Confused?
Well, why don't we look at a few neutral versions and research findings from other parts of the world that could shed light on the outcome.
According to the Federal Research Division of the US, the war would have ended in our favour:
"The war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavy—on 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."
Similar was the report of one Arif Jamal, a New York Times correspondent, who wrote a book called Shadow Wars:
"This time, India's victory was nearly total: India accepted cease-fire only after it had occupied 740 square miles, though Pakistan had made marginal gains of 210 square miles of territory. Despite the obvious strength of the Indian wins, both countries claim to have been victorious."
Historian John Keay wrote this in his book 'India: A History':
"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."
Many other reports suggested the same thing. Under the orders of then Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri, Indian forces had marched on to Lahore and were in striking distance of the cantonment while denying the enemy's attempt to capture Indian territory.
Losses were much heavier on the Pakistani side. But the UN called for a ceasefire and there was no victor. But if you think about it, Pakistan's aim was to conquer a large part of our territory but they did not. While our aim was to repel their forces, and we did.
So whose mission do you think was successful?
It is important to note that a ceasefire had been ordered at the Rann of Kutch after ceasefire violations from April through June of the same year (1965). But Pakistan had believed that after India's loss to China in 1962, perhaps our forces weren't equipped enough to win a war and they attacked again. Well, those beliefs were certainly thwarted.