If you all scroll down the same link of 1965 war on wikipedia, you would find the result as shown below:<quoted text>
he has kept the basic requirements of a victory out of the equation by which we can judge as India has never gained any ground ever but declared victories. Someone should ask this extremely old man who has dentures in his mouth and hydraulics under his lully that Pakistan snatched half of Kashmir in 1948 so wasn't that an objective to reach by snatching our lands back? Why the fcuk is army for? sing songs and dance like Bhaands?
According to the Library of Congress Country Studies conducted by the Federal Research Division of the United States
The war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavyon the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops.
Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government.
English historian John Keay's "India: A History" provides a summary of the 1965 war
The 1965 Indo-Pak war lasted barely a month. Pakistan made gains in the Rajasthan desert but its main push against India's Jammu-Srinagar road link was repulsed and Indian tanks advanced to within a sight of Lahore. Both sides claimed victory but India had most to celebrate.
Newsweek magazine, however, praised the Pakistani military's ability to hold of the much larger Indian Army