It has fared particularly well given that it's larger and more belligerent neighbour has been trying to destroy it through either direct or indirect terrorism, warfare or otherwise. It has fought off India approximately four times, and has freed over a third of Kashmir successfully; and also created a common border with China. It has won, either partially or fully, two major wars against the Hindu state (winning the 1947, 1965 wars and even arguably having the upper hand in the 1999 war), with the exception of the disastrous 1971 Civil War that resulted in the creation of Bangladesh; only because Bengalis declared and fought for their independence, with India only acting a secondary force, aiding the Bengalis, who did most of the work.

The history of the Pakistan State Military has only gone on for 68 years, but it has since become one of the most formidable fighting forces in the world. It also has a particularly strong intelligence network, top of the range special tactical units and diverse historical paramilitary factions. It has a documented history of warfare and is a regional power, rivalling that of India, keeping it in check; along with having it's own set of allies that have included China, Saudi Arabia, the United States and the Afghan Taliban. The Pakistan State Military is one of the most powerful institutions in the country; despite being surrounded by either hostile nations, or unstable countries (with the exception of Iran).

Manpower:— Other sources claim Pakistan has 643,800 active duty soldiers; the army making up 550,000, the navy 23,800 sailors and the air force 70,000. [8] The latter of these servicemen are some of the best trained pilots in the world, with annual flight hours numbering at some 210 per pilot (with total aircraft at 422 combat specific). [8] Total paramilitary forces make up 304,000 active duty personnel, with an additional 185,000 national guards. [8] The Pakistani Navy also has 8 submarines in it's arsenal. [8] In 2015, Pakistan began plans to upgrade it's submarine fleet to the Yuan-Class 335; and in May 22nd, China docked a submarine carrying 65 sailors at a Karachi port in what was thought to be an inspection of the machines by the military, which angered India. [9] Pakistan later signed a $4—$5 billion dollar deal with China to buy 8 Yuan class submarines at a cost of $500—$625 million dollars each. [10] In contrast the Indian armed forces have a total force numbering some 1,325,000 soldiers serving in the active duty corps, with an additional 1,555,000 in the reserves. [8] Of this total number, the Indian army makes up 1,125,000 servicemen, and the navy 58,350 (who additionally have 14 submarines, 13 frigates, 11 destroyers and 1 aircraft carrier). [8] Air force personnel make up 127,200 employees, who have 8,656 combat capable aircraft (however Indian pilots are less well-trained, having an average flight time of 180 hours per pilot). [8] Indian paramilitary forces make up 1,400,000 men (including 230,000 border guards). [8]

Recruits:— In 2003, the BBC reported the total manpower of the Pakistan military amounted to 550,000 armed personnel, in contrast to Indias 1.10 million; which ran on a budget of $2.6 billion dollars and $15.9 billion dollars respectively. [4] The country also had 353 military aircraft in contrast to 738 of the latter. [4] By 2005, Pakistan had 2,000 tanks, [5] 1,300 towed artillery, [5] ten submarines, [5] eight frigates, [5] and 350 combat aircraft (that include 2 squadrons of F-16s). [5] Military personnel totaled two armoured divisions and nineteen infantry divisions (consisting of 550,000 active duty soldiers). [5] In 2015, Pakistan had a total of 617,000 active duty personnel, with an additional 515,000 in the active reserves (totaling 1,167,000 personnel), with over 75 million men fit for duty out of possible 93 million. [6] On the logistics side, it has 9,629 independent land based systems, that include 2,924 battle tanks, 2,828 armored vehicles and 3,278 towed artillery, [6] 914 aircraft (of which 387 are fighter jets and 361 helicopters), [6] and 74 naval vessels, but currently no aircraft carriers. [6] The military consists of nine army corps. [n. 1] Each of Pakistan's army corps is made up of two to three divisions per active corp; which further consists of three brigades, housing 16,000–18,000 men. [7] Additionally each brigade is made up of at least three battalion squads or more that house between 600–900 men [7] Other groups which assist the army include the 65,000 Frontier Corps , [5] and 30,000 Pakistani Rangers , [5]

Manpower:— Other sources claim Pakistan has 643,800 active duty soldiers; the army making up 550,000, the navy 23,800 sailors and the air force 70,000. [8] The latter of these servicemen are some of the best trained pilots in the world, with annual flight hours numbering at some 210 per pilot (with total aircraft at 422 combat specific). [8] Total paramilitary forces make up 304,000 active duty personnel, with an additional 185,000 national guards. [8] The Pakistani Navy also has 8 submarines in it's arsenal. [8] In 2015, Pakistan began plans to upgrade it's submarine fleet to the Yuan-Class 335; and in May 22nd, China docked a submarine carrying 65 sailors at a Karachi port in what was thought to be an inspection of the machines by the military, which angered India. [9] Pakistan later signed a $4—$5 billion dollar deal with China to buy 8 Yuan class submarines at a cost of $500—$625 million dollars each. [10] In contrast the Indian armed forces have a total force numbering some 1,325,000 soldiers serving in the active duty corps, with an additional 1,555,000 in the reserves. [8] Of this total number, the Indian army makes up 1,125,000 servicemen, and the navy 58,350 (who additionally have 14 submarines, 13 frigates, 11 destroyers and 1 aircraft carrier). [8] Air force personnel make up 127,200 employees, who have 8,656 combat capable aircraft (however Indian pilots are less well-trained, having an average flight time of 180 hours per pilot). [8] Indian paramilitary forces make up 1,400,000 men (including 230,000 border guards). [8]

Recruits:— In 2003, the BBC reported the total manpower of the Pakistan military amounted to 550,000 armed personnel, in contrast to Indias 1.10 million; which ran on a budget of $2.6 billion dollars and $15.9 billion dollars respectively. [4] The country also had 353 military aircraft in contrast to 738 of the latter. [4] By 2005, Pakistan had 2,000 tanks, [5] 1,300 towed artillery, [5] ten submarines, [5] eight frigates, [5] and 350 combat aircraft (that include 2 squadrons of F-16s). [5] Military personnel totaled two armoured divisions and nineteen infantry divisions (consisting of 550,000 active duty soldiers). [5] In 2015, Pakistan had a total of 617,000 active duty personnel, with an additional 515,000 in the active reserves (totaling 1,167,000 personnel), with over 75 million men fit for duty out of possible 93 million. [6] On the logistics side, it has 9,629 independent land based systems, that include 2,924 battle tanks, 2,828 armored vehicles and 3,278 towed artillery, [6] 914 aircraft (of which 387 are fighter jets and 361 helicopters), [6] and 74 naval vessels, but currently no aircraft carriers. [6] The military consists of nine army corps. [n. 2] Each of Pakistan's army corps is made up of two to three divisions per active corp; which further consists of three brigades, housing 16,000–18,000 men. [7] Additionally each brigade is made up of at least three battalion squads or more that house between 600–900 men [7] Other groups which assist the army include the 65,000 Frontier Corps , [5] and 30,000 Pakistani Rangers , [5]

Indigenous Designs:— Pakistan has recently began to design it's own weapons. The Burraq and Shahpur UACV drones are an example. In November 2012, only three countries in the world had UACV's which were Iran, [21] United States [22] and Israel. [22] Pakistan joined the list on March 13th, 2015; with their domestic built Burraq and Shahpur drones. [23] [n. 3] Interestingly Iran was the first country in the world to have invented armed aerial drones (or "unmanned aerial combat vehicle"/"UACV" ), and was the first to use it in a war. [21] [n. 4] The JF-17 Thunder Fighter Jet is another example. The JF-17 is a fighter jet made indigenously [n. 5] in Pakistan and co-produced with China (which was largely responsible for weapons integration; namely of the PL-5 (air-to-air missile), SD-10 (air-to-air missile) and C-802AK (long-range anti-ship missile). It is produced by the Pakistani Air Weapons Complex (AWC) , Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) along with the Chinese Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC) with $250 million dollars investment from both parties. [24] [25] The chief designer of the jet was Yang Wei. [26] [n. 6] The Pakistan defense industry, has included only seven arms fairs up to 2012 where the military and heavy industries have showcased their military hardware. [22] Turkey has two defense contractors, Aselsan and TAI , that made it into the top 100 list of defense companies in 2013. [27] Currently Pakistan does not have any, whereas India has two (total revenue $3.63 billion dollars) and Israel has four ($9.23 billion dollars). [28]

Exports:— In 2013, Pakistan's arms imports were around $1.3 billion dollars, about $200 million dollars less than the previous year. [12] Approximately 25% of this was as a result of the construction of the CAC/PAC JF-17 jets. [12] Of Pakistan's imports 54% of arms imports come directly from China. [12] Pakistan bought 8 Chinese submarines in 2015 at the cost of $5 billion dollars, three weeks before President Xi Jinping was due to make his visit to the country. [13] In 2008 scientists in Pakistan stressed the importance of research and development for the defense industry. [14] Arms exports from Pakistan itself were $300 million dollars in 2008 globally. [15] The Pakistani authorities are very secretive of this data, as they declare much less in official figures. [16] For example the World Bank claims Pakistan had around $3 million dollars worth of exports in 1991, whereas USACDA says that Pakistan exported around $10 million dollars worth of arms (being one of 38 countries out of 142 to have made such exports). [17] Between the decade of 1981 and 1991 Pakistan made a total of $780 million dollars in arms exports ($1.019 billion dollars based on the 1991 dollar exchange rate). [18] This was in contrast to India who exported $130 million dollars ($174 million dollars by the 1991 exchange value) in the same decade. [19] 1984 was Pakistan's best year, for every weapon Pakistan imported, twelve were exported. [18] In 2015 Pakistan exported its first domestically built PAC JF-17 Thunder jets to Burma. [20]

Indigenous Designs:— Pakistan has recently began to design it's own weapons. The Burraq and Shahpur UACV drones are an example. In November 2012, only three countries in the world had UACV's which were Iran, [21] United States [22] and Israel. [22] Pakistan joined the list on March 13th, 2015; with their domestic built Burraq and Shahpur drones. [23] [n. 7] Interestingly Iran was the first country in the world to have invented armed aerial drones (or "unmanned aerial combat vehicle"/"UACV" ), and was the first to use it in a war. [21] [n. 8] The JF-17 Thunder Fighter Jet is another example. The JF-17 is a fighter jet made indigenously [n. 9] in Pakistan and co-produced with China (which was largely responsible for weapons integration; namely of the PL-5 (air-to-air missile), SD-10 (air-to-air missile) and C-802AK (long-range anti-ship missile). It is produced by the Pakistani Air Weapons Complex (AWC) , Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) along with the Chinese Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC) with $250 million dollars investment from both parties. [24] [25] The chief designer of the jet was Yang Wei. [26] [n. 10] The Pakistan defense industry, has included only seven arms fairs up to 2012 where the military and heavy industries have showcased their military hardware. [22] Turkey has two defense contractors, Aselsan and TAI , that made it into the top 100 list of defense companies in 2013. [27] Currently Pakistan does not have any, whereas India has two (total revenue $3.63 billion dollars) and Israel has four ($9.23 billion dollars). [28]

Exports:— In 2013, Pakistan's arms imports were around $1.3 billion dollars, about $200 million dollars less than the previous year. [12] Approximately 25% of this was as a result of the construction of the CAC/PAC JF-17 jets. [12] Of Pakistan's imports 54% of arms imports come directly from China. [12] Pakistan bought 8 Chinese submarines in 2015 at the cost of $5 billion dollars, three weeks before President Xi Jinping was due to make his visit to the country. [13] In 2008 scientists in Pakistan stressed the importance of research and development for the defense industry. [14] Arms exports from Pakistan itself were $300 million dollars in 2008 globally. [15] The Pakistani authorities are very secretive of this data, as they declare much less in official figures. [16] For example the World Bank claims Pakistan had around $3 million dollars worth of exports in 1991, whereas USACDA says that Pakistan exported around $10 million dollars worth of arms (being one of 38 countries out of 142 to have made such exports). [17] Between the decade of 1981 and 1991 Pakistan made a total of $780 million dollars in arms exports ($1.019 billion dollars based on the 1991 dollar exchange rate). [18] This was in contrast to India who exported $130 million dollars ($174 million dollars by the 1991 exchange value) in the same decade. [19] 1984 was Pakistan's best year, for every weapon Pakistan imported, twelve were exported. [18] In 2015 Pakistan exported its first domestically built PAC JF-17 Thunder jets to Burma. [20]

The number of casualties during the course of the war according to many neutral (Western) observers, were a total of 2,000 dead on the battlefield. [55] Indian historians have admitted 1,500 of their soldiers died attempting to seize the state, leaving at most 500 casualties left for the Pakistani forces. However historian Sten Widmalm cites that in actual fact 1,900 Indian soldiers were killed fighting in Kashmir, [56] with Pakistani casualties thus estimated at only 100 dead. Thus at the very minimum between 100–500 Pakistani soldiers were killed during the course of the war compared to India's 1,500–1,900 war dead. Other sources such as Peter Lyon however claim 1,500 died for each country (though he cites several Hindu authors in comparison to one Muslim historian), [48] [52] and could have been as high as 3,000 killed in action for each nation. [51] However, Pakistan clearly suffered far less military casualties overall, which were between 100–3,000 in contrast to India's 1,500–3,000 dead. Less neutral sources, specifically Indian, give grossly exaggerated accounts of Pakistani war dead, claiming "6,000" died, with "14,000" wounded (figures of which are not taken seriously by historians outside India since Indian authors cannot cite verifiable neutral references to this data). [57] However the Indians themselves admit they'd suffered 6,000 casualties. [58] In addition they claim only "1,000" of their soldiers were "missing in action" , and reporting none killed in action. [57] This is clearly impossible given that Pakistan freed more than third of the territory against the Indian terrorists.

Result of the First War Against India:— Pakistan conquered 40% [51] —60% [52] of Kashmir, retaining 37% [52] –40% [51] of it today, giving the rest of it's share to China (marking it up to 20%), [52] leaving India with 40%–43% [52] (India would later invade Pakistan and take the strategically inept Siachin glacier out of spite [53] ). Pakistan however overall gained a significant strategic and military victory over India (which had to run away to the UN and humiliatingly ask for a ceasefire [51] ). Pakistan had also gained itself access to China for the first time by having created a common border between the two countries, [52] which the original partition had failed to establish. For India, it was a resounding and humiliating defeat to it's smaller and weaker neighbour, only softened by it's eventual arrival onto the battlefield (but still unable to drive away Pakistani forces). Pressured only by world powers and their politics, Pakistani forces would only move away of their accord from the region after having been guaranteed a plebiscite would be held for the Kashmiri people; [52] which India would never honour as it knew it would lose outright. [52] Hostilities would resume with Pakistan driven by a strong desire of defense against Indian aggression. Despite Indian provocations India has cared very little for the region, even being unaware that the Chinese had openly built a road in Aksai Chin until 1973, over a decade after the 1962 Sino–Indian War, illustrating further, just how incompetent the Indian military is, and how spiteful they are towards Kashmiri freedom. [54]

They also had strong military ties with their brethren across the border. [50] Approximately 60,000 soldiers from this region alone had fought for the British in World War Two and were later not afraid to stand up against India. [50] As these soldiers returned from the war they found that they were under the rule and thumb of a Hindu state, instead of the Maharaja of Poonch, where the former had implemented harsh and "onerous taxes" in order to cripple them. [50] The Hindu Dogra troops set out to collect these taxes from the defenceless Muslim populace. [50] Upon hearing of the cruelties suffered by the Punjabi Muslims at the hands of heavily armed Hindu and Sikh mobs down south, the Poonchis immediately reacted with outrage. [50] In the same month the genocide of the Punjabi Muslims had occurring; and the Kashmiris soon held a meeting. [50] The meeting was held at Nila Bat, Dhirkot, where they publicly demanded accession to Pakistan. [50] The Maharaja responded by murdering those involved, as his Dogra troops were sent down to hunt them and opened fire on crowds. [50] In revenge, by August 27th, Abdul Qayuum Khan lead a vicious attack against the Dogras. [50] The Maharaja responded in kind by "unleashing the full force of the Dogras" on innocent civilians. [50] The Hindu ruler had now openly declared war on Muslims. [50] In his zeal, Singh attacked entire villages and burnt them to the ground. [50] The response of the Poonchis was sharp. [50] Many took their families to the safety of Pakistan and returned with the intention of raising a revolution against a ruler who committed himself to genocide. [50] [n. 20]

On September 27th, 1947, India was increasingly attempting to assert it's authority on Kashmir. [49] Nehru wrote of India's position regarding the matter to his close aide, Sardar Patel, claiming that the situation was becoming more dangerous and deteriorating fast. [49] He further claimed that the Muslim League and North West Frontier Province were making preparations to enter the state. [49] In reality no such thing was happening, but the urgency of Nehru was based on his own assertion that winter was going to cut off Kashmir from the rest of India, leaving only one route; [49] through the Jhelum Valley. [49] He further claimed that Pakistan was getting ready to take "big action" in the state, as soon as winter came. [49] Sardar Patel therefore continued to pressure Singh into acceding to the Indian union. [49] However Singh was making matters further worse by unleashing a reign of terror against the Muslims of the region, suppressing the right of the people in Poonch where traditionally some of the soldiers of the Indian Army that fought for the British, originated from. [49] Poonch itself is a strategic location between Jhelum, Chenab Rivers and the Pir Panjal Range. [49] The roads of this region were critical and many of the battles of the war were fought in them and nearby towns. [49] Some of them even entered into the lore of each respective country, such as Akhnoor. [49] The Poonchis were battle-hardened Muslims who lived with their families there, also having strong cultural, historical, religious and economic ties with Pakistanis. [50]

Despite winning in Kashmir, Pakistan still suffered from an incoherent and decentralized government at both the political and military levels. India by contrast held better central political, administrative and military power; thus Pakistan had to create their own system very quickly and indigenously in the midst of the war. [47] India also had British commanders in their army (though Pakistan to be fair also had some). [47] Though many of these commanders had little interaction with politicians, the partition and war had exposed a deeper and more disturbing ethnic and religious hatred that had been fermented under British India. [47] For Pakistan, it became unthinkable to abandon Kashmir since it was largely populated by Muslims; to leave it to the Indian state meant being complicit in inflicting mass violence against fellow Muslims. [47] The soldiers on the ground who fought for Pakistan also received no support from the army command and worked mostly on their own, lest the British find out. [47] On the diplomatic level, India could not be negotiated with, which continued to exacerbate tensions between the two countries. [47] Dehli in the meanwhile became ever more fanatical on the issue. [47] Lord Mountbatton, who had advocated for a democratic solution was deliberately rebuffed by the Indians; [47] the Hindus refused a democratic option citing the Kashmiris acceded to the Indian union wilfully, but no such documents exist. [48] It is also notable that India attempted to seize control, by sending troops even without the permission of it's Maharaja. [48]

First Kashmir Liberation War:— The Pakistani military drew blood in it's first war in 1947 when Hari Singh, the Maharaja of Kashmir, a Sikh by religion provoked the Kashmiri insurrection. [45] The territory was 75% Muslim, and his indecision to accede to either Pakistan or India [n. 19] caused a domestic rebellion. [45] The Pakistanis quickly sided with the Kashmiris to free them and join Muslim majority Pakistan. [45] The Maharaja however signed over their rights to Hindu majority India in haste, going against the democratic wishes of Kashmiris; and involving Indian aggression directly. [45] By the wars end the Indians were only successful in capturing Sringar, but were unable to uproot Pakistani forces in the rest of the territory. [45] Tensions would again increase decades later leading to a second war in 1965, in which Pakistan would gain more territory. [45] The political history of Kashmir however also has a stark parallel to other states in India which opted to become independent themselves. One such state was Hyderabad, which was ruled by a Muslim Nizam. [46] Between September and October 1948 the Indian army invaded Hyderabad, with the Hindu army murdering between 27,000—40,000 Muslim men, women, children and babies. [46] All mention of such a massacre by it's "non-violent" leader Nehru, has since been censored in Indian schoolbooks. [46] Kashmir might have suffered a similar fate had Pakistan not intervened, as the Indian government was by far at more of an advantage than Pakistan ever was. [47]

However, according to analysis conducted by the Guardian, Pakistan obtained approximately $21.3 billion dollars in military aid from the US, but during crucial events in it's history the US cut off all aid; the starkest examples being the 1965 Indian War, and the 1971 Civil War ().Economic assistance has totaled $25.5 billion dollars through USAID alone, but in total economic aid since the countries inception has totaled approximately $40.4 billion dollars.As part of the(2002—2010) Pakistan has received $9.2 billion dollars as well.All levels of aid are measured at the 2009 US dollar rates.Therefore in total the Guardian stipulates that Pakistan has received approximately $56 billion dollars from the United States (the equivalent of £30 billion pounds).The US itself has calculated that it owes Pakistan $31.05 billion dollars in appropriation from 2002 to 2015 alone, but the actual amount given to the country is far lower; as theIn terms of aid to Pakistan from the UK, in 2013 this amounted to £338 million pounds (Bangladesh by contrast received £272 million pounds).According to the OECD/DFID report, Pakistan is set to receive £446 million pounds in non-military aid for 2014—2015, describing Pakistan as a

US Military Aid:— Between 1946 and 2012 India had recieved far more aid from the US than Pakistan has ever been given, with India getting $65.1 billion dollars for it's begging bowl, whilst Pakistan was only given $44.4 billion dollars (despite India being an enemy [41] of the US during the Cold War, and an ally of the USSR). [2] However, Pakistan did receive more military aid; $12.9 billion dollars, with India getting $0.897 billion dollars. [2] Total aid given to India amounts of $66 billion dollars (the 7th largest recipient of US aid) whilst Pakistan does not even make the top ten. [2] Most of the aid Pakistan received from the US was during the 1980s (when the Soviet—Afghan War was raging), and after the 2001 New York Incident. [2] Despite this, what was left of the US alliance was still useful for Pakistan. The Americans claimed that they would protect the country's security, but this only translated to the supply of military equipment and some economic aid in the form of loans. [29] Pakistan received $3.2 billion dollars in the space of six years since the war started, which consisted of "soft" loans (at an interest rate of 10%—14%), as well as military credits. [29] The country also separately paid for forty F-16 fighter jets between 1983 and 1986. [29] The second economic package consisted of $4 billion dollars ($2.3 billion dollars was economic; $1.74 billion dollars was in military credits). [29] Historically aid played a key role in Pakistan being able to help defend Afghanistan; which was later cut in 1990. [29]

The relationship with it's US ally became severely strained however in the 1960s when the US dramatically cut off weapons exports to the country; right in the the middle of the War of 1965. This outrageous betrayal pivoted Pakistan towards China; and this soon marked the start of a new Pakistan—China military and economic relationship). [33] Since then, the special relationship has become a strategically important alliance for both countries; for China it ensures economic security; [n. 13] [34] and for Pakistan it helped against existential threats vis a vis a belligerent and anti-Muslim Hindu state. The relationship has had several important implications since the 1965 incident. The most notable was a dramatic move on the part of China to use it's very first veto at the UN at Pakistan's request in 1971. [n. 14] [35] A decade later, China indirectly provided the Afghan people with $200 million dollars in cash every year through Pakistan at it's request during the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan (1979—1989). [35] Later still, in 2010, when a US diplomat confronted the Chinese about their "uncompromising support for Pakistan" China snapped back in kind, saying "Pakistan is our Israel" . [36] [n. 15] In April 2015, China signed a $45—46 billion dollar economic investment agreement with Pakistan, [37] as part of it's grand "Silk Road Fund" project. [38] [n. 16] Around 78% of Pakistanis feel positive about China; conversely 30% of Chinese feel the same, although China's low number can be explained by ignorance and stereotypes regarding South Asians. [39] [n. 17] Nonethless, bilateral trade between the two was worth $12 billion dollars in 2014. [40]

Weapons Aquisition History:— Soon after it's separation and independence from India in 1947, weapons procurement became a top priority for the Pakistani military, with there being an acute sense of insecurity surrounding what India would do, which had simply inherited a far larger and well equipped military from the British. [29] Small weapons were initially purchased from the United Kingdom (and other commonwealth countries), but it was not until the United States started seeking alliances during the cold war, did Pakistan benefit from large ammunitions and weapons supplies for it's three main defense industries. [29] The government by this time had already acknowledged that the country was severely lacking in resources to develop their defensive weapons capabilities; [n. 11] exemplified by the fact that it even lacked resources for even a proper sugar industry (only two factories existed which produced between 8,000—25,000 [30] [31] tonnes of sugar per year). [29] In May 1954, the US and Pakistan signed the "Mutual Defense Assistance Treaty" (MDAT), with Pakistan for the first time receiving first world military training. [29] In September 1955, Pakistan was admitted to the "Southeast Asia Treaty Organization" (SEATO) and the "Central Treaty Organization" (CENTO) at the behest of the US, with a fourth US security agreement (the "Bilateral Agreement of Co-operation" ) signed in May 1959, which allowed the US to set up a military base in Peshawar. [29] The alliance was strategically beneficial for Pakistan, which would otherwise not have been. [29] [n. 12]

The number of casualties during the course of the war according to many neutral (Western) observers, were a total of 2,000 dead on the battlefield. [55] Indian historians have admitted 1,500 of their soldiers died attempting to seize the state, leaving at most 500 casualties left for the Pakistani forces. However historian Sten Widmalm cites that in actual fact 1,900 Indian soldiers were killed fighting in Kashmir, [56] with Pakistani casualties thus estimated at only 100 dead. Thus at the very minimum between 100–500 Pakistani soldiers were killed during the course of the war compared to India's 1,500–1,900 war dead. Other sources such as Peter Lyon however claim 1,500 died for each country (though he cites several Hindu authors in comparison to one Muslim historian), [48] [52] and could have been as high as 3,000 killed in action for each nation. [51] However, Pakistan clearly suffered far less military casualties overall, which were between 100–3,000 in contrast to India's 1,500–3,000 dead. Less neutral sources, specifically Indian, give grossly exaggerated accounts of Pakistani war dead, claiming "6,000" died, with "14,000" wounded (figures of which are not taken seriously by historians outside India since Indian authors cannot cite verifiable neutral references to this data). [57] However the Indians themselves admit they'd suffered 6,000 casualties. [58] In addition they claim only "1,000" of their soldiers were "missing in action" , and reporting none killed in action. [57] This is clearly impossible given that Pakistan freed more than third of the territory against the Indian terrorists.

Result of the First War Against India:— Pakistan conquered 40% [51] —60% [52] of Kashmir, retaining 37% [52] –40% [51] of it today, giving the rest of it's share to China (marking it up to 20%), [52] leaving India with 40%–43% [52] (India would later invade Pakistan and take the strategically inept Siachin glacier out of spite [53] ). Pakistan however overall gained a significant strategic and military victory over India (which had to run away to the UN and humiliatingly ask for a ceasefire [51] ). Pakistan had also gained itself access to China for the first time by having created a common border between the two countries, [52] which the original partition had failed to establish. For India, it was a resounding and humiliating defeat to it's smaller and weaker neighbour, only softened by it's eventual arrival onto the battlefield (but still unable to drive away Pakistani forces). Pressured only by world powers and their politics, Pakistani forces would only move away of their accord from the region after having been guaranteed a plebiscite would be held for the Kashmiri people; [52] which India would never honour as it knew it would lose outright. [52] Hostilities would resume with Pakistan driven by a strong desire of defense against Indian aggression. Despite Indian provocations India has cared very little for the region, even being unaware that the Chinese had openly built a road in Aksai Chin until 1973, over a decade after the 1962 Sino–Indian War, illustrating further, just how incompetent the Indian military is, and how spiteful they are towards Kashmiri freedom. [54]

They also had strong military ties with their brethren across the border. [50] Approximately 60,000 soldiers from this region alone had fought for the British in World War Two and were later not afraid to stand up against India. [50] As these soldiers returned from the war they found that they were under the rule and thumb of a Hindu state, instead of the Maharaja of Poonch, where the former had implemented harsh and "onerous taxes" in order to cripple them. [50] The Hindu Dogra troops set out to collect these taxes from the defenceless Muslim populace. [50] Upon hearing of the cruelties suffered by the Punjabi Muslims at the hands of heavily armed Hindu and Sikh mobs down south, the Poonchis immediately reacted with outrage. [50] In the same month the genocide of the Punjabi Muslims had occurring; and the Kashmiris soon held a meeting. [50] The meeting was held at Nila Bat, Dhirkot, where they publicly demanded accession to Pakistan. [50] The Maharaja responded by murdering those involved, as his Dogra troops were sent down to hunt them and opened fire on crowds. [50] In revenge, by August 27th, Abdul Qayuum Khan lead a vicious attack against the Dogras. [50] The Maharaja responded in kind by "unleashing the full force of the Dogras" on innocent civilians. [50] The Hindu ruler had now openly declared war on Muslims. [50] In his zeal, Singh attacked entire villages and burnt them to the ground. [50] The response of the Poonchis was sharp. [50] Many took their families to the safety of Pakistan and returned with the intention of raising a revolution against a ruler who committed himself to genocide. [50] [n. 30]

On September 27th, 1947, India was increasingly attempting to assert it's authority on Kashmir. [49] Nehru wrote of India's position regarding the matter to his close aide, Sardar Patel, claiming that the situation was becoming more dangerous and deteriorating fast. [49] He further claimed that the Muslim League and North West Frontier Province were making preparations to enter the state. [49] In reality no such thing was happening, but the urgency of Nehru was based on his own assertion that winter was going to cut off Kashmir from the rest of India, leaving only one route; [49] through the Jhelum Valley. [49] He further claimed that Pakistan was getting ready to take "big action" in the state, as soon as winter came. [49] Sardar Patel therefore continued to pressure Singh into acceding to the Indian union. [49] However Singh was making matters further worse by unleashing a reign of terror against the Muslims of the region, suppressing the right of the people in Poonch where traditionally some of the soldiers of the Indian Army that fought for the British, originated from. [49] Poonch itself is a strategic location between Jhelum, Chenab Rivers and the Pir Panjal Range. [49] The roads of this region were critical and many of the battles of the war were fought in them and nearby towns. [49] Some of them even entered into the lore of each respective country, such as Akhnoor. [49] The Poonchis were battle-hardened Muslims who lived with their families there, also having strong cultural, historical, religious and economic ties with Pakistanis. [50]

Despite winning in Kashmir, Pakistan still suffered from an incoherent and decentralized government at both the political and military levels. India by contrast held better central political, administrative and military power; thus Pakistan had to create their own system very quickly and indigenously in the midst of the war. [47] India also had British commanders in their army (though Pakistan to be fair also had some). [47] Though many of these commanders had little interaction with politicians, the partition and war had exposed a deeper and more disturbing ethnic and religious hatred that had been fermented under British India. [47] For Pakistan, it became unthinkable to abandon Kashmir since it was largely populated by Muslims; to leave it to the Indian state meant being complicit in inflicting mass violence against fellow Muslims. [47] The soldiers on the ground who fought for Pakistan also received no support from the army command and worked mostly on their own, lest the British find out. [47] On the diplomatic level, India could not be negotiated with, which continued to exacerbate tensions between the two countries. [47] Dehli in the meanwhile became ever more fanatical on the issue. [47] Lord Mountbatton, who had advocated for a democratic solution was deliberately rebuffed by the Indians; [47] the Hindus refused a democratic option citing the Kashmiris acceded to the Indian union wilfully, but no such documents exist. [48] It is also notable that India attempted to seize control, by sending troops even without the permission of it's Maharaja. [48]

First Kashmir Liberation War:— The Pakistani military drew blood in it's first war in 1947 when Hari Singh, the Maharaja of Kashmir, a Hindu by religion provoked the Kashmiri insurrection. [45] The territory was 75% Muslim, and his indecision to accede to either Pakistan or India [n. 29] caused a domestic rebellion. [45] The Pakistanis quickly sided with the Kashmiris to free them and join Muslim majority Pakistan. [45] The Maharaja however signed over their rights to Hindu majority India in haste, going against the democratic wishes of Kashmiris; and involving Indian aggression directly. [45] By the wars end the Indians were only successful in capturing Sringar, but were unable to uproot Pakistani forces in the rest of the territory. [45] Tensions would again increase decades later leading to a second war in 1965, in which Pakistan would gain more territory. [45] The political history of Kashmir however also has a stark parallel to other states in India which opted to become independent themselves. One such state was Hyderabad, which was ruled by a Muslim Nizam. [46] Between September and October 1948 the Indian army invaded Hyderabad, with the Hindu army murdering between 27,000—40,000 Muslim men, women, children and babies. [46] All mention of such a massacre by it's "non-violent" leader Nehru, has since been censored in Indian schoolbooks. [46] Kashmir might have suffered a similar fate had Pakistan not intervened, as the Indian government was by far at more of an advantage than Pakistan ever was. [47]

However, according to analysis conducted by the Guardian, Pakistan obtained approximately $21.3 billion dollars in military aid from the US, but during crucial events in it's history the US cut off all aid; the starkest examples being the 1965 Indian War, and the 1971 Civil War ().Economic assistance has totaled $25.5 billion dollars through USAID alone, but in total economic aid since the countries inception has totaled approximately $40.4 billion dollars.As part of the(2002—2010) Pakistan has received $9.2 billion dollars as well.All levels of aid are measured at the 2009 US dollar rates.Therefore in total the Guardian stipulates that Pakistan has received approximately $56 billion dollars from the United States (the equivalent of £30 billion pounds).The US itself has calculated that it owes Pakistan $31.05 billion dollars in appropriation from 2002 to 2015 alone, but the actual amount given to the country is far lower; as theIn terms of aid to Pakistan from the UK, in 2013 this amounted to £338 million pounds (Bangladesh by contrast received £272 million pounds).According to the OECD/DFID report, Pakistan is set to receive £446 million pounds in non-military aid for 2014—2015, describing Pakistan as a

US Military Aid:— Between 1946 and 2012 India had recieved far more aid from the US than Pakistan has ever been given, with India getting $65.1 billion dollars for it's begging bowl, whilst Pakistan was only given $44.4 billion dollars (despite India being an enemy [41] of the US during the Cold War, and an ally of the USSR). [2] However, Pakistan did receive more military aid; $12.9 billion dollars, with India getting $0.897 billion dollars. [2] Total aid given to India amounts of $66 billion dollars (the 7th largest recipient of US aid) whilst Pakistan does not even make the top ten. [2] Most of the aid Pakistan received from the US was during the 1980s (when the Soviet—Afghan War was raging), and after the 2001 New York Incident. [2] Despite this, what was left of the US alliance was still useful for Pakistan. The Americans claimed that they would protect the country's security, but this only translated to the supply of military equipment and some economic aid in the form of loans. [29] Pakistan received $3.2 billion dollars in the space of six years since the war started, which consisted of "soft" loans (at an interest rate of 10%—14%), as well as military credits. [29] The country also separately paid for forty F-16 fighter jets between 1983 and 1986. [29] The second economic package consisted of $4 billion dollars ($2.3 billion dollars was economic; $1.74 billion dollars was in military credits). [29] Historically aid played a key role in Pakistan being able to help defend Afghanistan; which was later cut in 1990. [29]

The relationship with it's US ally became severely strained however in the 1960s when the US dramatically cut off weapons exports to the country; right in the the middle of the War of 1965. This outrageous betrayal pivoted Pakistan towards China; and this soon marked the start of a new Pakistan—China military and economic relationship). [33] Since then, the special relationship has become a strategically important alliance for both countries; for China it ensures economic security; [n. 23] [34] and for Pakistan it helped against existential threats vis a vis a belligerent and anti-Muslim Hindu state. The relationship has had several important implications since the 1965 incident. The most notable was a dramatic move on the part of China to use it's very first veto at the UN at Pakistan's request in 1971. [n. 24] [35] A decade later, China indirectly provided the Afghan people with $200 million dollars in cash every year through Pakistan at it's request during the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan (1979—1989). [35] Later still, in 2010, when a US diplomat confronted the Chinese about their "uncompromising support for Pakistan" China snapped back in kind, saying "Pakistan is our Israel" . [36] [n. 25] In April 2015, China signed a $45—46 billion dollar economic investment agreement with Pakistan, [37] as part of it's grand "Silk Road Fund" project. [38] [n. 26] Around 78% of Pakistanis feel positive about China; conversely 30% of Chinese feel the same, although China's low number can be explained by ignorance and stereotypes regarding South Asians. [39] [n. 27] Nonethless, bilateral trade between the two was worth $12 billion dollars in 2014. [40]

Weapons Aquisition History:— Soon after it's separation and independence from India in 1947, weapons procurement became a top priority for the Pakistani military, with there being an acute sense of insecurity surrounding what India would do, which had simply inherited a far larger and well equipped military from the British. [29] Small weapons were initially purchased from the United Kingdom (and other commonwealth countries), but it was not until the United States started seeking alliances during the cold war, did Pakistan benefit from large ammunitions and weapons supplies for it's three main defense industries. [29] The government by this time had already acknowledged that the country was severely lacking in resources to develop their defensive weapons capabilities; [n. 21] exemplified by the fact that it even lacked resources for even a proper sugar industry (only two factories existed which produced between 8,000—25,000 [59] [60] tonnes of sugar per year). [29] In May 1954, the US and Pakistan signed the "Mutual Defense Assistance Treaty" (MDAT), with Pakistan for the first time receiving first world military training. [29] In September 1955, Pakistan was admitted to the "Southeast Asia Treaty Organization" (SEATO) and the "Central Treaty Organization" (CENTO) at the behest of the US, with a fourth US security agreement (the "Bilateral Agreement of Co-operation" ) signed in May 1959, which allowed the US to set up a military base in Peshawar. [29] The alliance was strategically beneficial for Pakistan, which would otherwise not have been. [29] [n. 22]

This refusal to militarily support Egypt was probably down to Pakistan's involvement with allying itself to the US, which ended up angering friendly Muslim countries such as Egypt and Iraq who saw White supremacy as a threat. [62] This view would later change somewhat by the end of the Suez War when the US backed Egypt in winning [65] the war. [63] Egypt only attained independence in 1922, [66] but even then up until 1951 Britain had up to 80,000 troops in control of the Suez Canal. [67] There were approxmimately 300,000 Egyptian soldiers in the Egyptian military, but only 45,000 were actually able to take part and most were inexperienced without any proper supply lines in place or had any adequate back up, or the proper equipment which was largely Soviet land-based as opposed to desert, in stark contrast to the Israelis who were Western-backed and had excellent lines of support. [68] It would not be until 1966, with Soviet military assistance, would the Egyptian army look like a true threat to Israel. [63] Israel had invaded with 175,000 troops [69] Britain mobilized 45,000 soldiers. [70] The invasion also took Egypt by surprise (since the planned invasion was done in the utmost of secrecy; catching even the US by surprise [63] ), and hence 1,650 Egyptian soldiers died in the battle, along with a 1,000 civilians. [71] The Israelis that died numbered between 189 [71] —291 the French and British 10 and 16 respectively. [71] Israel only backed down after the United States threatened it with sanctions. [72]

Israeli Invasion of Egypt:— The 1950s were a time of great soul searching for Pakistan; allowing it to examine the horrors of the partition massacres perpetrated by the Sikhs and Hindus, instigated on a genocidal scale, as well as the first ever (victorious) war fought between itself and India; the following decade would see Pakistan intensely reflect internally in on itself. [61] However, despite not being in any major wars, the Pakistanis were angered by the joint Israeli, French and British attack against Egypt in 1956 (also known as "Israel's invasion of Egypt" or the "Suez Crisis" ). [62] This anger was later arrested by the military, who launched a coup against the government in 1958 for their own reasons, who chose to keep the peace. [62] The Suez was an important 120-mile strategic trade route for Egypt to deal with not Pakistan; approximately 120,000 Egyptian Muslims had given their life to construct it for the French in 1869; it becoming Europe's "windpipe" for oil as a staggering 66% of Europe's oil supply was tethered to this passage. When the Egyptians wanted to nationalise it in order to finance a dam project (supported by the Soviets [63] ), as was their right; the British formed a tripartite alliance to attack using Israel. [64] This failed catastrophically; Britain and France retreated in December 1956 and Israel in 1957. [64] The UK simply could not finance it; since the US surprisingly refused them support, worried for their own relations with the Arabs, having also been kept in the dark. [64]

This refusal to militarily support Egypt was probably down to Pakistan's involvement with allying itself to the US, which ended up angering friendly Muslim countries such as Egypt and Iraq who saw White supremacy as a threat. [62] This view would later change somewhat by the end of the Suez War when the US backed Egypt in winning [65] the war. [63] Egypt only attained independence in 1922, [66] but even then up until 1951 Britain had up to 80,000 troops in control of the Suez Canal. [67] There were approxmimately 300,000 Egyptian soldiers in the Egyptian military, but only 45,000 were actually able to take part and most were inexperienced without any proper supply lines in place or had any adequate back up, or the proper equipment which was largely Soviet land-based as opposed to desert, in stark contrast to the Israelis who were Western-backed and had excellent lines of support. [68] It would not be until 1966, with Soviet military assistance, would the Egyptian army look like a true threat to Israel. [63] Israel had invaded with 175,000 troops [69] Britain mobilized 45,000 soldiers. [70] The invasion also took Egypt by surprise (since the planned invasion was done in the utmost of secrecy; catching even the US by surprise [63] ), and hence 1,650 Egyptian soldiers died in the battle, along with a 1,000 civilians. [71] The Israelis that died numbered between 189 [71] —291 the French and British 10 and 16 respectively. [71] Israel only backed down after the United States threatened it with sanctions. [72]

Israeli Invasion of Egypt:— The 1950s were a time of great soul searching for Pakistan; allowing it to examine the horrors of the partition massacres perpetrated by the Sikhs and Hindus, instigated on a genocidal scale, as well as the first ever (victorious) war fought between itself and India; the following decade would see Pakistan intensely reflect internally in on itself. [61] However, despite not being in any major wars, the Pakistanis were angered by the joint Israeli, French and British attack against Egypt in 1956 (also known as "Israel's invasion of Egypt" or the "Suez Crisis" ). [62] This anger was later arrested by the military, who launched a coup against the government in 1958 for their own reasons, who chose to keep the peace. [62] The Suez was an important 120-mile strategic trade route for Egypt to deal with not Pakistan; approximately 120,000 Egyptian Muslims had given their life to construct it for the French in 1869; it becoming Europe's "windpipe" for oil as a staggering 66% of Europe's oil supply was tethered to this passage. When the Egyptians wanted to nationalise it in order to finance a dam project (supported by the Soviets [63] ), as was their right; the British formed a tripartite alliance to attack using Israel. [64] This failed catastrophically; Britain and France retreated in December 1956 and Israel in 1957. [64] The UK simply could not finance it; since the US surprisingly refused them support, worried for their own relations with the Arabs, having also been kept in the dark. [64]

The Soviets in the late stages of the war moved in and organised the "Tashkent Agreement (January 1966)" , in order to prevent further war over Kashmir. [77] Interestingly, why they did this was perhaps Russia felt India would lose; Russia's entire military industrial complex for instance was almost completely dependent on India for it's very survival, and India's loss in the war would mean that some 800 Russian military contractors could go broke if it lost (75% of Indian military equipment, 80% of their air force and 85% of their navy's was procured from the Soviets). [89] This reliance on Russian arms was also a huge blow to India's political ambitions, since Russia could hold India to ransom in times of difficulty; for Pakistan the war's consequences were thus very advantageous; since India also lost out in arms suppliers from the US and UK who supplied Pakistan. [77] Perhaps more importantly, was that by the time a UN mandated ceasefire was in effect, Pakistan also felt somewhat betrayed by China who's threats towards India turned out be empty (despite the extensive persecution of Indian Chinese in India). [77] The Chinese did support Pakistan however, and actively, through military supplies, later becoming Pakistan's chief supplier of missiles. [90] The war did have another consequence however, in that Pakistan totally ignored it's eastern counterpart; the Bengalis who felt increasingly isolated as there simply was no military to protect them from Indian incursions; thus probably contributing to the Pakistani Civil War. [91] [n. 31]

Air warfare played a significant role in that war. One of the most famous dogfights of the war occurred on September 1st, 1965, involving Sarfraz Rafiqui, a squadron commander, who reduced Indian Air Force capability by 65% in "one stroke" (the Indians withdrew 80 of their Vampire jets and 50 of their Ouragons from the front line as a result of his prowess together with his colleague Imtiaz Bhatti). [87] Since then the evolution of the Pakistani air force continued to adapt to global changes in modern warfare. [88] On land, tanks also played a vital part, with armoured divisions playing a significant role in Pakistan's defence. One of the most famous battles of the 1965 war was that of Chawinda where Indian forces were resolutely defeated by a numerically inferior force (the Pakistanis ended up destroying 120 tanks which were confirmed by British journalists, losing only 44 tanks themselves). [86] After the 1965 war, India later became obsessed with dismembering Pakistan. [77] However the war was not without some minor disasters for the Pakistani side; for one, Pakistan lost 82—83 tanks at the Battle of Asal Utter (the Indians lost some 104 tanks in Sialkot in total). [86] The Indians also made gross exaggerations on the number of casualties on the Pakistani side during the course of the war (and also hid their number of lost tanks); [86] at the Battle of Phillora for instance the Indians claimed they had destroyed 67 Pakistani tanks, but in reality this was more than the number of Pakistani tanks in the area, with the Indians losing 15 tanks. [86] India regularly conflates it's military kills.

Second Kashmir Liberation War:— Now, having lost humiliatingly to China, India decided to provoke another war with Pakistan in 1965 in order regain some pride. [77] Previous high level talks were held in May 1963 over dealing fairly over the issue of Kashmir but ended in stalemate as before. [77] At the same time India was further forcing themselves upon the Kashmiri territory; by narrowing down Kashmir's special status and instigating barbaric and inhumane laws; such as giving soldiers complete immunity to murder, rape and destroy civilian property (which was legally mandated by India under the 1958 "Armed Forces Special Powers Act" and still is [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] ). [77] Future investigations of Indian soldiers raping in Kashmir have often been met with death threats and violence (a former government official, Syed M. Yasin, was threatened for investigating the infamous gang rapes of 1991 by the Indian military in 2014). [84] Luckily prior to the War of 1965, Pakistan began cementing it's strategic ties with China, irking India, by ceding a portion of Kashmiri territory, which had historically been claimed by them to China. [77] Indian militarization was also causing severe unease in the region. [77] Political infighting and the death of Nehru in 1964 eventually saw an opportunity for Pakistan to free Kashmir of the Indians. [77] By 1965 Pakistan made it's move before India could act, seeing opportunity and secretly initiated the Second Kashmiri Insurrection. [77] The Indians declared total war on Pakistan but failed to capture any lasting, permanent territory. [85] [86]

In the eyes of the Chinese, the Indians were attempting to return the Chinese to their pre-1949 borders; something which they could not tolerate. [73] Additionally, China had acted against India for several reasons. India was fast becoming increasingly aggressive against it's neighbours, adopting a hegemonic approach to that of it's smaller neighbours, particularly Nepal and Pakistan. [76] In one incident, India blatantly attacked Nepal in a border incident on the 29th September 1962. [76] Then again in October India attacked East Pakistan (modern day Bangladesh) in an attack that lasted for twelve days, involving artillery and automatic weapons fire. [76] The Chinese had had enough, with Chairman Mao realising the Indians were "running amuck" . [76] Although these small incidents did not culminate for the broader reason for the Chinese defense of 1962; it did rationalise good reasons to stop India militarily. [76] To the world however, the Indians were projecting themselves as "peace lovers" and "non-violent" , with their prime minister enjoying "great international status" , despite it's blatant belligerent attitude towards its smaller and much more peaceful neighbours. [76] As China's daring operation came into realisation the Indians would later propogate themselves as victims of a Chinese attack to the world, in stark contrast to how they actually saw themselves (laughably, as the "third force" behind the United States and the Soviet Union). [76] The Chinese thus decided to inflict a severe, but limited, war of "extermination" ; carefully having analysed any political fallout. [76]

Prelude to the 1965 Indo-Pakistan War:— After the humiliating defeat suffered by India in Kashmir, the Sino-Indian war of 1962 would later be influenced by the War of 1947. India by the 1960s had adopted the "Forward Policy" (c. November 1961) in which it began seizing Chinese lands incrementally. [73] China sought to protect itself from India, which was also undermining Chinese efforts in Tibet. [73] For Chinese Muslims the issue may have also been particularly troublesome; Tibet's Buddhists have historically been extremely violent in persecuting Muslims in the region for decades (stemming from wars in eastern Tibet, between the Tibetans and Chinese Muslims). [74] Most have never regarded Muslims as "fully Tibetan ". [74] Since China restored the region, Muslims have been better able to live in the country. [74] However today there is still denial that Muslims have ever been treated ill in Buddhist society; Jamyang Norbu the Director of the Amnye Machen Institute at the Tibetan Centre for Advanced Studies in Dharamsala, India, claims, "[n]owhere in Tibetan history is anything remotely of the kind indicated" . [74] However Western historian Ian Buruma, in "Tibet Disenchanted" notes "Muslims had been persecuted in the past by Tibetans who wanted to keep Tibet ‘pure,’ that is, purely Buddhist" and that "[i]n 1959...a mosque was burned down in Lhasa, because Muslims were accused of collaborating with the Chinese" . [74] Even today Buddhists refuse to condemn their persecution of Muslims, with even Aung San Suu Kyi [75] outright dismissing recent mass atrocities.

The Soviets in the late stages of the war moved in and organised the "Tashkent Agreement (January 1966)" , in order to prevent further war over Kashmir. [77] Interestingly, why they did this was perhaps Russia felt India would lose; Russia's entire military industrial complex for instance was almost completely dependent on India for it's very survival, and India's loss in the war would mean that some 800 Russian military contractors could go broke if it lost (75% of Indian military equipment, 80% of their air force and 85% of their navy's was procured from the Soviets). [89] This reliance on Russian arms was also a huge blow to India's political ambitions, since Russia could hold India to ransom in times of difficulty; for Pakistan the war's consequences were thus very advantageous; since India also lost out in arms suppliers from the US and UK who supplied Pakistan. [77] Perhaps more importantly, was that by the time a UN mandated ceasefire was in effect, Pakistan also felt somewhat betrayed by China who's threats towards India turned out be empty (despite the extensive persecution of Indian Chinese in India). [77] The Chinese did support Pakistan however, and actively, through military supplies, later becoming Pakistan's chief supplier of missiles. [90] The war did have another consequence however, in that Pakistan totally ignored it's eastern counterpart; the Bengalis who felt increasingly isolated as there simply was no military to protect them from Indian incursions; thus probably contributing to the Pakistani Civil War. [91] [n. 32]

Air warfare played a significant role in that war. One of the most famous dogfights of the war occurred on September 1st, 1965, involving Sarfraz Rafiqui, a squadron commander, who reduced Indian Air Force capability by 65% in "one stroke" (the Indians withdrew 80 of their Vampire jets and 50 of their Ouragons from the front line as a result of his prowess together with his colleague Imtiaz Bhatti). [87] Since then the evolution of the Pakistani air force continued to adapt to global changes in modern warfare. [88] On land, tanks also played a vital part, with armoured divisions playing a significant role in Pakistan's defence. One of the most famous battles of the 1965 war was that of Chawinda where Indian forces were resolutely defeated by a numerically inferior force (the Pakistanis ended up destroying 120 tanks which were confirmed by British journalists, losing only 44 tanks themselves). [86] After the 1965 war, India later became obsessed with dismembering Pakistan. [77] However the war was not without some minor disasters for the Pakistani side; for one, Pakistan lost 82—83 tanks at the Battle of Asal Utter (the Indians lost some 104 tanks in Sialkot in total). [86] The Indians also made gross exaggerations on the number of casualties on the Pakistani side during the course of the war (and also hid their number of lost tanks); [86] at the Battle of Phillora for instance the Indians claimed they had destroyed 67 Pakistani tanks, but in reality this was more than the number of Pakistani tanks in the area, with the Indians losing 15 tanks. [86] India regularly conflates it's military kills.

Second Kashmir Liberation War:— Now, having lost humiliatingly to China, India decided to provoke another war with Pakistan in 1965 in order regain some pride. [77] Previous high level talks were held in May 1963 over dealing fairly over the issue of Kashmir but ended in stalemate as before. [77] At the same time India was further forcing themselves upon the Kashmiri territory; by narrowing down Kashmir's special status and instigating barbaric and inhumane laws; such as giving soldiers complete immunity to murder, rape and destroy civilian property (which was legally mandated by India under the 1958 "Armed Forces Special Powers Act" and still is [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] ). [77] Future investigations of Indian soldiers raping in Kashmir have often been met with death threats and violence (a former government official, Syed M. Yasin, was threatened for investigating the infamous gang rapes of 1991 by the Indian military in 2014). [84] Luckily prior to the War of 1965, Pakistan began cementing it's strategic ties with China, irking India, by ceding a portion of Kashmiri territory, which had historically been claimed by them to China. [77] Indian militarization was also causing severe unease in the region. [77] Political infighting and the death of Nehru in 1964 eventually saw an opportunity for Pakistan to free Kashmir of the Indians. [77] By 1965 Pakistan made it's move before India could act, seeing opportunity and secretly initiated the Second Kashmiri Insurrection. [77] The Indians declared total war on Pakistan but failed to capture any lasting, permanent territory. [85] [86]

In the eyes of the Chinese, the Indians were attempting to return the Chinese to their pre-1949 borders; something which they could not tolerate. [73] Additionally, China had acted against India for several reasons. India was fast becoming increasingly aggressive against it's neighbours, adopting a hegemonic approach to that of it's smaller neighbours, particularly Nepal and Pakistan. [76] In one incident, India blatantly attacked Nepal in a border incident on the 29th September 1962. [76] Then again in October India attacked East Pakistan (modern day Bangladesh) in an attack that lasted for twelve days, involving artillery and automatic weapons fire. [76] The Chinese had had enough, with Chairman Mao realising the Indians were "running amuck" . [76] Although these small incidents did not culminate for the broader reason for the Chinese defense of 1962; it did rationalise good reasons to stop India militarily. [76] To the world however, the Indians were projecting themselves as "peace lovers" and "non-violent" , with their prime minister enjoying "great international status" , despite it's blatant belligerent attitude towards its smaller and much more peaceful neighbours. [76] As China's daring operation came into realisation the Indians would later propogate themselves as victims of a Chinese attack to the world, in stark contrast to how they actually saw themselves (laughably, as the "third force" behind the United States and the Soviet Union). [76] The Chinese thus decided to inflict a severe, but limited, war of "extermination" ; carefully having analysed any political fallout. [76]

Prelude to the 1965 Indo-Pakistan War:— After the humiliating defeat suffered by India in Kashmir, the Sino-Indian war of 1962 would later be influenced by the War of 1947. India by the 1960s had adopted the "Forward Policy" (c. November 1961) in which it began seizing Chinese lands incrementally. [73] China sought to protect itself from India, which was also undermining Chinese efforts in Tibet. [73] For Chinese Muslims the issue may have also been particularly troublesome; Tibet's Buddhists have historically been extremely violent in persecuting Muslims in the region for decades (stemming from wars in eastern Tibet, between the Tibetans and Chinese Muslims). [74] Most have never regarded Muslims as "fully Tibetan ". [74] Since China restored the region, Muslims have been better able to live in the country. [74] However today there is still denial that Muslims have ever been treated ill in Buddhist society; Jamyang Norbu the Director of the Amnye Machen Institute at the Tibetan Centre for Advanced Studies in Dharamsala, India, claims, "[n]owhere in Tibetan history is anything remotely of the kind indicated" . [74] However Western historian Ian Buruma, in "Tibet Disenchanted" notes "Muslims had been persecuted in the past by Tibetans who wanted to keep Tibet ‘pure,’ that is, purely Buddhist" and that "[i]n 1959...a mosque was burned down in Lhasa, because Muslims were accused of collaborating with the Chinese" . [74] Even today Buddhists refuse to condemn their persecution of Muslims, with even Aung San Suu Kyi [75] outright dismissing recent mass atrocities.

Baluchistan War:— Balochistan is the most southern-western region of Pakistan, and native homeland of the Balochi people, who's ancestral claim is rooted in the Kurds. [118] There are only 3,000,000 ethnic Balochi people living in the state itself out of a total population of 6,000,000; and by landmass, the state is comparable to that of France. [118] It is region that has become of significant economic interest to the Chinese, central Asians and the United States. [119] The region is rich is natural gas deposits and has vast economic potential, but suffers severe economic problems and lack of governance. [120] [121] Thus conflict has erupted, and can significantly be traced back to the 1970s, when both India and Afghanistan were targeting Pakistan, by supporting the Balochi nationalists (decades later evidence would emerge that India still holds this position, actively financing terrorism in the region). [119] The most significant Baloch insurgency lasted from 1973—1977, [122] and was mainly owed to secessionist tendencies, and the worsening economic situation. [122] Casualties totaled 14,300—14,600, of whom 3,000—3,300 were soldiers, 5,300 rebels, along with 6,000 civilians. [n. 37] Iran, which has 1,200,000 Balochi citizens living in their country have always been wary not to ignite a similar insurgency, but the Shah of Iran did send $200 million dollars, US-military helicopters, and Iranian pilots to stop the Baluchis in the 1970s. [119] There have been at least four other insurgencies since 1947; all have effectively failed. [120]

Few in India regard the Bangladesh war as a loss for India, however experts have noted otherwise. Brahma Chellaney in "Securing India's Future in the New Millennium" , notes psychological, economic and diplomatic levers determine it's peace; [115] with Pakistan's civil war being a "classic" example; where India had claimed to have "won the war but lost the peace" . [115] The prime minister, Indira Ghandi, even gave away any military gains at the negotiating table with Pakistan at the wars end. [115] signifying India's defeat, by making Pakistan politically, economically and militarily "compact" ; [115] a move that ultimately strengthened Pakistan in the future (especially in the development of it's nuclear weapons). [115] Bangladesh was a complete drain on Pakistan's resources, well before the war, and would have remained "highly vulnerable" to an Indian attack. [115] Strategically, if kept, Pakistan would have been at a significant disadvantage in the future (when Indian aggression would inevitably increase again). [115] Pakistan would not have been able to launch unconventional defensive warfare against it's larger neighbour as a result; and as it later successfully achieved. [115] India is even believed to have lost economically in Bangladesh crisis as well. [115] Ten million refugees entered India during the war and an additional ten million arrived after the Bengalis became independent. [115] Overall, it inadvertently strengthened Pakistan against it and weakened it's own, although bilateral trade with Pakistan stands at $586.57 million dollars, [116] and India at $6 billion dollars. [117]

"Hindu" Genocide:— After the war, Indian historians have alleged that the Pakistan military carried out a "Hindu genocide ". Historian RJ Rummel prefers to call it a "democide" rather than genocide, and estimates 1,500,000 were killed (between 300,000-3,000,000; labeling it as a "Bengali/Hindu democide" (Bengalis are majority Muslim however). [109] Evidence however presented by Lisa Sharlach notes that the majority of the causalities were indeed Muslims and not Hindus, [110] giving credence that the Indians often vastly exaggerate their casualties, often giving widely inflated values with inaccurate information. For instance, one of India's most respected historians, K.S. Lal (who was later outed as a Hindu extremist), claimed "75 million Hindus" were killed during the 1,146-year old Muslim dynastic era (711 [111] —1857 [112] ). These numbers have actually proven themselves false on computer simulations run by Oxbridge historians. Despite this, Hindu authors such as Vivek Gumaste in the "India Tribune" claims "2.4 million" Bengali Hindus died during 1971. In the same article however Gumaste, [n. 35] claims Muslims are treated as "equals" in India; however there have "officially" been over 6,933 anti-Muslim pogroms between 1954—1982 and 3,949 between 1968—1980, [114] unofficially, the number remains unknown. Given the ineptitude and discriminatory attitude of the Indian government, the numbers are likely far higher. Kashmir [n. 36] for example is heavily suppressed, with mass gang-rapes committed by the Indian army.

After the war, the Indian military began persecuting Bangladeshis. In a ten-year span alone, Indian soldiers murdered up to a 1,000 unarmed Bangladeshi civilians in apolicy, near Bangladesh's border; with no one beingmaking it clear the killings were done inThe Indian military's methods have includedand beating little children to death.One likely explanation for the murders, besides them being Muslims, is non-Hindus eating beef, which are considered holy in India.Hindus have been known to trigger riots over the consumption of beef (indeed everything about cows is believed holy; including their urine, which is so popular brand drinks exist in the country to rival Coca-cola and Pepsi).More problematic however, is that since Bangladesh was created, India has proven itself as an unreliable ally and a vicious bully, with the Bangladeshis giving up vast concessions.Insults and slights are also common from it's larger neighbour; where it has attempted to intimidate Bengalis by branding one quarter of it's population asIn August 2014, an Indian governmental think tank even provocatively branded all Bangladeshis asPost-1975, Bangladesh began mending it's military relationship with Pakistan.India's behaviour can probably be explained by the fact that it arrogantly thinks it won the freedom of the Bengalis, when it actually didn't.

Pakistan Civil War:— The 1971 Pakistani Civil War, which resulted in the creation of Bangladesh, was never wholly won by India though many of its historians make the claim—in fact had it not been for the demoralized native troops in East Pakistan (Bangladesh), coupled with no military air cover , and the Indian army additionally being "greatly aided" by the revolutionary forces (known as the "Mukti Bahini" ), the Indian movement would certainly have been checked as it was in West Pakistan which stopped the Indians from invading successfully [92] (even though West Pakistan has been seen as more a threat than East Pakistans by the Indians, who's spending is on average 15—20 times greater on the Western border, despite the Bangladesh border being twice as big). [93] Other Indian historians even make allusions to losing the war in the long term, as their enemy came out stronger, ridding itself of the costly East; noted for it's far larger population size. [94] Diplomatically, the Indians were also completely outwitted into unconditionally surrendering over Pakistan's POW's. [94] India's relations also later soured with Bangladesh; the Bangladeshi prime minister was even murdered a short while after a diplomatic dispute with India itself, igniting the country with anti-Indian activity. [94] By 1975 most military analysts came to a consensus that Pakistan had "more than replaced" what it had lost during the war, [95] with yet other Indian historians blaming the war for having sparked and legitimised Pakistan's nuclear programme and it's arms race with India. [96] [n. 33]

Baluchistan War:— Balochistan is the most southern-western region of Pakistan, and native homeland of the Balochi people, who's ancestral claim is rooted in the Kurds. [118] There are only 3,000,000 ethnic Balochi people living in the state itself out of a total population of 6,000,000; and by landmass, the state is comparable to that of France. [118] It is region that has become of significant economic interest to the Chinese, central Asians and the United States. [119] The region is rich is natural gas deposits and has vast economic potential, but suffers severe economic problems and lack of governance. [120] [121] Thus conflict has erupted, and can significantly be traced back to the 1970s, when both India and Afghanistan were targeting Pakistan, by supporting the Balochi nationalists (decades later evidence would emerge that India still holds this position, actively financing terrorism in the region). [119] The most significant Baloch insurgency lasted from 1973—1977, [122] and was mainly owed to secessionist tendencies, and the worsening economic situation. [122] Casualties totaled 14,300—14,600, of whom 3,000—3,300 were soldiers, 5,300 rebels, along with 6,000 civilians. [n. 42] Iran, which has 1,200,000 Balochi citizens living in their country have always been wary not to ignite a similar insurgency, but the Shah of Iran did send $200 million dollars, US-military helicopters, and Iranian pilots to stop the Baluchis in the 1970s. [119] There have been at least four other insurgencies since 1947; all have effectively failed. [120]

Few in India regard the Bangladesh war as a loss for India, however experts have noted otherwise. Brahma Chellaney in "Securing India's Future in the New Millennium" , notes psychological, economic and diplomatic levers determine it's peace; [115] with Pakistan's civil war being a "classic" example; where India had claimed to have "won the war but lost the peace" . [115] The prime minister, Indira Ghandi, even gave away any military gains at the negotiating table with Pakistan at the wars end. [115] signifying India's defeat, by making Pakistan politically, economically and militarily "compact" ; [115] a move that ultimately strengthened Pakistan in the future (especially in the development of it's nuclear weapons). [115] Bangladesh was a complete drain on Pakistan's resources, well before the war, and would have remained "highly vulnerable" to an Indian attack. [115] Strategically, if kept, Pakistan would have been at a significant disadvantage in the future (when Indian aggression would inevitably increase again). [115] Pakistan would not have been able to launch unconventional defensive warfare against it's larger neighbour as a result; and as it later successfully achieved. [115] India is even believed to have lost economically in Bangladesh crisis as well. [115] Ten million refugees entered India during the war and an additional ten million arrived after the Bengalis became independent. [115] Overall, it inadvertently strengthened Pakistan against it and weakened it's own, although bilateral trade with Pakistan stands at $586.57 million dollars, [116] and India at $6 billion dollars. [117]

"Hindu" Genocide:— After the war, Indian historians have alleged that the Pakistan military carried out a "Hindu genocide ". Historian RJ Rummel prefers to call it a "democide" rather than genocide, and estimates 1,500,000 were killed (between 300,000-3,000,000; labeling it as a "Bengali/Hindu democide" (Bengalis are majority Muslim however). [109] Evidence however presented by Lisa Sharlach notes that the majority of the causalities were indeed Muslims and not Hindus, [110] giving credence that the Indians often vastly exaggerate their casualties, often giving widely inflated values with inaccurate information. For instance, one of India's most respected historians, K.S. Lal (who was later outed as a Hindu extremist), claimed "75 million Hindus" were killed during the 1,146-year old Muslim dynastic era (711 [111] —1857 [112] ). These numbers have actually proven themselves false on computer simulations run by Oxbridge historians. Despite this, Hindu authors such as Vivek Gumaste in the "India Tribune" claims "2.4 million" Bengali Hindus died during 1971. In the same article however Gumaste, [n. 40] claims Muslims are treated as "equals" in India; however there have "officially" been over 6,933 anti-Muslim pogroms between 1954—1982 and 3,949 between 1968—1980, [114] unofficially, the number remains unknown. Given the ineptitude and discriminatory attitude of the Indian government, the numbers are likely far higher. Kashmir [n. 41] for example is heavily suppressed, with mass gang-rapes committed by the Indian army.

After the war, the Indian military began persecuting Bangladeshis. In a ten-year span alone, Indian soldiers murdered up to a 1,000 unarmed Bangladeshi civilians in apolicy, near Bangladesh's border; with no one beingmaking it clear the killings were done inThe Indian military's methods have includedand beating little children to death.One likely explanation for the murders, besides them being Muslims, is non-Hindus eating beef, which are considered holy in India.Hindus have been known to trigger riots over the consumption of beef (indeed everything about cows is believed holy; including their urine, which is so popular brand drinks exist in the country to rival Coca-cola and Pepsi).More problematic however, is that since Bangladesh was created, India has proven itself as an unreliable ally and a vicious bully, with the Bangladeshis giving up vast concessions.Insults and slights are also common from it's larger neighbour; where it has attempted to intimidate Bengalis by branding one quarter of it's population asIn August 2014, an Indian governmental think tank even provocatively branded all Bangladeshis asPost-1975, Bangladesh began mending it's military relationship with Pakistan.India's behaviour can probably be explained by the fact that it arrogantly thinks it won the freedom of the Bengalis, when it actually didn't.

Pakistan Civil War:— The 1971 Pakistani Civil War, which resulted in the creation of Bangladesh, was never wholly won by India though many of its historians make the claim—in fact had it not been for the demoralized native troops in East Pakistan (Bangladesh), coupled with no military air cover , and the Indian army additionally being "greatly aided" by the revolutionary forces (known as the "Mukti Bahini" ), the Indian movement would certainly have been checked as it was in West Pakistan had stopped the Indians from invading successfully [92] (even though West Pakistan has been seen as more a threat than East Pakistans by the Indians, who's spending is on average 15—20 times greater on the Western border, despite the Bangladesh border being twice as big). [93] Other Indian historians even make allusions to losing the war in the long term, as their enemy came out stronger, ridding itself of the costly East; noted for it's far larger population size. [94] Diplomatically, the Indians were also completely outwitted into unconditionally surrendering over Pakistan's POW's. [94] India's relations also later soured with Bangladesh; the Bangladeshi prime minister was even murdered a short while after a diplomatic dispute with India itself, igniting the country with anti-Indian activity. [94] By 1975 most military analysts came to a consensus that Pakistan had "more than replaced" what it had lost during the war, [95] with yet other Indian historians blaming the war for having sparked and legitimised Pakistan's nuclear programme and it's arms race with India. [96] [n. 38]

Betrayed, Pakistan sought other routes to the threat that now presented itself to the nation. [157] This other route was through the Taliban. [157] This was an entirely pragmatic relationship; the group were strong enough to stablise the Pashtun areas of the country, an important regard in the safety of the Pakistani state. [157] Furthermore the Taliban were able to rid Afghanistan of Indian influence; and increased confidence in the construction of oil pipelines and trade from Central Asia. [157] However, on the domestic and foreign policy fronts this proved to be a heavy price. [157] Domestically, religious fanatacism grew; risking Pakistan falling into the hands of political parties sympathetic to the Taliban (which lead to some success into the infiltration of Pakistani politics); mainly arising from Anti-American feeling and sympathy for the organisation, as well as disenfranchisement with the mainstream and nationalist parties. [157] Strategically however, Pakistan was placed into a far better position than before; but the alliance gave way to a complicated, and later domestically dangerous, relationship. [157] Pakistan's image and policies were now being wholly damaged; the Taliban were internationally seen by Iran and the Central Asian states (as well as the rest of the world) as medieval, harsh and anti-women. [157] With friction rising between the Taliban and the Pakistani state, trade with Central Asians remained an unrealized goal. [157] Given the growth in support for the organization, Pakistan found it very difficult to shake them off. [157]

Mujahideen Problems:— The Soviets still had hopes of interfering after their defeat. Pakistan was totally unwilling to let this be, given that the Soviets continued to support their allies, and had left large amounts of ammunitions behind. [157] Militarily, Pakistan had attacked towns such as Jalalabad, in aid of the Mujahideen. [157] Isolated, the Najibullah regime, collapsed. [157] By April 1992, Pakistan united all the groups of the Mujahideen, and formed an interim government; resulting in the "Peshawar Accords" , further resulting in the presidency of Sibghatullah Mojeddadi, and afterwards Rabbani (the later of whom triggered a civil war when he refused to step down in 1993 after his tenure had ended). [157] Pakistan was outraged and supported his enemies in order to place him out of power, supporting one Pashtun group after another; feeling the Accords had been dishonored. [157] Pakistan felt even more betrayed after it's sacrifices were ignored by the Afghans, especially the leaders of some Afghan groups (such as Ahmad Shah Masud who was allied to Rabbani). [157] Furthermore such leaders wanted to use Iran, Russia and India to put pressure on Pakistan. [157] Things can to a standstill when four Afghan terrorists hijacked a bus; and were then killed in Islamabad. [157] In revenge, one Pakistani employee was killed in Kabul in the summer of 1994. [157] Pakistan became even more concerned when Rabbani and Masud began to invite Indian intelligence officers into the country to install military installations. [157]

The Soviet war effectively took Iran out of the equation, since it was already fighting for it's survival from the Western-backed Iraq regime. [155] Saying this, Iran, despite suffering massively financially (said to have lost $627—$930 billion dollars owed to the war); [156] accepted almost 3 million refugees from it's neighbour. [155] Iran was however fearful that any brazen support for their Afghan allies would have caused the USSR to focus it's attention on eliminating Iran through it's already ongoing war with Iraq. [155] The country did however support the Shia groups, causing some resentment from the Pakistani and Afghan Sunni population. [155] Iran however effectively lost out politically, culturally and religiously on the Afghan front. [155] After the war, and in 1992 when the native communists were ousted by the Mujahideen and Pakistan, Pakistan's policy in Afghanistan was to seek for a unified and friendly country. [157] Pakistan's involvement in the Soviet War was for good reasons; [157] it was fearful that Moscow's next move would be to instigate conflict in the country, and also may cause war between Pakistan and Afghanistan over territories historically claimed by greater Afghanistan (Khyber Pathunkwa). [157] Moscow had further already been quite hostile to Pakistan for allying itself with the United States (Moscow had already worked with India, supplying it with modern weapons in the 1971 Pakistani Civil War). [157] However Pakistan's interest in the country was about more than getting rid of the Soviets. [157]

Pakistan sent billions of dollars in aid to the Afghan rebels, supporting them even up to 1996 which resulted in the triumph of the Taliban. [153] Concerning Iran, militarily and politically, Pakistan differed with it on Afghanistan significantly, even in the 1960s. [155] The oppressive and anit-democratic Shah of Iran was only concerned if it become a Soviet satellite-state, having already been surrounded by Ba'athists in the east of his country, and Soviets in the North; wanting to avoid complete encirclement (this fear was made worse in 1972 when the last Afghan king, Zahir Shah, was ousted by his cousin, Muhammad D. Khan, in 1972). [155] The Iranians did however financially support the Afghans. [155] Pakistan, on the other hand, was concerned with the increasing influence of India, notable for it's persecution and genocides against Muslims in their own country. As a result of the Indian threat, Pakistan has attempted always to have a Afghan government friendly to it's interests. [155] It it notable that the Shah also did not want Afghanistan to be under the influence of India either (since the Indians were allies of the Soviets; even an "Aryan Resistance" was proposed under his leadership). [155] Pakistan itself was also influenced by Saudi Arabia, who was "bent" [155] on allaying Iranian influence. Since then Pakistan used Islam to politically influence the Afghans. [155] By 1979, the Iranian Revolution, the Iran—Iraq War (1980—1988) and the Soviet War dramatically changed the positions of both countries. [155] Iranian influences effectively declined, allowing Pakistani influence to grow stronger. [155]

Consequences:— The war completely destroyed the economy, society and infrastructure of Afghanistan. [152] Unnatural Afghan deaths amounted to 876,825 dead (1978—1987) [152] which meant, on average, 240 Afghan's were killed on a daily basis by the Russians; [152] and that for every Soviet soldier that died, sixty Afghan's were murdered. [152] Approximately 1,500,000 people were also left disabled; [152] with psychological trauma also significiant. [152] In addition, some 6,000,000 Afghans were displaced externally by the 1990s, with Pakistan and Iran said to have "perform[ed] remarkably well" in regards to the safety and hosting of these refugees [n. 44] (however it should also be noted that many Afghans inside their own country were also displaced en masse). [152] Conditions were however not ideal, and many of Afghanistans skills in trade and farming were lost during this period; with the impact being that societies which continuously lose such structure will suffer from more war and conflict). [152] Women's rights also regressed during this period of Soviet occupation; Afghan women who were escaping the cruel aerial bombardments of the countryside [n. 45] for instance were surprised to see female guards in Kabul's prisons where many of them would be tortured by communist forces. [152] Prior to the war, women wore skirts openly and attitudes were largely liberal and progressive. [149] Despite this, the Afghans celebrated the defeat of the Soviet Union as a victory against an overwhelming and stronger superpower. [152] [n. 46]

The Soviet invasion represented the largest mobilisation of Soviet forces since WWII. [150] They attacked the country in an initially well organised blitzkrieg; however this did not last long, and it withdrew in defeat nine years later (on April 14th, 1988). [149] [151] The war became one of the defining moments of the end of the cold war era. [150] The withdrawal agreement that signified Soviet defeat, did nothing more than reaffirm the Soviet Unions wishes to abandon their allies, [151] who had originally supported the overthrowing of the the democratic government of Afghanistan in 1978 (from 1929 to that date the country had been an enormously peaceful country to live and work in). [152] The Soviet support for the communists devastated the country, and saw two additional wars rip the country apart in the coming decades; the second being the overthrow of the communist regime and then the American invasion of Afghanistan. [152] The Soviet Union's war was, however, one of the main factors that lead to the collapse of the empire [153] in several redeeming ways; for instance perceptions on the effectiveness of the Soviet military changed rapidly amongst the Russians, the division between the authority and military command was also widened, the isolation of the Soviet Unions non-Russian citizens proved problematic, and the weakening of the communist political hegemoney was growing. [154] During the course of the conflict Afghan guerrilla forces were portrayed favorably by anti-communist regimes in the West, ignoring the fact that such a force was also involved in the narcotics trade. [150]

The Communist Coup:— Mohammad D. Khan was overthrown in April 1978, by communist forces of the Afghan military; lead by Nur M. Taraki. [148] This eventually would lead to the formation of an unstable Marxist-Leninist government called the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan, consisting of the Khalq and Parcham Party's. [148] This new government had very little support from the Afghan peoples. [148] This new government ended up cultivating ties with the Soviet Union, and also lead brutal purges targeted at any opposition movements. [148] Land and social reforms also contributed to the anti-communist feeling in the country. [148] Rebellions sprang up in the urban and tribal areas, and soon collectively these movements became known as the Mujahideen. [148] The uprisings, along with internal political rebellions, lead to the Soviets deciding for military intervention, sending 30,000 troops to invade on December 24th/27th 1979. [148] [149] Hafizullah Amin (Khalq leader) was then overthrown and killed, with the Soviets backing Babrak Karmal (Parcham leader). [148] The Mujahideen, now backed by the United States, grew increasingly more powerful, especially when mass desertions occurred in the Afghan army, who's soldiers were against persecuting their own people. [148] The communists then decided to increase their presence (directing 100,000 soldiers), which lead to a stalemate (the Soviets took control of the cities and other areas, whereas the opposing forces moved freely amongst the countryside). [148]

Despite this, Muslims have helped Sikhs in their struggle for independence, although by how much remains elusive. [145] Pakistan was careful to avoid confrontation with India between 1972 and 1989, but did not wholly avoid it's operations. [146] The Pakistanis provided money, weapons and strategic advice to the Sikh separatist movement. [146] The support was so substatial that India initiated the 1986—1987 Brasstacks Crisis which were done in order to deter Pakistan from supporting the Sikh cause. [146] However Pakistan did not back the Sikh uprising to the extent that they did for their Kashmiri brethren. [146] After 1984 violence, caused by the Sikh rebellion, caused killings to spiral out of control. [146] In 1983 for example there were only 135 deaths, in 1986 there were 598 deaths, and in 1987, 1,238. [146] After Operation Blue Star in 1984, Pakistan was galvanized to exploit the situation. [146] However others have said Pakistani support for the Sikh cause waned. [146] There was no military confrontation on behalf of the Sikhs, unlike in stark contrast to the Kargil Crisis where Pakistan attempted to liberate the rest of Kashmir from the yoke of Indian oppression. [146] Hard evidence linking Pakistan to the training of Sikh militants has remained unfounded. [146] Pakistan had several reasons to support the Sikh cause nonetheless, such as destablizing India for the security of Pakistani sovereignty (and even financed it through the ISI selling drugs to finance such ventures). [147] However PM's Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto had differing views supporting Sikhs. [147]

Khalistan and the Place of Muslims:— Sikh persecution of Muslims remains a significant problem; and there are many examples of Sikhs persecuting Muslims actively. One such example was in April 1997, when, angry at a lack of support from Pakistan to help the Sikhs to form their own homeland, approximately 100 Sikhs went rioting throughout a Pakistani street one night in the UK smashing dozens of houses and cars owned by Muslims in Southall, a constituency in UK. [140] Another such example is several days prior to the 9/11 incident in New York, Sikhs were already cultivating links with racist and fascist organisation known as the BNP, who are against British Muslim rights in the United Kingdom. Sikh leaders were openly meeting with the BNP, with the BBC revealing that Sikh leaders themselves approached the BNP, instead of the other way around. [142] Another is when a gang of Sikhs murdered an Indian Muslim, Muhammad Afzhal, in 2003 who was a rickshaw driver 25 years old. [143] In 2010, the issue of the BNP arose again when it was found that an alliance with the BNP could push the Sikh—Muslim relationship to breaking point in Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Coventry. [144] There have also been numerous allegations by Sikhs of conversion of their girls over to Islam, grooming; accusations of which have never been substantiated, except for one case involving both Hindus and Muslims grooming a Sikh girl. The organisation that testified is suspected to have worked with the EDL.

The concept of Khalistan is curious as it also possesses some potential for threatening the Muslims of Punjab. The concept of a Sikh homeland encompasses lands and territories inside and around India, as well as Pakistan territory. [132] This also includes all other Punjabi speaking areas, [132] despite the fact that such a proposition would make the Sikhs a minority in their own country (since the majority of Punjabis are Muslim). [n. 43] Significantly Pakistani Punjab contains many Sikh holy and historical sites, and even when the Sikhs did have their own "Khalistan" , in the form of the empire of the Sikh tyrant, [133] [134] [135] Ranjit Singh (1780—1839), Muslims were treated horrendously and with much inequality, along with other non-Sikhs. [136] Such examples can be seen from the use of slave labour (forced labour [137] ) and matters which concerned murder (for example if a Sikh murdered a Muslim, a fine of 16—20 rupees was to be charged on the Sikh, of which only 2 rupees (10%—12.5%) went to the family of the Muslim victim, and if Hindu four rupees (20%—25%) would be paid to the Hindu relatives, with the rest going to the Sikh state; in essence under Sikh laws Hindus were worth twice more than a Muslim). [136] Also, under Sikh law, Punjabis (90% of whom were Muslim [138] ) were taxed 90% of their earnings (but even this was considered too little). [136] Despite this, as late as 2001 Khalastani Sikhs sent a letter to President Musharaff asking for his "support" , citing "200,000" Sikhs had been killed by India since 1984, and 75,000 Muslims in Kashmir since 1988, thus expecting help. [139]

Post Sikh Defeat:— Total deaths from the operation amounted to 493 militants dead, 86 wounded and 1,592 arrested; but this is disputed by Sikh authors who claim 7,000—8,000 were killed (Mark Tully estimated 4,000 were killed on the Sikh side). [127] Other authors have said that only up to 1,000 were killed unofficially. [124] On the Indian side, 83 were killed and 293 were wounded. [127] Despite the numbers, what is known is that the battle only became bloody when the Sikh extremists fired on the army when they called for the Sikhs to first surrender peacefully. [124] The Indians however made the mistake of not using a "surgical" tactical commando strike, thereby prolonging the massacre for up to three days. [124] Intelligence reports were also poor on the Indian side, the militants were far more well equipped than initially believed. [124] Additionally four of the six generals that took part in the battle for the Indian military were Sikhs themselves. [124] The humiliation was not taken lightly nonethless by the Sikhs, and eventually on October 31st, 1984 Indira Ghandi was gunned down in an assassination by two of her personal Sikh bodyguards. [128] This subsequently set off the 1984 Dehli Riots, where up to 3,000 Sikhs were killed. [129] Tully reported that 2,717 were killed; but the Sikhs have claimed 20,000 died (and even claim it as a "genocide" [130] ). [129] There was approximately $250 million dollars worth of damage done to property during the riots as well. [129] Years after the defeat of the terrorist separatists, foreign funding to such organisations was still occurring as late as 2008, with a vital portion from the UK. [131]

Between 1978 and 1983 Bhinderenwale