More than five decades after the 1965 India–Pakistan war, claims of Pakistani victory continue to circulate—despite the absence of territorial, political, or diplomatic gains. For communities in Jammu and Kashmir, this raises an obvious question: why do such narratives persist when the documentary record suggests stalemate?
The answer lies less in what happened on the battlefield and more in how outcomes are remembered when expectations collapse.
The Gap Between Expectation and Outcome
The 1965 conflict was initiated with specific political expectations in Islamabad, particularly regarding Jammu and Kashmir. When those expectations were not met, the war expanded beyond its original assumptions and ended under international pressure rather than decisive success.
The ceasefire and subsequent Tashkent Agreement restored the pre-war situation. There were no gains to show. In such circumstances, institutional narratives often step in to preserve credibility and morale.
The Role of the Pakistan Army’s Narrative
Within Pakistan, the military has historically played a central role in shaping national security narratives. The 1965 war, therefore, became a symbol not of strategic failure but of resilience, even as its tangible outcomes suggested otherwise.
This reframing served a purpose. It shifted attention away from flawed assumptions and planning, and toward a simplified story of resistance and parity. Over time, repetition hardened this version of events into accepted memory.
What the Record Shows
The historical record tells a more restrained story. The war ended with a UN-mandated ceasefire and an agreement focused on withdrawal and normalisation. Claims of victory are difficult to reconcile with an outcome that restored the status quo and avoided political settlement.
For Jammu and Kashmir, this discrepancy matters because it shapes how external actors interpret the conflict. Narratives that present the war as a success obscure the reasons why political objectives were not achieved.
India’s Different Trajectory
India’s post-war narrative followed a different path. The emphasis was on stabilisation rather than celebration. The Indian Army’s role was acknowledged in terms of deterrence and defence, not conquest. Diplomatic closure through Tashkent was treated as a means to prevent further instability, not as a loss.
This contrast highlights how unresolved wars are remembered differently depending on institutional incentives.
Why These Narratives Matter Today
For local audiences, understanding why such narratives persist helps explain recurring cycles of expectation and disappointment. It also clarifies why repeated attempts to revive old claims without addressing their original failures lead to dead ends.
Wars that end without resolution do not disappear from memory. They linger, reshaped by storytelling. Separating that storytelling from the historical record is essential for any realistic conversation about peace and stability in the region.
(Hailing from Kashmir and based in New Delhi, Mehak Farooq is a journalist specialising in defence and strategic affairs. Her work spans security, geopolitics, veterans’ welfare, foreign policy, and the evolving challenges of national and regional stability.)
