers of planes, but there is no organizational pattern to the way they have been acquired or to what is on hand. It is a weird conglomeration of all sorts and conditions of aircraft from a variety of countries, even including France and the maintenance problem is staggering, even if adequate maintenance personnel were available. It means a vast stocking of replacement parts (different for virtually every type of plane they have). On the contrary the Pakistan Air Force has been intelligent enough to standardise to a very high degree, thus reducing their maintenance problem to a minimum. And this is vitally important as any war proceeds beyond the very first stages.

Furthermore, it began to develop today that the Indian claims of having shot down large numbers of Pakistan Air Force planes in the first days of conflict were highly exaggerated, and that the Pakistan losses have been virtually nil in this line.

The Indian claims, frankly, were highly suspicious from the beginning because they are notably poor aviators and their equipment is antiquated and not at all a match for the modern jet equipment of the Pakistan Air Force. It just didn’t hold water to anyone who knew the details of the Indian air inventory as against that of Pakistan, that any such victories could have been achieved by the Indians”.

USA – Aviation Week & Space Technology – Dec 1968 issue:For the PAF, the 1965 War was as climatic as the Israeli victory over the Arabs in 1967. A further similarity was that Indian air power had an approximately 5:1 numerical superiority at the start of the conflict. Unlike the Middle East conflict, the Pakistani air victory was achieved to a large degree by air-to-air combat rather than on ground. But it was as absolute as that attained by Israel”.

Encyclopaedia of Aircraft printed in several countries by Orbis Publications – Volume 5: “Pakistan’s Air Force gained a remarkable victory over India in this brief 22 day war, exploiting its opponent’s weaknesses in an exemplary style – Deeply shaken by reverse, India began an extensive modernisation and training program, meanwhile covering its defeat with effective propaganda smoke screen”.

Here ends the story.
wow so many victories .. so many testimonials ! Net Result :We will Liberate of Kahsmir turned into we managed to save Lahore !!

False my friend, you clearly also tried to take Lahore and Sialkot but we put your hand invasion at a stop, so you didn't achieve your objectives either.
we were also planning to capture karachi and Peshawar .. but u stopped us ! so brave of you.
 
were also planning to capture karachi and Peshawar .. but u stopped us ! so brave of you.

You didn't actually launch any assaults on those cities, but you did launch failed ones on Lahore and Sialkot. So your sarcasm doesn't even work here.
 
You didn't actually launch any assaults on those cities, but you did launch failed ones on Lahore and Sialkot. So your sarcasm doesn't even work here.
How do you know? .. after capturing Lahore and Punjab we had planned to move towards Sindh and KPK.
 
wow so many victories .. so many testimonials ! Net Result :We will Liberate of Kahsmir turned into we managed to save Lahore !!
Deprived your warlords of their victory toast, hell it must be a proud moment for the Indians when the Air chief admits that it's four times larger air force can't guarantee the safety of Indian air space.
 
Deprived your warlords of their victory toast, hell it must be a proud moment for the Indians when the Air chief admits that it's four times larger air force can't guarantee the safety of Indian air space.
good .. u managed to save ur land ! and despite winning every battles .. got nothing at the end !
 
good .. u managed to save ur land ! and despite winning every battles .. got nothing at the end !
Well you did read some half a dozen acknowledgement reports from around the globe, however, since there's no mention of TOI, then i guess you will consider it ab loss.... but at least your warlords know the real score. :)
 
Well you did read some half a dozen acknowledgement reports from around the globe, however, since there's no mention of TOI, then i guess you will consider it ab loss.... but at least your warlords know the real score. :)
check ur own war lords like Noor Khan etc .. !
 
First, let me apologise for closing this thread in order to do this post; it is in a way abuse of my power but I do it with the need to ensure that any further to & fro trades are done after reading this and done with measured responses. Perhaps I should make a new thread of this, but for now this will suffice.


Piecing the 1965 Indo-Pak war- A short hypothesis

Now, Pakistan has, is and will continue to be in a state of on and off hot and cold war with India. This forum is where we converse with our enemy just an many nations have with theirs on neutral ground since mankind learnt war.

The whole thread is based off the premise in what is clearly a propaganda film and hence is always going to have skewed facts and metrics. This is NO different than a propaganda film from India, Turkey, China or even the United States. What propaganda is and what it represents is better left for people of understanding to explore, appreciate and critique altogether and people of lesser understanding, dead faith along with patriotism(Bless you Samuel Johnson)
""In a time of war the nation is always of one mind, eager to hear something good of themselves and ill of the enemy. At this time the task of the news-writer is easy; they have nothing to do but to tell that a battle is expected, and afterwards that a battle has been fought, in which we and our friends, whether conquering or conquered, did all, and our enemies did nothing."

While many have written from both ends on the 65 war, any many "neutral" efforts have been made where the term "neutral" teeters on the fulcrum of available information, personal opinion and honesty of character of the narrator. So it is here that I decide to put my character to a meagre exercise of trying to piece together as to how and who did what in the 65 war.

The result of this is a rather different yet familiar narrative to what is taught in school to both sides of the border, yet conveniently leaves out the people factor. PDF(among other social media) is a farce when it comes to knowing about who lies on the other side of the border. One learns about a people by being with them, by eating with them, by talking to them in the same room, by sharing accommodation and chump change for food.
To make the post short, Ill try to sum up important points and I leave it to the readers to tear apart or appreciate as they wish. I would endeavour my best to name the sources but unlike many of our self proclaimed clergy in Pakistan; I cannot parrot out the exact paragraphs of books


From the earliest of understanding via hearing the conversations of elders in the TV lounge while I played with model airplanes, Kashmir solicited a rather vague narrative of how Kashmir was ours and India had captured it. With the textbooks of school it grew to how the Indians had manipulated a Hindu Raja to accede to them as he was losing his seat to a Massive muslim uprising within the princely state of Kashmir. Due to this unfair decision, Pakistani forces were sent to support the freedom fighters under the orders of Quaid-e-Azam even though the British C-in-C of the Pakistan Army would not fight ( why so much angst and blame was placed on the British officers is rather odd considering that anyone from the same country would be aghast at fighting their fellow countryman). The result was that if not for the UN ceasefire, the Kashmiri freedom forces would have overtaken the Raja and all of Kashmir would be Pakistan's. That is the crux of what was taught and while it evolved with greater details and changing pieces of the puzzle; besides numerical mentions of UN resolutions and its texts along with the newer textbooks pushing the "right of Kashmiri self-determination" instead of "Kashmiris want to be with Pakistan".. not much more is elucidated unless you are a student of social or political sciences( I wonder what they learn?).

So the lessons on Kashmir had to be self taught; from the autobiographies of seasoned diplomats to military veterans, on both sides. From the passionate and respected likes of Qudratullah Shahab to Isphanai to Zafrullah Khan, to books by veterans such as A.C Mansour Shah, Sajjad Haider, those by Shuja Nawaz and Maj. Amin. Books by Naul on personal accounts and then countless others by IFS have been skimmed through via visits to a certain Defence Housing Authority Library in Karachi.

The problem of Kashmir:

The greatest crime that the British committed during their years of rule on India was that they never treated it as part of their Empire and continued the approach taken by the EiC. Instead treating it as a gold mine for resources. That meant minimising losses whilst maximising profits. This meant trying to forge alliances of convenience wherever possible and planting toadies where they could. Kashmir was no exception.

As mentioned by others earlier in this thread, the land of Kashmir has evolved both in composition of its peoples and its geographic domain. The origin of Kashmiris associated less with races and more with geography. So whilst a resident of the vale of Kashmir would be aghast at acknowledging one from Mirpur as Kashmiri, they also do not acknowledge many others within the Vale as Kashmiri and identify them as belonging to Jammu. On the other hand, those that do identify themselves as Kashmiri are also not incorrect since the various rulers that have created and abolished administrative lines over their empire have all expanded and cropped areas under a singular nomenclature which has led to many more areas in the subcontinent with differing opinions on who really gets to use that moniker.

It is prudent then to skip the origins and demarcations of who is Kashmiri and who is not and concentrate on the Princely state of Kashmir and all those that resided in it; as Kashmiris. There was a Dogra Raja that ruled it courtesy of Ranjit Singh and essentially represented the people of Jammu rather than the entirety of his "state"(which interestingly was exactly a 100 years old at the time of partition). However, due to the nature of the valley and its previous history under Muslim rule as being a piece of land fairly less interested in who ruled it as long as business was usual( Hence the angst against the Sikh empire which tried to make up for its high expenses by raising taxes in the then resource rich valley along with their usual anti-muslim efforts to avenge the excesses of Aurangzeb). The Dogra's inherited this skewed distribution of wealth due to their Sikh benefactors, and therein lies the beginning of the problem of Kashmir and the root cause; economic inequality.

To be continued. Part 2.

My suggestion would be to start a NEW thread titled

Why does INDIA WANT Kashmir

We know why Pakistan wants Kashmir ; the other question should also be explored
 
They were still disputed, so India setting up posts there would naturally trigger some sort of response from Pakistan, not saying it was the right response, but still a response none the less.
lt could have responded by going to intl court. but since it responded militarily, it is the aggressor. claiming something without basis is another trait of the aggressor.
 
How do you know? .. after capturing Lahore and Punjab we had planned to move towards Sindh and KPK.

No you didn't, your army never expressed that as your objective.

lt could have responded by going to intl court. but since it responded militarily, it is the aggressor. claiming something without basis is another trait of the aggressor.

The international court never listens to either of us, except for when we actually go to war. It's a good thing we now have nukes, otherwise the rest of the world would keep fueling us for war.
 
Going after East and West at the same time in 65 would be a risk decision, again, it was only taken in 71 because East was in a civil war, and India was suffering because of the civil war in the East. Hence why the decision was made 6 years later, not in 65.
Dude this is what i am trying to explain....why would we be even bothered to go after west...when there was an easy target sitting right there in our east....Let me try one more time...Let's go back to 65 using your explanation of events...As per you India wanted to control lot of land to give Pakistan a phycological blow as well as use it as a bargaining chip....As per you India was the aggressor and attacked Pakistan...Do let me know if you have any disagreement until this point...

Now assuming we are on same page...here is my question...Given I want to achieve above and knowing very well that it is risky for me to open fronts at east and west...which one should I use?? A difficult one or an easy one??

Now here is my view on this(in fact what happened) - When my aim is to hurt you I will go for the easy target...when my aim to save my a$$ I will hit where it will hurt you the most so that i can save my a$$...right??..Now read the below sequence carefully and with an open mind.

Given there is a thrust in Kashmir(read Gibraltar followed by Grand Slam) which is making me sweat it is illogical for me to open a front in eastern side...I mean what do you expect PA would have done had we opened a front in Eastern sector in 65?? Leave Kashmir and move to Karachi so that they can be shipped to eastern sector?? No..they would continue to move inwards so that when ceasefire comes into play they can negotiate the lost land in eastern sector with victories in western sector...This has always been your mantra..."Defence of East lies in West"... which is obviously not acceptable to me since Kashmir is very dear to us...so what is my choice here?? Threaten the area that PA don't want to loose...which is mainland Pakistan...the moment we did that operations in Kashmir were halted and resources shifted to save Lahore and Sialkot etc...

Now let's talk briefly about 71...We simply defeated the basic premise of your Military strategy...i.e. Defence of East lies in West..we took good amount of time and carefully put our defences in west....and then went in for onslaught in east.. results are in front of us...

Also, we did not do fine after taking in the Afghan refugees, just look at what's happened to us now because of it.
Don't mix the issues...what you are finding now is the romance of Zia with radicals...otherwise give me your issues with them before 9/11 and WOT?? Anyways what i meant was about economical strain being used as an alibi by GOI to go after Pakistan...Your military leaders have often thrown this aspect of war right there in dustbin..i.e. managing International community...I have lot of grudge against the Iron Lady however with China on one side and US on another pulling 71 was a marvel...

India was most certainly bothered about taking Lahore and Sialkot, you continued offensives right until we stopped you dead in your tracks. You could have easily defended Kashmir alone and applied minimal pressure on the Punjab, but instead you chose to try and take Lahore and Sialkot

Then you don't understand how difficult mountain warfare is...One who controls the heights is the one who will come victorious 9 out of 10 times..Now remember Gibraltar and Grandslam were pretty dead serious plans(Militarily) and IA was finding it hard to stop PA onslaught..why?? The best weapon in war is the surprise element...just check what your pre-emptive strikes did to IAF in 65...similarly we were not prepared enough to defend Kashmir and thus needed another front...Lahore and Sialkot were perfect in that aspect...Let me give you an example - Do you know many times PA tried to win back Siachen before finally declaring that is can't be won militarily??

I am sorry but I don't believe 800,000 troops would struggle against 200,000 troops if they chose to fight on the defensive.[/B]
Though its not always about the numbers however let me give it to you...Yes as was proved in 71...in 65 we were already under attack...PA was already threatening NH1 and we were too late to do something there...so they say - time is a luxury in war.....Just to give you an example - Do you know how long it took India to organize her forces after Parliament attack in 2003?? Here we are talking about 65...Pakistan lack of geographic depth has its pros and cons...so does India's huge size. Join the dots and you will have your answer...

As for US violating our airspace, their drones are operating with permission of the PA, it's only the government that whines.
and That my friend concludes the problem!! Let me ask you..how do you know they are operating with PA permission?? Has your military come on records and said that?? Why is your parliament then speaking a different tune? The humiliating Osama Bin Laden episode was there for all of us to see...Now what best can be done here....conspiracy theories that there are tacit understandings and what not...Now let me ask you a straight question...Do you know what it takes to bring down an American drone?? If you know then where is the question of permission from PA..i mean do you a choice here? When a mere call from bush can make you do a u-turn on AF then whom are we trying to fool here??
 
and That my friend concludes the problem!! Let me ask you..how do you know they are operating with PA permission?? Has your military come on records and said that?? Why is your parliament then speaking a different tune? The humiliating Osama Bin Laden episode was there for all of us to see...Now what best can be done here....conspiracy theories that there are tacit understandings and what not...Now let me ask you a straight question...Do you know what it takes to bring down an American drone?? If you know then where is the question of permission from PA..i mean do you a choice here? When a mere call from bush can make you do a u-turn on AF then whom are we trying to fool here??

If our military came on record and said that, they would lose popularity, so not a wise move. Our government speaks a different tune because they and the army have different interests. The Bin Laden episode proved nothing, even if they did sneak into Pakistan, they could do it in most if not every other nation too. And yes we did have a choice, if Iraq and Serbia could shoot down UAV's, so can we.
 
If our military came on record and said that, they would lose popularity, so not a wise move.
I understand what you are trying to imply here...however it is also equally important that illusions surrounding the military be checked at some level...I mean a handful of chaps can pull up something like Kargil, brings the country to face risk of a nuclear showdown, results in lot of flak internationally evaporating the Kashmir sympathy/cause for good and yet went ahead with coup and martial law for years...not only that refuse to even set up a commission to find out what really happened...sells the whole episode as some god send victory and astonishingly people believing that!! This kind of sh1t won't sell in almost whole of the world...Anyways only people of Pakistan has the power to bring that change....so good luck with that...

Our government speaks a different tune because they and the army have different interests.
Sorry but No...The elements of foreign policy are still in Army's control. We all know that... so civilian govt. can't do jack at the expense of Army's interest...Having said that given Army is treated as god send liberators the status quo works in their favor. Obviously civilian govt. restricting us to act sounds far better than we can't do much..right?

The Bin Laden episode proved nothing, even if they did sneak into Pakistan, they could do it in most if not every other nation too.
NO...and this time a BIG NO...do you think they can sneak into China? Russia? Iran?(purposefully not mentioning India)??...no they can't...why?? No matter how much you guys deny however dependence on US makes your foreign policy numb...Unfortunately Pakistan is now trying to find shelter in China which is not ready as of now..not at that level. Only god knows if China will do a US on Pakistan but one thing is for sure if you can't take care of yourself then be prepared to be humbled time and again by the so called protector.

And yes we did have a choice, if Iraq and Serbia could shoot down UAV's, so can we.
Well of course if you want to be Iraq and Serbia or for that matter North Korea than yes...of-course better sense prevailed and Pakistan gulped the bitter pill to see the light of the day...
 

Back
Top Bottom