# Kargil: A Debacle or A Lost Opportunity?



## Neo

*Kargil: A Debacle or A Lost Opportunity? ​*
Monday June 02, 2008 

Adnan Gill 
gill_adnan@hotmail.com 

*Starting from the days of the Sir Creek dispute, all the way to the Kargil Conflict; you will find Indians remembering each and every armed-conflict as a glorious victory snatched out of teeth of defeat by the outnumbered brave Indian troops. Neutral observers could disagree and dispute all they want, but to Indians credit, they always remember their defeats as victories. Sadly, in a stark contrast, the self-defeating Pakistanis generously concede their victories to be defeats. *

*In their Official 1965 War History published by the Indian Ministry of Defense, Indian historians never acknowledged their humiliating defeats at the Sir Creek.* In a slight of hand, when recording the tallies of the battle for the Sardar Post, Indians provided exact ranks and numbers of Pakistani casualties, but *conveniently marked most of their own casualties as missing; *not dead or POW (p. 25). However, the Pakistanis put the Indian losses around 250 dead. *If one is to assume even 1/5 of Pakistani numbers to be accurate, the Indians must have suffered at least twice as many casualties as they marked as missing.* *Even though, Indians miserably lost on every battle front at Sir Creek front, including Jungle Post, Clump Post, Sardar Post, Chhad Bet, Sera Bat and Biar Bet, still one would be hard-pressed to find any Indian who would honorably admit their miserable defeats. *

One could only wish, like Indians, Pakistanis would also take pride in their glorious victories, instead of disowning them. But then how can we blame such Pakistanis when it took only one letter from the British Prime Minister Harold Wilson for President Ayub Khan to obediently return every inch of land Pakistani soldiers won back with their sweat and blood! *Pakistani historians are also to be blamed for leavening historical vacuums, which enemy filled with their exaggerated embellishments. *

India first violated Pakistans sovereignty and illegally occupied its territory when they invaded and annexed the State of Junagarh and Hyderabad, and then Kashmir. Later, India set the precedence of brazenly violating the Line of Control (LOC). *Between 1996 and 1999 alone, the UNMOGIP recorded around 3,500 Indian Violations of LOC. Since signing the Shimla Agreement in 1972, India not only invaded but still illegally occupies 3 sectors that used to be on the Pakistani side of the LOC; namely Siachin, Qamar and Turbat La. *

In 1998, India tested its nuclear weapons. Pakistan answered by testing their own. By doing so, *Indians practically neutralized their 1/6 numerical and conventional superiority over Pakistan. By publicly going nuclear, Pakistanis gained confidence to calculate, that despite low intensity conflicts in the disputed Kashmir, India will not go to full fledge war.* Arguably, Pakistanis were fairly accurate with their calculation; Kargil Conflict, and *2002 border standoff vindicated their calculations. *

Following the Indian lead of numerous LOC incursions, Pakistan decided to return the favor. *An ingenious tactical plan was pulled out of shelves and was set in motion. The plan called for occupying strategic peaks, on the Indian side of LOC, overlooking a long stretch of the Leh-Srinagar highway (NHA). The idea was to secure and hold vantage points overlooking the highway to direct Pakistani artillery fire for the purposes of intercepting and disrupting Indian logistical supply-lines. The highway was/is the lifeline of the Indian troops illegally occupying the Siachin Glacier. A suspension of supplies for few more weeks would have made it very difficult for the Indians troops in Siachin to have sustained the next winter. *

*It was a brilliant tactical plan, but it was a lousy strategic plan.* It was *missing vital components of support from the political leadership, Foreign Office, and private TV channels  for the PR purposes.* The civilians alleged, the military left them out of loop till the last hour, which handicapped their performance. Supporters of military retorted, exclusion of the civilians from the planning phase was necessary to maintain absolute secrecy. While, the critics explained, Pakistani military never trusted the competence or professionalism of the civilians enough to entrust them with highest level of secrecy. *The ferocity of Indian reaction, punctuated by the IAF close-support missions, must have caught the architects of the plan off guarded. Perhaps thats why the component of air-cover for the rebels was also missing from the otherwise well conceived Pakistani plan.* Critics also credit the Indian authorities for managing the dissemination of information with near perfection. *Their PR management was credited for shoring up domestic and international support for the Indian reaction, declaration of -- supposed -- Indian victory;* most importantly, for demonizing Pakistan for what India had done in the past. 

*To the eternal shame of Indian intelligence, the Pakistani advance went totally undetected till May 4, 1999, when some shepherds tipped off the Indians.* According to The Washington Post reporter, Pamela Constable, initially Indians claimed *there were only dozen or two intruders who were to be dislodged within a week from few peaks.* *By the end of the conflict, Indians were literally swearing there were at least 5,000 Pakistani rebels commanding the heights.* After the conflict, the Indians revised the numbers to 20,000 Indian troops (in the theater) vs. 1,500 so-called infiltrators. However, in 2002, Brig. Shaukat Qadir (Pakistani) claimed, the *total number of Pakistani rebels never exceeded 1,000 from all ranks. *The *ratio of combatants was 20:1 in Indias favor*. However, according to Global Security, at conflicts peak, *Indian troop strength in Kashmir ballooned to 730,000. *The buildup included a handsome deployment of Indian Air Force personnel who were *supporting the operations of around 60 frontline Indian aircraft.*

The nature of insurmountable odds faced by the Indians could be judged from the following stats compiled by the Global Security: The Indian Artillery fired over 250,000 shells, bombs and rockets during the Kargil conflict the Air Force carried out nearly 5,000 sorties of all types over 50-odd days of operations The aircraft [were] required to fly at about 20,000 feet [or higher, where] the air density is 30% less than at sea level. At such dizzying heights, where high winds unpredictably shift velocity every few second, fire-control algorithms simply do not work; neither do the other precision weapons. Very well masked rebel bunkers built on vertical heights were extremely difficult to detect, and notoriously difficult to score a direct hit. So one can safely postulate, the accuracy rate of Indian artillery shells and air-dropped weapons couldnt have been over 3-5%. 

Few reporters captured the enormity of incursion and the frustrating predicaments of the Indian troops. On May 18, the Times of India reported, *Painting a grim picture, the sources said the Pakistani intruders had come 6 km inside the LoC in Mushkoh Valley and the Drass sub-sector, 2 km in Kaksar and up to 7 km in the Batalik sub-sector. The Pakistanis, they said, were holding strategic peaks which gave them a dominating view of the areas around. *

About a week before the conflict ended, when the Indian media was splashing feel-good images of their brave commandos planting Indian flags on peak after peak; in Batalik sector, all the Indians were able to do was reoccupy 1 piddly ridge. Pamela Constable (The Washington Post) reported, Singh and other military officials here admit their progress has been excruciatingly slow. About 15 miles northeast of here in the area of Batalik, for example, Singh acknowledged, only one of four occupied ridges has been cleared of the enemy after weeks of fighting and shelling. Then she went over the helplessness and embarrassment Indians had to face, It is evident from the military buildup in this region that India is determined to flush out the infiltrators and make up for the embarrassment of allowing them to sneak in undetected and keep one of the world`s largest military establishments at bay for weeks. 

*It was quite evident that Indians were over their heads and nowhere close to a victory. Contrary to what the Indian propaganda machine was showing to the world, on emergency bases, their government was silently importing 3,500 caskets for their fallen men. In reality, Indians were nowhere even close to dislodging more than handful so-called intruders. *Ms. Constable also caught their farces, The rebels penetrated nearly four miles inside Indian-held territory there and still control several ridges beyond [Drass]. She further reported, Indian Military officials said more Pakistani troops are still lodged in the ridges. They said their positions are so high and fortified that two or three fighters can fend off literally hundreds of Indian troops trying to scale the ridges below and surround them. Indian warplanes periodically strafe the ridges, but officials said most are so steep and narrow that air attacks have only a limited effect.

*Impotency of IAF missions was also quite evident . They lost 1 helicopter and 2 IAF aircraft were shot down on the Pakistani side of LOC. One of their pilots was killed in action and the other was captured by the Pakistani troops. Latter on, he was released by the Pakistani in a goodwill gesture. The Hindustan Times quoted Indian military commanders voicing their frustrations, "Every time they hear our aircraft approach they retreat into the caves No amount of shelling or rockets can prove effective in such a situation."*

*Apparently, not only the Indians were buying the scripted Indian propaganda, so were some of the Pakistanis.* Nawaz Sharifs July 4, panicky rush to Washington dumbfounded many Pakistanis. Clearly, *Mr. Sharif was incognizant of the immense advantage the Pakistanis enjoyed in the theater. Instead of trusting his military advisors, when Indians bluffed he folded.* *In short, Indian bluff of expanding the conflict unnerved Mr. Sharif. When the time came to show spine, he begged Washington to save him. He sold Pakistans advantage and honor for President Clintons word that he will take "personal interest" in the Kashmir dispute.* On July 11, the Pakistani Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz said, in response to Nawaz Sharifs appeal, certain groups of Islamic militants have started to withdraw their forces from the mountains. And just like that, the ultimate sacrifices of many rebel volunteers were wasted. 

Any statesman worth his salt would have immediately walked out on Mr. Clinton after telling him: Pakistani blood is not so cheap, it deserves at least status-quo in Kargil and Drass.* Had Mr. Sharif mustered little courage and waited another few weeks, snows would have returned to the area and India would have been forced to cease military operations. The status-quo would have left the Indian troops sitting in Siachin without any supplies to survive through the next winter. *

*But unfortunately, Mr. Sharif decided to snatch the victory out of hands of brave warriors, like Capt. Karnal Sher Khan and Hav. Lalak Jan. He sold their blood cheaper than his nerves. Had he showed some spine, today Siachin issue would have been solved and India would have shown higher appreciation for the Pakistani stance on the disputed Kashmir. Most importantly, today most of Pakistanis would have prided themselves for the supreme sacrifices of their brothers. *

Even Indian media was smarter than the defeatist Pakistani critics to have seen through Indian establishments lies. *Arthur Max, New Delhi bureau chief of Associated Press questioned, "How is it possible that casualties on the Pakistani side were higher -- as India claims -- when they had all the advantage of higher ground? He appropriately reasoned, The Indians should have suffered higher casualties than the Pakistanis."*

The self-doubting Pakistanis also do not understand that victors never switch their winning commanders in the middle of action; but the Indians did. According to the Hindustan Times, Brigadier Surendra Singh, brigade commander of 121 Independent Brigade, and Colonel Ajit Nair, deputy brigade commander, were transferred out of Kargil.

*Eminent Indian columnist, Praful Bidwai berated Indian media for their unethical conduct throughout the conflict.* He wrote, *"The Indian media was on test as to how fairly it would report and interpret. But overall, it failed miserably," He further added, "The general style of reports was: 50 Pakistanis killed and 11 gallant Indian soldiers laid down their lives. **So our boys became dedicated soldiers and Pakistanis barbarians; our leaders are mature politicians and theirs prisoners of dark forces. It is upto the government to say all that. Why should the media?"*

The reality proved, despite giving their best, except for reoccupying a handful of peaks in the immediate surroundings of Kargil and Drass, the Indians miserably failed in evicting the rebels. Regrettably, even now some self-loathing Pakistanis take Indian propaganda as a word of bible.

Victories are there to be owned. All we have to do is, have little pride in ourselves first, and the victories will standout like the rising sun. 

Pakistan News Service - PakTribune

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Neo

Another interesting article by Adnan Gill, worth reading.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## asaad-ul-islam

do you guys want to know the who the worst enemies of pakistan really are? it's not the indians, but the sorry *s* defeatists that control our media and complain and whine about the army all the time.

bhutto whined and complained that she did not have access to the nuclear facilities or could not control the defense budget. any patriotic pakistani would have let these things go, but bhutto did not because her ego could not let her. she wanted to tame the army.

as for pakistan army's success/failures whichever way you guys see it, they have done their job very well. they have managed to compete with a military that outnumbers them in every possible way. it's only because of the US shytting their pants while China rises, you see India being compared to China.

however we all know, whenever india was mentioned, pakistan was too. we have great potential yet we are run by incapable leadership, even the indian armed forces acknowledge this. the ISI was bleeding india from side to side, they single-handedly took over afghanistan and shot the Soviet war machine right out of the sky, was closing in on giving pakistan a grip on central asia, until the war on terror that is.

that's not even the half of it. china and india, acclaimed to be the two rising powers, need their energy supplies to run through pakistan. india can try to avoid it, but eventually they will give in (not before they haggle the price down a bit). central asia needs a warm water port to eject its riches, obviously iran is in no position to do that, which leaves only Gwadar. pakistan connects the middle east, central asia, india, china. it is of great strategic interest.

unfortunately, zardari ( ghaddari ) is now in power and he wants to sell pakistan as a virgin slave. you guys just wait, you thought ganja and bhutto were bad, now we're really going to get it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MOSABJA

I just say one thing that there should be an OFF CAMERA INQUIRY into kargil.

If Sharrif is found Guilty then he should be held accountable.
and if
Mush is held accountable then he should be Punished accordingly.
Both sides should be able to defend themselves.


But one thing that When a former Corps commander Pindi and Top Army general(R) jamshed Gulzar Kiyani comes on the TV and says that Kargil was a debacle and Mush was responsible for it .

THEN SURELY WE PAKISTANIS DONT HAVE ENOUGH TO REFUTE A RETIRED GENERAL.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## vish

Frankly, the "withdrawal" only toook place after the realization of the scale of the Indian Army's counter-offensive set in. By the time this "withdrawal" took place, the IA had captured considerable (if not most) strategic infiltrated ground. 

With regard to Mr. Gill, his anti-India bias is well-known.

Okay, let's for a moment assume that Pakistan continued supporting its forces in Kargil.

Here are the consequences:
1) Possibility of an all-out war in which Pakistan would have been termed the agressor.

2) International isolation from all quarters including your allies (PRC).

3) Those infiltrators would not have been able to hold on to their positions much longer. If they would have stayed put, the Indian government would have no choice but to cross the LoC (all-out war).

There was no choice for Pakistan; it had to save face and withdraw.

Kargil was a blunder; the only thing it achieved was the deaths of hundreds of brave soldiers on both sides.

NS came out as the scapegoat.


----------



## Flintlock

Did Musharraf really think that India would just sit and watch while Pakistan occupied strategic peaks? In the age of live TV?

If Pakistan hadn't withdrawn (assuming they did withdraw and were not infact driven out) then it would have escalated to all-out and possible nuclear war.


----------



## HAIDER

Pakistan lost soldiers during withdrawal not during offensive . But didn't withdraw from strategic peak. Which very close and visible from supply route toward kargil.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## vish

HAIDER said:


> Pakistan lost soldiers during withdrawal not during offensive . But didn't withdraw from strategic peak. Which very close and visible from supply route toward kargil.



Pakistan lost soldiers as and when the peaks were being occupied by the Indian Army. The IA's primary concern was the occupied peaks that overlook the NH1; consequently, these were the first targets.

Pakistan lost soldiers during the offensive operation and during withdrawal.


----------



## indiapakistanfriendship

> An ingenious tactical plan was pulled out of shelves and was set in motion. The plan called for occupying strategic peaks, on the Indian side of LOC, overlooking a long stretch of the Leh-Srinagar highway (NHA). The idea was to secure and hold vantage points overlooking the highway to direct Pakistani artillery fire for the purposes of intercepting and disrupting Indian logistical supply-lines. The highway was/is the lifeline of the Indian troops illegally occupying the Siachin Glacier. A suspension of supplies for few more weeks would have made it very difficult for the Indians troops in Siachin to have sustained the next winter.



Unfortunately so called expert Adnan Gill has comfortably forgotten that the so called Ingeneous planning never took into consideration logistics and supplies. If Indian army had not lodged them , it would have been their lack of supplies that would have lodged them anyway. 
The plan was a failure from the drawing board onwards.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## mgm

*has anyone out of you guys participated in KARGIL conflict, YES or NO*

cause if you guys *have not* then you all are just blowing bubles 

and if * you have *

then you would know the truth.
...

the fact is that actually media won the war. As far losses are concerned, for every pakistani soldier, indians lost almost 10 soldiers.
One big leasson that indians learnt was that Pakistanis were not a peace meal. In Kargil they confronted a whole new generation of soldiers who were fierce fighters and determined to hold their ground, come what may.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vish

mgm said:


> *has anyone out of you guys participated in KARGIL conflict, YES or NO*
> 
> cause if you guys *have not* then you all are just blowing bubles
> 
> and if * you have *
> 
> then you would know the truth.
> ...
> 
> the fact is that actually media won the war. As far losses are concerned, for every pakistani soldier, indians lost almost 10 soldiers.
> One big leasson that indians learnt was that Pakistanis were not a peace meal. In Kargil they confronted a whole new generation of soldiers who were fierce fighters and determined to hold their ground, come what may.



The reason the losses of the IA as compared to the "infiltrators" were higher (though I doubt it would be in the ratio of 10:1) is that the terrain where the action took place heavily favors defensive operations. Offensive operations in those mountains is any soldier's real test of character.

Official Indian losses: 522

Source: PARLIAMENT QUESTIONS ,LOK SABHA

So, if your argument is correct, Pakistani losses would number only 53.

The real picture is slightly different.

Official Pakistani losses: None exist.

Musharraff claims that 357 Pakistani soldiers lost their lives in Kargil. 

Link: IndianExpress.com :: Musharraf now has Pak&#8217;s Kargil toll: 357

According to the above link, the then Army Chief V P Malik has mentioned in his book on Kargil that 270 Pakistani soldiers are burried in India.

So much for 10:1.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## salman nedian

Guys! 

From when we have started to think about martyrs?

We have a strong believe on Ghazi ya Shaheed so for us dead bodies dont mean defeat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Myth_buster_1

vish said:


> The reason the losses of the IA as compared to the "infiltrators" were higher (though I doubt it would be in the ratio of 10:1) is that the terrain where the action took place heavily favors defensive operations. Offensive operations in those mountains is any soldier's real test of character.
> 
> Official Indian losses: 522
> 
> Source: PARLIAMENT QUESTIONS ,LOK SABHA
> 
> So, if your argument is correct, Pakistani losses would number only 53.
> 
> The real picture is slightly different.
> 
> Official Pakistani losses: None exist.
> 
> Musharraff claims that 357 Pakistani soldiers lost their lives in Kargil.
> 
> Link: IndianExpress.com :: Musharraf now has Paks Kargil toll: 357
> 
> According to the above link, the then Army Chief V P Malik has mentioned in his book on Kargil that 270 Pakistani soldiers are burried in India.
> 
> So much for 10:1.



" A contract was concluded in August 1999 with Buitron and Baize, USA for 500 aluminium caskets and 3,000 body bags at a total cost of US $ 1.5 million equivalent to Rs 6.55 crore." Strategic Affairs - Special Report
so their you go.. 3500 vs 357


----------



## vish

23march said:


> " A contract was concluded in August 1999 with Buitron and Baize, USA for 500 aluminium caskets and 3,000 body bags at a total cost of US $ 1.5 million equivalent to Rs 6.55 crore." Strategic Affairs - Special Report
> so their you go.. 3500 vs 357



So, each and every one of those body bags were solely bought for the IA soldiers who died in Kargil, is that what you are suggesting?


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

A quick warning. Keep this civil, and analytical, or posts will be deleted without warning.

If someone says something you consider offensive, or out of place, use the report post feature and the Mods will make a decision.

Do not respond and start a flame war that gets the thread closed and users banned.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Myth_buster_1

vish said:


> So, each and every one of those body bags were solely bought for the IA soldiers who died in Kargil, is that what you are suggesting?


Did you even used the link? and yes 3500 body bags and aluminium caskets were ordered by the "INDIAN ARMY" for "INDIAN ARMY" who died in Kargil war and its no suggestion its a fact!


----------



## indiapakistanfriendship

> Did you even used the link? and yes 3500 body bags and aluminium caskets were ordered by the "INDIAN ARMY" for "INDIAN ARMY" who died in Kargil war and its no suggestion its a fact!



Do you even have an idea as to how government procrurement takes pace. The order was placed in bulk. Those caskets are still used for those who died in recent COIN operations.


----------



## vish

23march said:


> Did you even used the link? and yes 3500 body bags and aluminium caskets were ordered by the "INDIAN ARMY" for "INDIAN ARMY" who died in Kargil war and its no suggestion its a fact!



I did read the link. The link does not specifically state that the 3500 body bags were bought solely for the purpose of 3500 soldiers all of whom died during the Kargil conflict. 

The link states that the purchase of these body bags violated procurement rules and benefitted a few babus/generals.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

indiapakistanfriendship said:


> Do you even have an idea as to how government procrurement takes pace. The order was placed in bulk. Those caskets are still used for those who died in recent COIN operations.



Give me a reason not be believe you are .. please provide an evident! link??


----------



## indiapakistanfriendship

> Give me a reason not be believe you are .. please provide an evident! link??


For starers why dont to prove you own coorelation" 3000 odd caskets equals threethousand odd dead bodies"

Lt Parthiban killed in action in a COIN operation lived near my uncles house, his body was brought in such casket.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

On the losses inflicted during the withdrawal, which per Musharraf was when the majority of the Pakistani Military losses occurred, were these losses inflicted after the withdrawal was imminent?

That is the GoI and IA were aware of it, in which case was this not akin to attacking someone when their back was turned?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vish

23march said:


> Give me a reason not be believe you are .. please provide an evident! link??



I've already given a link which clearly states that 522 IA soldiers died in Kargil.

Further, you have made the assumption that those 3500 body bags are solely meant for the 3500 soldiers that died in Kargil conflict alone. So you have to proove your assertion.

The link you have provided does not specifically state that the 3500 body bags were bought solely for the purpose of 3500 soldiers all of whom died during the Kargil conflict. The link only states that 3500 body bags were bought, something which we (me and indiapakistanfriendship) are not denying.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## indiapakistanfriendship

> That is the GoI and IA were aware of it, in which case was this not akin to attacking someone when their back was turned?



Agno according to Pakistani version most of the fighters were Jihadis. In that case there could be a good probability that all of them would have not followed the order and some could have stay put for last stand, how is it fair to expect them to follow orders like professional soldiers

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vish

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> On the losses inflicted during the withdrawal, which per Musharraf was when the majority of the Pakistani Military losses occurred, were these losses inflicted after the withdrawal was imminent?
> 
> That is the GoI and IA were aware of it, in which case was this not akin to attacking someone when their back was turned?



There is much ambiguity about this. Firstly, if the post were occupied after the "withdrawal" was "authorized," then why didn't the infiltrators surrender? Further, even during withdrawal I doubt they simply decided to run towards the LoC without looking after their safety.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

indiapakistanfriendship said:


> Agno according to Pakistani version most of the fighters were Jihadis. In that case there could be a good probability that all of them would have not followed the order and some could have stay put for last stand, how is it fair to expect them to follow orders like professional soldiers





vish said:


> There is much ambiguity about this. Firstly, if the post were occupied after the "withdrawal" was "authorized," then why didn't the infiltrators surrender? Further, even during withdrawal I doubt they simply decided to run towards the LoC without looking after their safety.



From what I understand, the casualties were not inflicted while the "infiltrators" were still occupying the heights - that would not be a "withdrawal". The casualties were inflicted when Indian artillery opened up on the paths, routes and trails leading away from the peaks and back across the LoC.

So the fact is that whether the IA believed it was "Jihadis" or "professional soldiers" does not matter, since the attacks were conducted on the paths rather than the peaks. 

*Vish:*
Any post would be "occupied" until a withdrawal was announced, and then the troops "withdraw". No surrender was announced. That the troops were attacked on the paths and routes, and not on the peaks themselves, indicates that the peaks were being vacated.

I fail to see what ambiguity there is here.


----------



## indiapakistanfriendship

Agno the troops merely withdrew and not surrendered. Is there any convetion that withdawing troops must not be attacked or was there any amnesty or treaty signed between the two nations( I wold like to know is there were any such convention or is it a non written convention between the two armies). During ODS (Desert Storm) most of the iraqi casualities were during withdrawl, ever heard of the highway of death!


----------



## vish

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> From what I understand, the casualties were not inflicted while the "infiltrators" were still occupying the heights - that would not be a "withdrawal". The casualties were inflicted when Indian artillery opened up on the paths, routes and trails leading away from the peaks and back across the LoC.
> 
> So the fact is that whether the IA believed it was "Jihadis" or "professional soldiers" does not matter, since the attacks were conducted on the paths rather than the peaks.
> 
> *Vish:*
> Any post would be "occupied" until a withdrawal was announced, and then the troops "withdraw". No surrender was announced. That the troops were attacked on the paths and routes, and not on the peaks themselves, indicates that the peaks were being vacated.
> 
> I fail to see what ambiguity there is here.



If I'm not wrong the reason why those supply routes were targeted because that was the only feasible way to capture those posts. Further, all Pakistan did was anounce that "we have relinquished support to the freedom fighters." There was no ceasefire or "withdrawal." This is where the ambiguity lies. Were those soldiers told to surrender or come back or stay put? Were they even told anything at all?

The deaths during the "withdrawal" were combat-related. If you're thinking that the infiltrators died while running toward LoC and the IA taking pot shots at them, then I'ld state that this is not the case. Even if it were, there is nothing illegal about it. Most of these "withdrawal" deaths were due to hampering of logistics which weakened the occupiers' fighting capability and led to their defeat when their posts were overrun.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

indiapakistanfriendship said:


> Agno the troops merely withdrew and not surrendered. Is there any convetion that withdawing troops must not be attacked or was there any amnesty or treaty signed between the two nations( I wold like to know is there were any such convention or is it a non written convention between the two armies). During ODS (Desert Storm) most of the iraqi casualities were during withdrawl, ever heard of the highway of death!



I don't know whether there is any convention, hence the question in my first post.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

vish said:


> If I'm not wrong the reason why those supply routes were targeted because that was the only feasible way to capture those posts. Further, all Pakistan did was anounce that "we have relinquished support to the freedom fighters." There was no ceasefire or "withdrawal." This is where the ambiguity lies. Were those soldiers told to surrender or come back or stay put? Were they even told anything at all?



I am not referring to the targeting of the supply routes during the course of the combat - those casualties would fall in the category of casualties incurred during the active control of the heights. Targeting of the supply routes would be legitimate.

My question was related to the targeting of the supply routes after the withdrawal was announced.



> The deaths during the "withdrawal" were combat-related. If you're thinking that the infiltrators died while running toward LoC and the iA taking pot shots at them, then I'd state that this is not the case. Even if it were, there is nothing illegal about it. Most of these "withdrawal" deaths were due to hampering of logistics which weakened the occupiers' fighting capability and led to their defeat.


I am saying that the casualties were incurred when the withdrawal was announced and the troops were not attempting to control the heights any more and leaving - from the Pakistani side atleast (from the withdrawing troops) then there would not be any "combat".

I am not certain if Pakistani artillery was still targeting Indian positions, which resulted in India continuing to target the supply routes.

I tried a cursory search for the actual withdrawal announcement, but was unable to find it.

Again, this goes to my question in my first post, was it wrong of the IA to target withdrawing troops? Was the IA not convinced that there would be a withdrawal, and hence continued targeting supply routes? There are various ways to answer this.


----------



## indiapakistanfriendship

> Again, this goes to my question in my first post, was it wrong of the IA to target withdrawing troops? Was the IA not convinced that there would be a withdrawal, and hence continued targeting supply routes? There are various ways to answer this.



Agno personally I feel that the mood of the nation could have been part of this. There was already an increasing anger towards the government for not crossing the LOC, aggressive mood towards millitants occupying their heights, I suppose that the argument would have been simple" why would terrorists(indian perspective) deserve treatment as PA regulars. The attacks could have been more of psychological nature rather than rationale. Also as I point out attacking withdrwing forces have been the norm for several years , desert storm being the latest example. My 2 cents


----------



## Flintlock

You do realize that Pakistan was the aggressor rite?

In such circumstances, India was supposed to say "Oh...Pakistan is withdrawing....lets stop attacking and sit on our a*sses"

Be realistic dude. Its obvious that India wouldn't stop attacking till it was sure that the last Pakistani had left.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Stealth Assassin said:


> You do realize that Pakistan was the aggressor rite?
> 
> In such circumstances, India was supposed to say "Oh...Pakistan is withdrawing....lets stop attacking and sit on our a*sses"
> 
> Be realistic dude. Its obvious that India wouldn't stop attacking till it was sure that the last Pakistani had left.



Again, regardless of who the "aggressor" was, my question goes to whether there is a convention of attacking retreating troops, when a "withdrawal" has been officially announced.

Does "being an aggressor" mean that the other nation execute POW's?

Using the logic of your second sentence, does "being an aggressor" mean that surrendering troops can be gunned down? 

Again, there are many logical, non jingoistic arguments than can be raised that would justify the continued targeting of supply routes after a withdrawal had been announced, but none of you has bothered to even explore them yet.

*IPF:*

The US actions in targeting that withdrawal were also criticized by some as "war crimes" and unjustified. I would imagine then that unless some other argument is advanced some of that criticism would be applicable to the Indian actions as well?


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Again, regardless of who the "aggressor" was, my question goes to whether there is a convention of attacking retreating troops, when a "withdrawal" has been officially announced.



What I'm saying, is that how was India to trust that Pakistani troops were indeed withdrawing and sit on its a*ss? IT doesn't make sense.

There was no formal surrender.




> Does "being an aggressor" mean that the other nation execute POW's?



Which POWs did India execute?



> Using the logic of your second sentence, does "being an aggressor" mean that surrendering troops can be gunned down?



Pakistan never actually surrendered. There was no formal treaty.

They were being pushed back (or "withdrawing").

That is no reason for India to stop attacking.



> Again, there are many logical, non jingoistic arguments than can be raised that would justify the continued targeting of supply routes after a withdrawal had been announced, but none of you has bothered to even explore them yet.



All my answers were pretty logical, if you ignore the crude language.


----------



## indiapakistanfriendship

> The US actions in targeting that withdrawal were also criticized by some as "war crimes" and unjustified. I would imagine then that unless some other argument is advanced some of that criticism would be applicable to the Indian actions as well?



Agno I am not saying it was entirely right , but when viewed from an Indian perspective, they were terrorists and why would they deserve the same treatment as PA regulars.


----------



## Mohammed Azizuddin

Neo said:


> *Kargil: A Debacle or A Lost Opportunity? ​*
> Monday June 02, 2008
> 
> Adnan Gill
> gill_adnan@hotmail.com
> 
> *Starting from the days of the Sir Creek dispute, all the way to the Kargil Conflict; you will find Indians remembering each and every armed-conflict as a glorious victory snatched out of teeth of defeat by the outnumbered brave Indian troops. Neutral observers could disagree and dispute all they want, but to Indians&#8217; credit, they always remember their defeats as &#8216;victories&#8217;. Sadly, in a stark contrast, the self-defeating Pakistanis generously concede their victories to be &#8220;defeats&#8221;. *
> 
> *In their &#8220;Official 1965 War History&#8221; published by the Indian Ministry of Defense, Indian historians never acknowledged their humiliating defeats at the Sir Creek.* In a slight of hand, when recording the tallies of the battle for the Sardar Post, Indians provided exact ranks and numbers of Pakistani casualties, but *conveniently marked most of their own casualties as &#8216;missing&#8217;; *not dead or POW (p. 25). However, the Pakistanis put the Indian losses around 250 dead. *If one is to assume even 1/5 of Pakistani numbers to be accurate, the Indians must have suffered at least twice as many casualties as they marked as missing.* *Even though, Indians miserably lost on every battle front at Sir Creek front, including Jungle Post, Clump Post, Sardar Post, Chhad Bet, Sera Bat and Biar Bet, still one would be hard-pressed to find any Indian who would honorably admit their miserable defeats. *
> 
> One could only wish, like Indians, Pakistanis would also take pride in their glorious victories, instead of disowning them. But then how can we blame such Pakistanis when it took only one letter from the British Prime Minister Harold Wilson for President Ayub Khan to obediently return every inch of land Pakistani soldiers won back with their sweat and blood! *Pakistani historians are also to be blamed for leavening historical vacuums, which enemy filled with their exaggerated embellishments. *
> 
> India first violated Pakistan&#8217;s sovereignty and illegally occupied its territory when they invaded and annexed the State of Junagarh and Hyderabad, and then Kashmir. Later, India set the precedence of brazenly violating the Line of Control (LOC). *Between 1996 and 1999 alone, the UNMOGIP recorded around 3,500 Indian Violations of LOC. Since signing the Shimla Agreement in 1972, India not only invaded but still illegally occupies 3 sectors that used to be on the Pakistani side of the LOC; namely Siachin, Qamar and Turbat La. *
> 
> In 1998, India tested its nuclear weapons. Pakistan answered by testing their own. By doing so, *Indians practically neutralized their 1/6 numerical and conventional superiority over Pakistan. By publicly going nuclear, Pakistanis gained confidence to calculate, that despite low intensity conflicts in the disputed Kashmir, India will not go to full fledge war.* Arguably, Pakistanis were fairly accurate with their calculation; Kargil Conflict, and *2002 border standoff vindicated their calculations. *
> 
> Following the Indian lead of numerous LOC incursions, Pakistan decided to return the favor. *An ingenious tactical plan was pulled out of shelves and was set in motion. The plan called for occupying strategic peaks, on the Indian side of LOC, overlooking a long stretch of the Leh-Srinagar highway (NHA). The idea was to secure and hold vantage points overlooking the highway to direct Pakistani artillery fire for the purposes of intercepting and disrupting Indian logistical supply-lines. The highway was/is the lifeline of the Indian troops illegally occupying the Siachin Glacier. A suspension of supplies for few more weeks would have made it very difficult for the Indians troops in Siachin to have sustained the next winter. *
> 
> *It was a brilliant tactical plan, but it was a lousy strategic plan.* It was *missing vital components of support from the political leadership, Foreign Office, and private TV channels &#8211; for the PR purposes.* The civilians alleged, the military left them out of loop till the last hour, which handicapped their performance. Supporters of military retorted, exclusion of the civilians from the planning phase was necessary to maintain absolute secrecy. While, the critics explained, Pakistani military never trusted the competence or professionalism of the civilians enough to entrust them with highest level of secrecy. *The ferocity of Indian reaction, punctuated by the IAF close-support missions, must have caught the architects of the plan off guarded. Perhaps that&#8217;s why the component of air-cover for the rebels was also missing from the otherwise well conceived Pakistani plan.* Critics also credit the Indian authorities for managing the dissemination of information with near perfection. *Their PR management was credited for shoring up domestic and international support for the Indian reaction, declaration of -- supposed -- Indian victory;* most importantly, for demonizing Pakistan for what India had done in the past.
> 
> *To the eternal shame of Indian intelligence, the Pakistani advance went totally undetected till May 4, 1999, when some shepherds tipped off the Indians.* According to The Washington Post reporter, Pamela Constable, initially Indians claimed *there were only dozen or two intruders who were to be dislodged within a week from few peaks.* *By the end of the conflict, Indians were literally swearing there were at least 5,000 Pakistani rebels commanding the heights.* After the conflict, the Indians revised the numbers to 20,000 Indian troops (in the theater) vs. 1,500 so-called infiltrators. However, in 2002, Brig. Shaukat Qadir (Pakistani) claimed, the *total number of Pakistani rebels never exceeded 1,000 from all ranks. *The *ratio of combatants was 20:1 in India&#8217;s favor*. However, according to Global Security, at conflict&#8217;s peak, *Indian troop strength in Kashmir ballooned to 730,000. *The buildup included a handsome deployment of Indian Air Force personnel who were *supporting the operations of around 60 frontline Indian aircraft.*
> 
> The nature of insurmountable odds faced by the Indians could be judged from the following stats compiled by the Global Security: &#8220;The Indian Artillery fired over 250,000 shells, bombs and rockets during the Kargil conflict&#8230; the Air Force carried out nearly 5,000 sorties of all types over 50-odd days of operations&#8230; The aircraft [were] required to fly at about 20,000 feet [or higher, where] the air density is 30&#37; less than at sea level&#8221;. At such dizzying heights, where high winds unpredictably shift velocity every few second, fire-control algorithms simply do not work; neither do the other precision weapons. Very well masked rebel bunkers built on vertical heights were extremely difficult to detect, and notoriously difficult to score a direct hit. So one can safely postulate, the accuracy rate of Indian artillery shells and air-dropped weapons couldn&#8217;t have been over 3-5%.
> 
> Few reporters captured the enormity of incursion and the frustrating predicaments of the Indian troops. On May 18, the Times of India reported, *&#8220;Painting a grim picture, the sources said the Pakistani intruders had come 6 km inside the LoC in Mushkoh Valley and the Drass sub-sector, 2 km in Kaksar and up to 7 km in the Batalik sub-sector. The Pakistanis, they said, were holding strategic peaks which gave them a dominating view of the areas around&#8221;. *
> 
> About a week before the conflict ended, when the Indian media was splashing feel-good images of their brave commandos planting Indian flags on peak after peak; in Batalik sector, all the Indians were able to do was reoccupy 1 piddly ridge. Pamela Constable (The Washington Post) reported, &#8220;Singh and other military officials here admit their progress has been excruciatingly slow. About 15 miles northeast of here in the area of Batalik, for example, Singh acknowledged, only one of four occupied ridges has been &#8216;cleared of the enemy&#8217; after weeks of fighting and shelling.&#8221; Then she went over the helplessness and embarrassment Indians had to face, &#8220;It is evident from the military buildup in this region that India is determined to flush out the infiltrators and make up for the embarrassment of allowing them to sneak in undetected and keep one of the world`s largest military establishments at bay for weeks.&#8221;
> 
> *It was quite evident that Indians were over their heads and nowhere close to a victory. Contrary to what the Indian propaganda machine was showing to the world, on emergency bases, their government was silently importing 3,500 caskets for their fallen men. In reality, Indians were nowhere even close to dislodging more than handful so-called intruders. *Ms. Constable also caught their farces, &#8220;The rebels penetrated nearly four miles inside Indian-held territory there and still control several ridges beyond [Drass].&#8221; She further reported, Indian &#8220;Military officials said more Pakistani troops are still lodged in the ridges. They said their positions are so high and fortified that two or three fighters can fend off literally hundreds of Indian troops trying to scale the ridges below and surround them. Indian warplanes periodically strafe the ridges, but officials said most are so steep and narrow that air attacks have only a limited effect.&#8221;
> 
> *Impotency of IAF missions was also quite evident . They lost 1 helicopter and 2 IAF aircraft were shot down on the Pakistani side of LOC. One of their pilots was killed in action and the other was captured by the Pakistani troops. Latter on, he was released by the Pakistani in a goodwill gesture. The Hindustan Times quoted Indian military commanders voicing their frustrations, "Every time they hear our aircraft approach they retreat into the caves&#8230; No amount of shelling or rockets can prove effective in such a situation."*
> 
> *Apparently, not only the Indians were buying the scripted Indian propaganda, so were some of the Pakistanis.* Nawaz Sharif&#8217;s July 4, panicky rush to Washington dumbfounded many Pakistanis. Clearly, *Mr. Sharif was incognizant of the immense advantage the Pakistanis enjoyed in the theater. Instead of trusting his military advisors, when Indians bluffed he folded.* *In short, Indian bluff of expanding the conflict unnerved Mr. Sharif. When the time came to show spine, he begged Washington to save him. He sold Pakistan&#8217;s advantage and honor for President Clinton&#8217;s word that he will take "personal interest" in the Kashmir dispute.* On July 11, the Pakistani Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz said, in response to Nawaz Sharif&#8217;s appeal, certain groups of Islamic militants have started to withdraw their forces from the mountains. And just like that, the ultimate sacrifices of many rebel volunteers were wasted.
> 
> Any statesman worth his salt would have immediately walked out on Mr. Clinton after telling him: Pakistani blood is not so cheap, it deserves at least status-quo in Kargil and Drass.* Had Mr. Sharif mustered little courage and waited another few weeks, snows would have returned to the area and India would have been forced to cease military operations. The status-quo would have left the Indian troops sitting in Siachin without any supplies to survive through the next winter. *
> 
> *But unfortunately, Mr. Sharif decided to snatch the victory out of hands of brave warriors, like Capt. Karnal Sher Khan and Hav. Lalak Jan. He sold their blood cheaper than his nerves. Had he showed some spine, today Siachin issue would have been solved and India would have shown higher appreciation for the Pakistani stance on the disputed Kashmir. Most importantly, today most of Pakistanis would have prided themselves for the supreme sacrifices of their brothers. *
> 
> Even Indian media was smarter than the defeatist Pakistani critics to have seen through Indian establishment&#8217;s lies. *Arthur Max, New Delhi bureau chief of Associated Press questioned, "How is it possible that casualties on the Pakistani side were higher -- as India claims -- when they had all the advantage of higher ground?&#8221; He appropriately reasoned, &#8220;The Indians should have suffered higher casualties than the Pakistanis."*
> 
> The self-doubting Pakistanis also do not understand that victors never switch their winning commanders in the middle of action; but the Indians did. According to the Hindustan Times, Brigadier Surendra Singh, brigade commander of 121 Independent Brigade, and Colonel Ajit Nair, deputy brigade commander, were transferred out of Kargil.
> 
> *Eminent Indian columnist, Praful Bidwai berated Indian media for their unethical conduct throughout the conflict.* He wrote, *"The Indian media was on test as to how fairly it would report and interpret. But overall, it failed miserably," He further added, "The general style of reports was: &#8217;50 Pakistanis killed and 11 gallant Indian soldiers laid down their lives&#8217;. **So our boys became dedicated soldiers and Pakistanis barbarians; our leaders are mature politicians and theirs prisoners of dark forces. It is upto the government to say all that. Why should the media?"*
> 
> The reality proved, despite giving their best, except for reoccupying a handful of peaks in the immediate surroundings of Kargil and Drass, the Indians miserably failed in evicting the rebels. Regrettably, even now some self-loathing Pakistanis take Indian propaganda as a word of bible.
> 
> Victories are there to be owned. All we have to do is, have little pride in ourselves first, and the victories will standout like the rising sun.
> 
> Pakistan News Service - PakTribune



Alright now, let me take the bull by its horns...

Starting with the 1965 war, 
The 1965 war revolves around the 'operation Gibraltar', whose main objective was to infiltrate the Indian controlled Jammu and Kashmir by Pakistani Soldiers and guerrillas, disguised as locals, entered Jammu and Kashmir from Pakistan with the intention of fomenting an insurgency among Kashmiri Muslims. However, the strategy went awry from the outset as it was not well-coordinated and the infiltrators were soon found. The debacle was followed by an Indian counterattack that resulted in the 1965 War.

The operation was a significant one as it sparked a large scale military engagement between the two neighbours, the first since the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. Its success, as envisaged by its Pakistani planners, could have given Pakistan control over a unified Kashmir; something that Pakistan desired to achieve at the earliest opportunity.

The year is 1962, the Indian army faced a war with China in 1962, just 2 years earlier, were it was just recovering from its wounds.Following the First Kashmir War which saw India gaining the majority of the disputed area of Kashmir, Pakistan sought an opportunity to win back the areas lost. The opening came after the Sino-Indian War in 1962 where India lost to China and as a result the Indian Military was undergoing massive changes both in personnel and equipment. During this period, despite being numerically smaller than the Indian Military, Pakistan's armed forces had a qualitative edge in air power and armour over India,[4] which Pakistan sought to utilise before India completed its defence build-up.

Despite initial reservations by the President of Pakistan Ayub Khan, the operation was set in motion. In the first week of August 1965,Pakistani troops, members of the SSG commandos and irregulars began to cross the Cease Fire Line dividing Indian- and Pakistani-held Kashmir. Several columns were to occupy key heights around the Kashmir valley and encourage a general revolt, which would be followed by direct combat by Pakistani troops.
The plan was multi-pronged. Infiltrators would mingle with the local populace and incite them to rebellion. Meanwhile guerrilla warfare would commence, destroying bridges, tunnels and highways, harassing enemy communications, logistic installations and headquarters as well as attacking airfields,[16] with a view to create the conditions of an "armed insurrection" in Kashmir &#8212; leading to a national uprising against Indian rule. It was assumed that India would neither counter-attack nor involve itself in another full-scale war, and the liberation of Kashmir would rapidly follow.Despite such a well-planned operation, the intruders were detected by Indian forces in Kashmir. With the exception of four districts which did revolt, the local Kashmiris did not cooperate as expected. Instead, they conveyed news of the planned insurgency to the local authorities and turned the infiltrators in. The Mujahids attempted to artificially create a sense of revolt by carrying out guerilla attacks, but to no avail. Gibraltar Force was soon facing attacks from the Indian Army who moved in immediately to secure the border. The majority of the infiltrators were captured by the Indian troops, although some managed to escape. India accused the Pakistani government of sending and aiding the seditionists, and although Pakistan denied any complicity,it was soon proved that the foreigners were all of Pakistani origin. In fact several of them were found to be officers in the Pakistan Army, with the UNMOGIP Chief, General Nimmo also confirming Pakistan's involvement.

*What did Pakistan win from 1965 war??*
Pakistan Army was flushed out of Indian Kashmir, that was a victory, it was duely celebrated.
A De-classified US Document confirming infiltrators...




*War of 1971...*
What can be said about the 1971 war....it was an out and out victory, a part of Pakistan was liberated, giving rise to Bangladesh.
I can sum up all the war into one picture...


Lt. Gen A. A. K. Niazi signs the instrument of surrender on December 16, surrendering his forces to Lt. Gen Jagjit Singh Aurora.

The cost of the war for Pakistan in monetary and human resources was high. In the book Can Pakistan Survive? Pakistan based author Tariq Ali writes, "Pakistan lost half its navy, a quarter of its airforce and a third of its army." India took approximately 90,000 prisoners of war that included Pakistani soldiers as well as some of their East Pakistani allies. 79,676 of these prisoners were uniformed personnel, of which 55,692 were Army, 16,354 Paramilitary, 5,296 Police, 1000 Navy and 800 PAF.

*This was India's biggest ever victory and it was duely celebrated.
*


*Coming to Kargil war.....*

Because of the extreme winter weather in Kashmir, it was common practice for the Indian and Pakistan Army to abandon forward posts and reoccupy them in the spring. That particular spring, the Pakistan Army reoccupied the forward posts before the scheduled time.
Infiltration and military build-up.
Infiltration and military build-up.

In early May 1999, the Pakistan Army decided to occupy the Kargil posts, numbering around 130, and thus control the area. Troops from the elite Special Services Group as well as four to seven battalions[19][20] of the Northern Light Infantry (a paramilitary regiment not part of the regular Pakistani army at that time) backed by Kashmiri guerrillas and Afghan mercenaries[21] covertly and overtly set up bases on the vantage points of the Indian-controlled region. Initially, these incursions were not spotted due to the heavy artillery fire by Pakistan across the Line of Control, which provided cover for the infiltrators. But by the second week of May, the ambushing of an Indian patrol team, acting on a tip-off by a local shepherd in the Batalik sector, led to the exposure of the infiltration. Initially with little knowledge of the nature or extent of the encroachment, the Indian troops in the area claimed that they would evict them within a few days. However, reports of infiltration elsewhere along the LoC made it clear that the entire plan of attack was on a much bigger scale. The total area seized by the ingress is generally accepted to between 130 km&#178; - 200 km&#178;;[18][22] Musharraf however, stated that 500 square miles (1,300 km&#178 of Indian territory was occupied.[19]

The Government of India responded with Operation Vijay, a mobilisation of 200,000 Indian troops. However, because of the nature of the terrain, division and corps operations could not be mounted; the scale of most fighting was at the regimental or battalion level. In effect, two divisions of the Indian Army,[23] numbering 20,000, plus several thousand from the Paramilitary forces of India and the air force were deployed in the conflict zone. The total number of Indian soldiers that were involved in the military operation on the Kargil-Drass sector was thus close to 30,000. The number of infiltrators, including those providing logistical backup, has been put at approximately 5,000 at the height of the conflict.[18][24][21] This figure includes troops from Pakistan-administered Kashmir that were involved in the war providing additional artillery support.




*There were three major phases to the Kargil War. First, Pakistan captured several strategic high points in the Indian-controlled section of Kashmir. India responded by first capturing strategic transportation routes, then militarily pushing Pakistani forces back across the Line of Control.*

*What did Pakistan win in Kargil??*

Pakistan was criticised by other countries for allowing its paramilitary forces and insurgents to cross the Line of Control.[36] Pakistan's primary diplomatic response, one of plausible deniability linking the incursion to what it officially termed as "Kashmiri freedom fighters", was in the end not successful. Veteran analysts argued that the battle was fought at heights where only seasoned troops could survive, so poorly equipped freedom fighters would neither have the ability nor the wherewithal to seize land and defend it. Moreover, while the army had initially denied the involvement of its troops in the intrusion, two soldiers were awarded the Nishan-E-Haider (Pakistan's highest military honour). Another 90 soldiers were also given gallantry awards, most of them posthumously, confirming Pakistan's role in the episode. India also released taped phone conversations between the Army Chief and a senior Pakistani general where the latter is recorded saying: "the scruff of [the militants] necks is in our hands,"[37] although Pakistan dismissed it as a "total fabrication". Concurrently, Pakistan made several contradicting statements, confirming its role in Kargil, when it defended the incursions saying that the LOC itself was disputed.[38] Pakistan also attempted to internationalize the Kashmir issue, by linking the crisis in Kargil to the larger Kashmir conflict but, such a diplomatic stance found few backers on the world stage.[39]

*As the Indian counter-attacks picked up momentum, Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif flew to meet U.S. president Bill Clinton on July 4 to obtain support from the United States. Clinton rebuked Sharif, however, and asked him to use his contacts to rein in the militants and withdraw Pakistani soldiers from Indian territory. Clinton would later reveal in his autobiography that "Sharif&#8217;s moves were perplexing" since the Indian prime minister had travelled to Lahore to promote bilateral talks aimed at resolving the Kashmir problem and "by crossing the Line of Control, Pakistan had wrecked the [bilateral] talks." On the other hand, he applauded Indian restraint for not crossing the LoC and escalating the conflict into an all-out war. The other G8 nations, too, supported India and condemned the Pakistani violation of the LoC at the Cologne summit. The European Union was also opposed to the violation of the LoC. China, a long-time ally of Pakistan, did not intervene in Pakistan's favour, insisting on a pullout of forces to the LoC and settling border issues peacefully. Other organizations like the ASEAN Regional Forum too supported India's stand on the inviolability of the LOC. Faced with growing international pressure, Sharif managed to pull back the remaining soldiers from Indian territory. The joint statement issued by Clinton and Sharif conveyed the need to respect the Line of Control and resume bilateral talks as the best forum to resolve all disputes.*



*MOD EDIT: Watch the Instigation.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## blain2

vish said:


> The reason the losses of the IA as compared to the "infiltrators" were higher (though I doubt it would be in the ratio of 10:1) is that the terrain where the action took place heavily favors defensive operations. Offensive operations in those mountains is any soldier's real test of character.
> 
> Official Indian losses: 522
> 
> Source: PARLIAMENT QUESTIONS ,LOK SABHA
> 
> So, if your argument is correct, Pakistani losses would number only 53.
> 
> The real picture is slightly different.
> 
> Official Pakistani losses: None exist.
> 
> Musharraff claims that 357 Pakistani soldiers lost their lives in Kargil.
> 
> Link: IndianExpress.com :: Musharraf now has Paks Kargil toll: 357
> 
> According to the above link, the then Army Chief V P Malik has mentioned in his book on Kargil that 270 Pakistani soldiers are burried in India.
> 
> So much for 10:1.



The less said the better about official losses.


----------



## vish

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I am not referring to the targeting of the supply routes during the course of the combat - those casualties would fall in the category of casualties incurred during the active control of the heights. Targeting of the supply routes would be legitimate.
> 
> My question was related to the targeting of the supply routes after the withdrawal was announced.
> 
> 
> I am saying that the casualties were incurred when the withdrawal was announced and the troops were not attempting to control the heights any more and leaving - from the Pakistani side atleast (from the withdrawing troops) then there would not be any "combat".
> 
> I am not certain if Pakistani artillery was still targeting Indian positions, which resulted in India continuing to target the supply routes.
> 
> I tried a cursory search for the actual withdrawal announcement, but was unable to find it.
> 
> Again, this goes to my question in my first post, was it wrong of the IA to target withdrawing troops? Was the IA not convinced that there would be a withdrawal, and hence continued targeting supply routes? There are various ways to answer this.



Firstly, there was no "withdrawal." Pakistan never stated anything with regard to a ceasefire or withdrawal. All that the Pakistani government said was "we are relinquishing our support to the freedom fighters."

Further, no one knows whether the troops on those positions were ever even told anything, let alone an order to withdraw.

If this is the case then those Pakistani troops were officially in Indian territory carrying out hostile activities. These troops were not withdrawing; further, even if they were aren't they supposed to surrender, if they encounter Indian troops, rather than start walking back toward the LoC? 

Give me a break. A few weeks ago these troops were killing Indian soldiers and now you expect the IA to let them go because they are "withdrawing?"

I'm sorry to say this but your argument is very flawed.

The biggest blunder is that the Pakistani government never bothered clearing the air then.

I've also mentioned that if you are thinking that these troops were walking back to the LoC and the IA was taking pot shots at these helpless souls, then you are mistaken.

The IA cut their logistics supplies and then ran over their positions. These troops died fighting and not while "withdrawing."


----------



## vish

blain2 said:


> The less said the better about official losses.



Do you mean to say that there have been more losses?

These official figures are what the defense minister has given inside a parliament session, and have been universally accepted as credible.

522 Indian soldiers died, the link also directs one to webpages where the names of these 522 martyrs are provided.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

The Pakistani were not withdrawing.

If there was any withdrawal, then it would have been announced.

Therefore, the issue does not really arise.

It must be understood that military operations basically encompass Advance, Attack, Defence and Withdrawal. Withdrawal is not a rout. It is a planned movement and very military like.

In attack, when the enemy is withdrawing, there is a sub head called Pursuit. The aim is to ensure that the enemy does not have the time or resources to hold another defence line with the troops withdrawing and press on so as to make the withdrawal a rout!

As far as the Kargil Operations is concerned, while the Pakistani soldiers did their best as one could, they were handicapped by poor logistics, which even their helicopter could not sustain

As far as the casualties are concerned, they did not claim their heroic dead and the Indian Army had to bury them.

This would be of intrest:



> *Sharif kept in dark on Kargil: Ex-general*
> 
> Islamabad, June 3 (PTI): Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was kept in the dark on the Pakistan army&#8217;s Kargil operation, a former aide of President Pervez Musharraf said during an interview last night.
> 
> Lieutenant General (Retired) Jamshed Gulzar Kayani, who served in the ISI and commanded the crucial Rawalpindi-based 10 Corps, said he believed Sharif was &#8220;not carried on board&#8221; during the initial stages of the Kargil intrusion by Pakistani troops in early 1999.
> 
> Kayani, who was then in the ISI, subsequently briefed the former Prime Minister on the Kargil issue at a meeting on May 17, 1999. Sharif told Musharraf, who was then the army chief, that he would support the operation &#8220;as long as you succeed&#8221;.
> 
> However, Sharif also told Musharraf that it would be very difficult for him to back the operation &#8220;if there were reverses&#8221;, Kayani said in an interview aired on the Geo TV channel last night.
> 
> &#8220;In my individual opinion, he (Sharif) was not carried on board. If you go in for such an operation, you have to bring the chief executive on board. You have to give him comprehensive briefings on each and every step (as the Kargil operation) could have opened out into an all out war,&#8221; said Kayani who is now part of a group of retired military officers pressing for Musharraf&#8217;s ouster from office.
> 
> Reacting to Kayani&#8217;s comments, Sharif today demanded that Musharraf be tried for &#8220;treason&#8221;. &#8220;I have been asking for a commission to probe the Kargil issue for a very long time.... Kargil was a very big blunder committed by Musharraf. It was a misadventure that was a major failure,&#8221; Sharif told reporters at Lahore airport before departing for London.
> 
> Kayani also said that those who planned the Kargil operation did not anticipate a strong response from the Indian army, including the use of air power.
> 
> Despite the &#8220;gallantry of troops and young officers&#8221;, Pakistan suffered &#8220;reverses due to India&#8217;s intense response&#8221; , he said.
> 
> During the May 17, 1999, briefing, Sharif was &#8220;uncertain&#8221; and asked the &#8220;high-profile&#8221; personalities present if it would &#8220;be correct to give the green signal for the Kargil operation&#8221;, Kayani said.
> 
> He quoted former foreign minister Sartaj Aziz as saying: &#8220;Sir, I will not be able to support it on the diplomatic milieu.&#8221;
> 
> Certain generals present at the meeting also raised questions as to whether the Pakistan army could logistically support the operation.
> 
> After consulting all those present, Sharif gave Musharraf the &#8220;green signal&#8221; and said the Kargil operation could go on &#8220;as long as you succeed&#8221;.
> 
> Kayani added: &#8220;But in cases of reverses, Nawaz Sharif said it will be very difficult for me to support the operation.&#8221;
> 
> *The bodies of some dead Pakistani soldiers were never found *and Sharif finally went to the US to work out an understanding to end the conflict, the former Musharraf aide added.
> 
> The Telegraph - Archives



The some is an understatement!


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

Here it is from ARABNEWS:



> harif Blasts Kargil Operation
> Azhar Masood, Arab News
> 
> 
> ISLAMABAD, 4 June 2008 &#8212; Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said yesterday that then Chief of Army Staff Gen. Pervez Musharraf misled his government before launching the &#8220;Kargil Operation&#8221; in Indian-administered Kashmir.
> 
> Sharif was commenting on a TV interview of former 10 Corps Commander Lt. Gen. Jamshed Gulzar Kayani who had alleged that Musharraf had kept his Kargil Operation a secret even from his senior commanders. Only a few officers &#8212; Kayani himself, Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad, Gen. Aziz Khan and former Force Commander Northern Areas Lt. Gen. Javed Hasan &#8212; had the knowledge of various aspects of the Kargil Operation.
> 
> While talking to reporters in Lahore, Sharif branded the Kargil Operation as a misadventure of Musharraf that brought two nuclear-armed South Asian nations on the brink of a full-scale war.
> 
> Sharif said: &#8220;When India retaliated to get certain hills which the Pakistan Army had captured during the winter of 1998-1999, there were confirmed reports that India planned major offensives at Bhimber, Sialkot and Reti in Rahim Yar Khan.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;At that stage Musharraf almost begged me to work out a peace formula with the help of former US President Bill Clinton. On July 4, which is a holiday, I met President Clinton in Washington D.C. and sought his good offices to prevent India from launching its major offensive against Pakistan.&#8221;
> 
> Sharif also called Musharraf&#8217;s strategy strange. &#8220;He never informed chief of air and naval staff about the operation. When India started pounding Pakistan&#8217;s posts in Kargil with its air force, our air chief was taken by surprise.&#8221;
> 
> Sharif, who heads Pakistan Muslim League (N), has demanded that Musharraf be tried for treason for his Nov. 3 action, the Kargil adventure and Jamia Hafsa carnage. Sharif said Lt. Gen Kayani&#8217;s interview with Geo News vindicated his stand that he was not informed about the Kargil Operation.
> 
> He said Musharraf made false accusations against him in his book. Sharif said time has proved that Kargil was a misadventure but he (Sharif) left no stone unturned to protect national prestige. He said he had demanded constitution of a commission to investigate the issue.
> 
> About Pakistan People&#8217;s Party&#8217;s constitutional package, he said his party opinion about it would be communicated to PPP leader Asif Ali Zardari.
> 
> He dispelled the impression that his party and Mohajir Qaumi Movement were in contact.
> 
> In the Geo TV interview, Lt Gen Kayani stressed the need for making an example of President Musharraf to block the emergence of future dictators in the country.
> 
> Talking to Shahid Masood in the Meray Mutabiq program, he said Gen. Musharraf had committed such vital mistakes as launching the Kargil Operation, surrendering to the US threat of pushing Pakistan into the Stone Age and destroying the Lal Masjid in Islamabad.
> 
> He said no power could withstand pressure from people power. Kayani said he had seen the period of Ayub Khan, who could not face the wrath of the people. When asked whether the army was with Musharraf, he said the army officers and soldiers would never say anything about it and such things were never discussed in the army.
> 
> He ruled out the imposition of martial law, saying the president could not use Article 58-2(b).
> 
> Kayani said the president should not have given in to the US threat in the wake of the 9/11 tragedy. He said the Pakistan Army was the best professional army in the world. He said Musharraf had options at that time and he should have held a referendum to ascertain the will of the people.
> Sharif Blasts Kargil Operation


----------



## Bushroda

blain2 said:


> The less said the better about official losses.



So should we believe that Musharaff is lying about 357 PA casualties?


----------



## cactuslily58

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> A quick warning. Keep this civil, and analytical, or posts will be deleted without warning.
> 
> If someone says something you consider offensive, or out of place, use the report post feature and the Mods will make a decision.
> 
> Do not respond and start a flame war that gets the thread closed and users banned.



Well said & seconded.


----------



## cactuslily58

Any statesman worth his salt would have immediately walked out on Mr. Clinton after telling him: Pakistani blood is not so cheap, it deserves at least status-quo in Kargil and Drass. Had Mr. Sharif mustered little courage and waited *another few weeks, snows would have returned to the area and India would have been forced to cease military operations. The status-quo would have left the Indian troops sitting in Siachin without any supplies to survive through the next winter. *

Ref permalink # 1.

1. Does the author of the above mentioned remark actually believe what he has written ?

2. Does he not realise the enormity of the retaliation India was about to & prepared to inflict if the withdrawl did not take place? 

3.Does he feel that India would still still if troops in Siachen were cut off ?

4. Was Pakistan prepared for the retaliation epically when its "strategic depth" in form of Afghanistan does not exist anymore ?

If for some reason the answers to the questions above are yes, then quite obviously some has to go & re learn strategy & warfare. These sort of remarks may sound good to convince a civilian audience ,any military mind would reject it outright. It is something like Nasser nationalizing the Suez or Saddam annexing Kuwait & expecting to get away with it.

Pakistani military thought from their hearts & not their heads. While things like 'gut reaction" & " go for it" are ok at platoon & Company level at national level things have to thought & war gamed to the last nut - bolt. If not, then such embarrassing with drawls will continue.


----------



## Kasrkin

> 1. Does the author of the above mentioned remark actually believe what he has written ?


Yup


> 2. Does he not realise the enormity of the retaliation India was about to & prepared to inflict if the withdrawl did not take place?


He does, more than you by the looks of it. And we all saw how much this "enormous retaliation" worked. And as far as full scale war; you would be hard pressed to argue that Indian forces were not off-balanced, to say the least...(probably why they waited this long dispite mounting losses)


> 3.Does he feel that India would still still if troops in Siachen were cut off ?


Nope, he knows they would have made a lot of noise, but other than that what else could they do, had the situation developed like that? 


> 4. Was Pakistan prepared for the retaliation epically when its "strategic depth" in form of Afghanistan does not exist anymore ?


hahahaha, but it existed back then if you would remember...


> If for some reason the answers to the questions above are yes, then quite obviously some has to go & re learn strategy & warfare.


Alright, thanks I'll get right to it....hahaha....cheers!


----------



## vish

Kasrkin said:


> Yup



Mr. Gill's anti-India bias is well known. His knowledge of military and strategic affairs is universally politely regarded as not good.



Kasrkin said:


> He does, more than you by the looks of it. And we all saw how much this "enormous retaliation" worked. And as far as full scale war; you would be hard pressed to argue that Indian forces were not off-balanced, to say the least...(probably why they waited this long dispite mounting losses)



Most of India's losses were during the intitial stage when probing parties were regularly launched to examine and analyse the enemy's positions. The initial mass-infantry attacks were unsuccessful, and frankly stupid. Things changed the moment IA bought in the artillery and the IAF. Indian casualties were relatively low afterwards. Did the IA outnumber the infiltrators; yes. But do not forget that the terrain there heavily favors the defenders. We could not cut the supply lines of these infiltrators because our government did not want to cross the LoC so as to maintain our international standing; a very nice move wheen when one looks back at it now.



Kasrkin said:


> Nope, he knows they would have made a lot of noise, but other than that what else could they do, had the situation developed like that?



Had the conflict prolonged, there was a possibility of a full scale war, with Pakistan being isolated on the global arena. The truth was, had a war broken out, you would have lost far more than us.



Kasrkin said:


> hahahaha, but it existed back then if you would remember...
> 
> Alright, thanks I'll get right to it....hahaha....cheers!



You're right on that one, Cactus did mention the fact wrongly.

You're also right, you ought to study strategic affairs.

What's with the "hahahaha..."?


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

vish said:


> Firstly, there was no "withdrawal." Pakistan never stated anything with regard to a ceasefire or withdrawal. All that the Pakistani government said was "we are relinquishing our support to the freedom fighters."



This is a valid argument, that provides justification for continued targeting of supply routes.

Can you locate a link to the withdrawal or "ceasing support" announcement? Haven't been able to find them.



> Further, no one knows whether the troops on those positions were ever even told anything, let alone an order to withdraw.
> 
> If this is the case then those Pakistani troops were officially in Indian territory carrying out hostile activities. These troops were not withdrawing; further, even if they were aren't they supposed to surrender, if they encounter Indian troops, rather than start walking back toward the LoC?


Are you suggesting that the PA had no communication whatsoever with these troops?

If the IA believed that there was no withdrawal (which I highly doubt, regardless of the official position taken, but thats besides the point, since the GoP gave them the excuse since they claimed it was Mujahideen), then there is justification to target supply routes and retreating troops.



> Give me a break. A few weeks ago these troops were killing Indian soldiers and now you expect the IA to let them go because they are "withdrawing?"


I am not sure why you guys have to keep making jingoistic arguments? 

This is utterly flawed logic. Suppose an army surrenders, before it surrenders it has been killing the soldiers of the opposing army, so does this justify killing surrendering soldiers? 

Your logic above indicates that it is justified to do so.

There is a certain conduct in war as well. You can say that the IA does not believe in it, but then say so, rather than making jingoistic arguments.

As I pointed out to IPF - even the US actions on the "Highway of Death" were criticized by some as "war crimes".


> I'm sorry to say this but your argument is very flawed.


Not at all. I have pointed out above why yours doesn't make sense, and in my post I even made the arguments of why targeting the supply routes after a withdrawal would have been perfectly acceptable.

I would like to know why mu logic above is flawed, rather than just a statement that it is flawed.

You and Stealth have chosen to ignore most of the arguments I raised that would justify the continued targeting of troops, and keep making these shrill arguments of "they were killing Indian soldiers" - Of course they were - it was war. But there are rules of war as well.



> The biggest blunder is that the Pakistani government never bothered clearing the air then.


I agree they should have. But we have news filtering out now.



> I've also mentioned that if you are thinking that these troops were walking back to the LoC and the IA was taking pot shots at these helpless souls, then you are mistaken.
> 
> The IA cut their logistics supplies and then ran over their positions. These troops died fighting and not while "withdrawing."



A certain number of troops did die fighting, and the poor planning related to logistic and supplies did indeed play a part in their being overrun, but it is also true that a large number of Pakistan's casualties occurred during withdrawal - whether the IA was aware of the withdrawal or not I have left open to question, since my first post.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Bushroda said:


> So should we believe that Musharaff is lying about 357 PA casualties?



Typical loss ratio for attackers to defenders is 3 to 1 isn't it?

Given relative equality in the quality of troops, that ratio would have held in Kargil as well.

Whatever the Pakistani losses then, the Indian losses would have been approximately 3 times as much, given the nature of the conflict.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Cactuslilly:

IMO, there was a huge miscalculation on what India's response would be - perhaps this was supposed to be equivalent to India's actions in Siachin, and remain as localized.

Secondly the lack of planning that went into logistics.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Salim said:


> The Pakistani were not withdrawing.
> 
> If there was any withdrawal, then it would have been announced.
> 
> Therefore, the issue does not really arise.
> 
> It must be understood that military operations basically encompass Advance, Attack, Defence and Withdrawal. Withdrawal is not a rout. It is a planned movement and very military like.
> 
> In attack, when the enemy is withdrawing, there is a sub head called Pursuit. The aim is to ensure that the enemy does not have the time or resources to hold another defence line with the troops withdrawing and press on so as to make the withdrawal a rout!
> 
> As far as the Kargil Operations is concerned, while the Pakistani soldiers did their best as one could, they were handicapped by poor logistics, which even their helicopter could not sustain



Thank you Salim.

A dispassionate analysis that makes sense. All I was looking for.



> As far as the casualties are concerned, they did not claim their heroic dead and the Indian Army had to bury them.



Salim,

From what I understand, it was not due to a lack of interest that the dead were not "claimed".

The inhospitableness of the terrain played a large role.

Given the terrain, was realistic for withdrawing troops to carry bodies with them?

I have also read that many of the bodies Indian troops came across were in an advanced stage of decomposition, resulting in immediate burial by the IA.


----------



## vish

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> This is a valid argument, that provides justification for continued targeting of supply routes.
> 
> Can you locate a link to the withdrawal or "ceasing support" announcement? Haven't been able to find them.



There was no clear and official statement by Pakistan. This is where the confusion lies. Even if Pakistan did issue a withdrawal notice, I&#8217;m unaware off, and in all likelihood, the people fighting in Kargil were too. 

The closest content I could find with regard to an official Pakistani declaration is this: CNN - Agreement fails to halt Kashmir fighting - July 5, 1999

Note that the link does not mention &#8220;withdrawal&#8221; and only calls for the hostilities to be ceased. India rejected this idea on grounds that until and unless all occupied posts are cleared, the offensive would continue. 



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Are you suggesting that the PA had no communication whatsoever with these troops?



I&#8217;m not saying the PA had no communication with these troops; I&#8217;m saying when these troops were told to occupy those posts no thought was spared to consider their withdrawal. As there were no plans with regard to a withdrawal, the PA had no option left but to leave these troops on their own.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> If the IA believed that there was no withdrawal (which I highly doubt, regardless of the official position taken), then there is justification to target supply routes and retreating troops.
> 
> I am not sure why you guys have to keep making jingoistic arguments?
> 
> This is utterly flawed logic. Suppose an army surrenders, before it surrenders it has been killing the soldiers of the opposing army, so does this justify killing surrendering soldiers?
> 
> Your logic above indicates that it is justified to do so.
> 
> There is a certain conduct in war as well. You can say that the IA does not believe in it, but then say so, rather than making jingoistic arguments.
> 
> As I pointed out to IPF - even the US actions on the "Highway of Death" were criticized by some as "war crimes".



I&#8217;m sorry if my statements sound jingoistic.

There was no &#8220;withdrawal,&#8221; officially. Unofficially nobody knew what the PA and the GoP were up to. These troops did not surrender; they were scuttling back to the other side of the LoC after carrying out offensive operations in Indian territory. IA had every legal right to attack them if they did not surrender. Further, the IA decided to target the supply routes (which were also the withdrawal routes) so as to disrupt the infiltrator&#8217;s supply and logistics. Its primary intention was to lay a siege on the posts and force them to surrender or overrun them and not to annihilate the soldiers who were &#8220;withdrawing.&#8221; Since there was no official statement by Pakistan the IA&#8217;s action was perfectly legal. Unofficially too the waters were very murky.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Not at all. I have pointed out above why yours doesn't make sense, and in my post I even made the arguments of why targeting the supply routes after a withdrawal would have been perfectly acceptable.
> 
> I would like to know why mu logic above is flawed, rather than just a statement that it is flawed.
> 
> You and Stealth have chosen to ignore most of those, and keep making these shrill arguments of "they were killing Indian soldiers" - Of course they were - it was war. But there are rules of war as well.



The reason why your logic is flawed is that you are assuming that the IA took pot-shots at retreating PA troops, atleast that is what I understand. Law dictates that in such a position the retreating party has to surrender; this is exactly what did not happen. Hence, the IA had every right to attack them.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I agree they should have. But we have news filtering out now.



All we are hearing is opinions; there is no official Pakistani account of the Kargil conflict.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> A certain number of troops did die fighting, and the poor planning related to logistic and supplies did indeed play a part in their being overrun, but it is also true that a large number of Pakistan's casualties occurred during withdrawal - whether the IA was aware of the withdrawal or not I have left open to question, since my first post.



True, majority of Pakistani casualties took place during &#8220;withdrawal.&#8221; Most of these causalities were a result of disruption of logistics and &#8220;relinquishing of support,&#8221; due to which the posts were overrun. You&#8217;re equating the two statements: &#8220;Pakistan&#8217;s casualties occurred during withdrawal&#8221; and &#8220;Pakistan&#8217;s troops killed while withdrawing.&#8221; This withdrawal was more of a &#8220;withdrawal of support.&#8221;




AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Typical loss ratio for attackers to defenders is 3 to 1 isn't it?
> 
> Given relative equality in the quality of troops, that ratio would have held in Kargil as well.
> 
> Whatever the Pakistani losses then, the Indian losses would have been approximately 3 times as much, given the nature of the conflict.



Official Indian losses are 522. I did post a link in one of my earlier posts. 

I could not find any reliable Pakistani account of Kargil casualities; hence, I decided to stick to Musharraff's account (which states 357 dead).


----------



## Bushroda

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Typical loss ratio for attackers to defenders is 3 to 1 isn't it?
> 
> Given relative equality in the quality of troops, that ratio would have held in Kargil as well.
> 
> Whatever the Pakistani losses then, the Indian losses would have been approximately 3 times as much, given the nature of the conflict.



There is no valid thumb rule of 3:1. I seriously doubt if there was a 3:1 loss for US armed forces during Op Desert Storm & Op Iraqi Freedom. These are mere assumptions and are made based on the data collected from the previous conflicts. It also depends on the kind of artillery used during the war by each side. Also, the knowledge of the terrain or battle zone matters a lot. Kargil is Indian controlled territory. Indian armed forces would know the terrain far better than any outsider. Also, I doubt if NLI had access to the heavy guns like Bofors. So no way that 3:1 principle holds true here.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

*Vish,
*
Salim has explained the situation quite well.



> The reason why your logic is flawed is that you are assuming that the IA took pot-shots at retreating PA troops. Law dictates that in such a position the retreating party has to surrender; this is exactly what did not happen. Hence, the IA had every right to attack them.



I never said the IA took "pot shots" at the retreating troops. I said that the majority of the casualties occurred when the retreating troops came under fire on those supply routes. That fire was probably a continuation of the artillery barrage to disrupt the supply lines of the PA troops and irregulars.

I also did not make an absolute statement that the IA was wrong in continuing to target the supply routes, in fact my first post was in the form of a question. 

Some of you got a little too emotional about it and went of into tangents of "they were killing Indian troops". That particular logic is what I questioned.

But enough on this from me, Salim has responded to the original question I raised.


----------



## vish

AM: 
I guess we were talking across each other.

Coming back to the topic, would anybody explain to me how exactly was Kargil a "Lost Opportunity?"


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

vish said:


> AM:
> I guess we were talking across each other.
> 
> Coming back to the topic, would anybody explain to me how exactly was Kargil a "Lost Opportunity?"



No problem's Vish.

Happens all the time.

I think Kargil "lost us opportunities", rather than being a "lost opportunity".


----------



## vish

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I think Kargil "lost us opportunities", rather than being a "lost opportunity".



I need an explanation for that.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Bushroda said:


> There is no valid thumb rule of 3:1. I seriously doubt if there was a 3:1 loss for US armed forces during Op Desert Storm & Op Iraqi Freedom. These are mere assumptions and are made based on the data collected from the previous conflicts. It also depends on the kind of artillery used during the war by each side. Also, the knowledge of the terrain or battle zone matters a lot. Kargil is Indian controlled territory. Indian armed forces would know the terrain far better than any outsider. Also, I doubt if NLI had access to the heavy guns like Bofors. So no way that 3:1 principle holds true here.



If artillery could do the majority of the job, then there would have been no need for Indian troops to suffer casualties while retaking the peaks.

Remember that unlike Desert Storm, this was not a battle in plains, but mountain warfare, and involved retaking heights. Desert Strom also involved a vastly superior military (technological and qualitative), and was a war that allowed the application of that superiority.

In Kargil there was no such overwhelming advantage held by either side. For the most part the peaks had to be taken the old fashioned way, hence my reference to the ratio.

Artillery helped I am sure, though.


----------



## Bushroda

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> If artillery could do the majority of the job, then there would have been no need for Indian troops to suffer casualties while retaking the peaks.
> 
> Remember that unlike Desert Storm, this was not a battle in plains, but mountain warfare, and involved retaking heights. Artillery helped I am sure, though.



You said it yourself. This was a mountain warfare. The terrain would favour the troops stationed at the top of the peaks. They get a clear shot at the incoming troops. While troops stationed at the bottom of the peak need to probably put themselves at harm's length in order to get a visible shot at the enemy. Also, while firing upwards you need an acute calculation of the ballistic of the projectile(bullet, bomb whatever). So, ofcourse no doubt the terrain heavily favoured troops at the top. But still a roaring heavy mobile gun at the bottom of the peak is far lethal than an SMG at the top of the peak. 

Also, I said that Kargil is Indian controlled territory & armed forces would know the terrain far better than any outsider.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

vish said:


> I need an explanation for that.



Loss of trust (if one believes there was a movement in that direction), a setback to the peace process and hence a setback to the normalization of a relationship between the two countries.


----------



## vish

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Loss of trust (if one believes there was a movement in that direction), a setback to the peace process and hence a setback to the normalization of a relationship between the two countries.



Oh... Ok... I initially thought you said "loss of opportunities" and took it the other way; sorry, my bad.

Regards


----------



## Kasrkin

> Did the IA outnumber the infiltrators; yes. But do not forget that the terrain there heavily favors the defenders. We could not cut the supply lines of these infiltrators because our government did not want to cross the LoC so as to maintain our international standing; a very nice move wheen when one looks back at it now.


And thats exactly why IA did not 'stop' taking casualties anymore than they took those positions. I agree, your mass infantry attacks were stupid and they didnt work which would OBVIOUSLY mean that they took casualties. And as far as I'm concerned, "mass infantry attacks" are hardly ever used as 'probing parties' meant to 'examine and analyse the enemy's positions', they tend to come after that. So you have contradicted yourself and proved my point, I know many of your probing parties were wiped off, that doesnt mean those who followed did much better. And as far as artillery and the IAF is concerned, that wasnt much help either given the terrain and fortifications; that much has been confirmed by members of your own military as well as foriegn observers, so I wont bother going into it. 
But feel free to refute all this, I'm sure it must be hard acknowledging you took casualties at the hands of Pakistanis in a head on fight. Surely, most of your dead were scouts just 'checking out' our positions, not those assaulting it, is what keeps you comforted. So 'spoting' one of your own bunkers from a far is much more dangerous than storming it eh? The writer of the article got this aspect of the Indian mind-frame right atleast. 



> We could not cut the supply lines of these infiltrators because our government did not want to cross the LoC so as to maintain our international standing; a very nice move wheen when one looks back at it now.


So you yourself have agreed your international standing was fragile enough to be undermind by tactical attacks across the LoC. And on the other hand you seem to think India can just walk over Pakistan in a full scale war and the world wont say anything? But surely if Pakistan was so 'internationaly isolated' you would have had nothing to worry about here? Impailed by your own rhetoric eh?



> Had the conflict prolonged, there was a possibility of a full scale war, with Pakistan being isolated on the global arena. The truth was, had a war broken out, you would have lost far more than us.


You are free to dream all you want, but the fact is there is no way you can know that. Pakistan was not nearly as isolated as you like to hope, no more than we were in the last couple of wars for that matter. It is useless arguing with some one like you on this point, feel free to think what you want, but dont expect us to fall for it because we know something about war too. And more so about our country and its defences than you ever will. 


> You're also right, you ought to study strategic affairs


Again thanks, actually I do regularly(wish I could same the thing about you though)

"hahaha" would mean I am laughing, which I was at your friends feinted confidence despite not knowing Kargil happened 10 years from now. Lecturing us(like you) about what this military analysis has to say is nonsense...was and is pretty funny seeing the amount of credibility you have to back it up, but surely you didnt need me to spill all that out for you? Hope that answered your question, so perhaps you can find it in youself to forgive my amusement.


----------



## vish

Kasrkin said:


> And thats exactly why IA did not 'stop' taking casualties anymore than they took those positions. I agree, your mass infantry attacks were stupid and they didnt work which would OBVIOUSLY mean that they took casualties. And as far as I'm concerned, "mass infantry attacks" are hardly ever used as 'probing parties' meant to 'examine and analyse the enemy's positions', they tend to come after that. So you have contradicted yourself and proved my point, I know many of your probing parties were wiped off, that doesnt mean those who followed did much better. And as far as artillery and the IAF is concerned, that wasnt much help either given the terrain and fortifications; that much has been confirmed by members of your own military as well as foriegn observers, so I wont bother going into it.
> But feel free to refute all this, I'm sure it must be hard acknowledging you took casualties at the hands of Pakistanis in a head on fight. Surely, most of your dead were scouts just 'checking out' our positions, not those assaulting it, is what keeps you comforted. So 'spoting' one of your own bunkers from a far is much more dangerous than storming it eh? The writer of the article got this aspect of the Indian mind-frame right atleast.



You jump the gun; you assume that me being an Indian would have trouble accepting that IA's jawans were killed by PA soldiers; you talk about logic: that my friend is a contradiction.

I said the probing parties were followed by massed infantry attacks; you assumed there were large probing parties.

I said the IA did suffer most of its casualities in these initial stages (both with probing operations and infantry attacks); you assume that I'll have trouble accepting IA's casualities.

The artillery and the IAF played a very significant role in the conflict; this has been acknowledged by one and all. In some places both artillery and airpower were ineffective; herein, the IA did the things the good old fashioned way.

Sources: 1999 Kargil Conflict




Kasrkin said:


> So you yourself have agreed your international standing was fragile enough to be undermind by tactical attacks across the LoC. And on the other hand you seem to think India can just walk over Pakistan in a full scale war and the world wont say anything? But surely if Pakistan was so 'internationaly isolated' you would have had nothing to worry about here? Impailed by your own rhetoric eh?
> 
> You are free to dream all you want, but the fact is there is no way you can know that. Pakistan was not nearly as isolated as you like to hope, no more than we were in the last couple of wars for that matter. It is useless arguing with some one like you on this point, feel free to think what you want, but dont expect us to fall for it because we know something about war too. And more so about our country and its defences than you ever will.
> 
> Again thanks, actually I do regularly(wish I could same the thing about you though)



The reason we did not cross the LoC had nothing to do with our "fragile" (perhaps only according to you) international position. We did not want you to have any room; had we crossed the LoC the international goodwill would have been weakened. Pakistan was internationally isolated; even the PRC refused to "support" it. 

Impailed by own rhetoric; glad to hear your generalization and personal slur.

I never said IA will roll over Pakistan and PA would do nothing about it; I said that had an all-out war broken out Pakistan would have lost much more; you assume something particularly contrary.



Kasrkin said:


> "hahaha" would mean I am laughing, which I was at your friends feinted confidence despite not knowing Kargil happened 10 years from now. Lecturing us(like you) about what this military analysis has to say is nonsense...was and is pretty funny seeing the amount of credibility you have to back it up, but surely you didnt need me to spill all that out for you? Hope that answered your question, so perhaps you can find it in youself to forgive my amusement.



So, let me get this straight, "hahahaha" implies you have nothing to say. Thanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TALWAR

1. Why would the Pak Army withdraw if they were in a strong position ?
2. Do you think the Pak Army would have obeyed the withdrawal orders of the PM who was later thrown away ?

They withdrew because they had no other option. No arti , and no air-support. What will the Infentary do without cover ?

Do you think the attacker, defender casulty ratio holds true when the defender does not have air-support ? kargil was lost in the minds of the Pak Generals, even before it started, and not the Infantry men, cos the generals did not forsee the IA response.


----------



## mujahideen

TALWAR said:


> 1. Why would the Pak Army withdraw if they were in a strong position ?
> 2. Do you think the Pak Army would have obeyed the withdrawal orders of the PM who was later thrown away ?
> They withdrew because they had no other option. No arti , and no air-support. What will the Infentary do without cover ?



They with drew because the political leadership offered them no support. An Army relies on its politicians to support it, which did not happen here.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

TALWAR said:


> 1. Why would the Pak Army withdraw if they were in a strong position ?


The Pakistan Military could not have maintained its position without escalating its own support to the level of the Indian Military. The extent of the response of the Indian Military was underestimated IMO (as I said, perhaps it was expected to remain localized like Siachen).

Escalating Pakistan's support would then have most likely meant full fledged war, and the isolation internationally at that point had also not been anticipated.

There were a variety of reasons that played into the withdrawal.



> 2. Do you think the Pak Army would have obeyed the withdrawal orders of the PM who was later thrown away ?


The orders were obeyed as far as I know. 

Why do you think they weren't obeyed?


----------



## TALWAR

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> The Pakistan Military could not have maintained its position without escalating its own support to the level of the Indian Military. *The extent of the response of the Indian Military was underestimated IMO *(as I said, perhaps it was expected to remain localized like Siachen).
> 
> Escalating Pakistan's support would then have most likely meant full fledged war, and the isolation internationally at that point had also not been anticipated.
> 
> There were a variety of reasons that played into the withdrawal.
> 
> 
> The orders were obeyed as far as I know.
> 
> Why do you think they weren't obeyed?



AM,
This is what I meant when I said, "In the minds of Pakistani generals". I meant the miscalculation.
Why would an army that supposedly did not keep the PM in the loop about the operation, obey the orders for withdrawal ? OR do you think that Nawaj gave the orders to cross LOC.


----------



## blain2

Everybody was on board! Anything contrary to is a lie.


----------



## mujahideen

TALWAR said:


> AM,This is what I meant when I said, "In the minds of Pakistani generals". I meant the miscalculation.
> Why would an army that supposedly did not keep the PM in the loop about the operation, obey the orders for withdrawal ? OR do you think that Nawaj gave the orders to cross LOC.



Which PM's will they keep informed. I mean governments were falling during this period like leaves from a tree. But any way the fact is Nawaz was well aware of this operation.


----------



## indiapakistanfriendship

> AgNoStIc MuSliM
> *There is a certain conduct in war* as well. You can say that the IA does not believe in it, but then say so, rather than making jingoistic arguments.



AM in this regard I strongly believe that Pakistan shot its foot when they declared that those occupying the peaks were not PA regulars(Whether it was true or not or whether IA knew there were regulars does not matter) Most of these millitants according to India were terrorists, so how come conduct of war(if you are referring to geneva and other swiss conventions) apply to them?


----------



## indiapakistanfriendship

> Any statesman worth his salt would have immediately walked out on Mr. Clinton after telling him: Pakistani blood is not so cheap, it deserves at least status-quo in Kargil and Drass. *Had Mr. Sharif mustered little courage and waited another few weeks, snows would have returned to the area and India would have been forced to cease military operations. The status-quo would have left the Indian troops sitting in Siachin without any supplies to survive through the next winter.*


LET ME TAKE THIS POINT BY POINT

*Had Mr. Sharif mustered little courage and waited another few weeks, snows would have returned to the area
*

And what would those occupying those snow peaked mountains eat? drink? The author conveniently forgets how harsh such winters are in such peak , the very reason why PA and IA withdrew every winter.

*India would have been forced to cease military operations*

Here the author assumes India does not have the capability to wage winter wars.
India would have ceased operations and simply shelled their supply routes and let them die or withdraw.

*The status-quo would have left the Indian troops sitting in Siachin without any supplies to survive through the next winter.*

I think many of us in this forum could qualify as strategic analysts if Mr Gill is taken to be the standard. 

How does he plan to cut off supply to siachin? Does he not know that suplies to Siachin takes place through air and not through land routes. Here again he contradicts himself, if troops at Siachin who are well supplied through air are not able to survive the winter, then how on earth would those occupying the peaks be able to survive without any supplies.

It is also prudent to understand that there is a limit to how much those who occupied could to have carried by themselves and mules, there is a limit to how much ammo, weapons, comm equip and add to that food, water , tents , winter clothing they could have carried.

The author lives in a world of denial deluding himself and in the process deceiving his readers

Logistics 101 and 102 anybody?

Cheers


----------



## cactuslily58

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Cactuslilly:
> 
> IMO, there was a huge miscalculation on what India's response would be - perhaps this was supposed to be equivalent to India's actions in Siachin, and remain as localized.
> 
> Secondly the lack of planning that went into logistics.



This is exactly the point I was making, how can anyone ingress across any border & not be prepred for the resultant retaliation ?

The whole thing was not thought out to the last detail. This reminds me of the bold yet foolish attempt in '71 of the attempt in the desert which stopped at Laungewala due to no / poor logistics & lack of air support.

The best a soldier can do is to give his life, its for the generals to extract the best value for it.


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

> Any statesman worth his salt would have immediately walked out on Mr. Clinton after telling him: Pakistani blood is not so cheap, it deserves at least status-quo in Kargil and Drass. Had Mr. Sharif mustered little courage and waited another few weeks, snows would have returned to the area and India would have been forced to cease military operations. The status-quo would have left the Indian troops sitting in Siachin without any supplies to survive through the next winter.



A statesman is a person who is worth his salt if he gets what he wants without going to war.

It must be remembered that no war can be fought without logistics. Kargil Heights was not conducive to logistics in an attack. Therefore, it was a most risky gamble not worth taking. One takes calculated gamble in war and cannot be foolhardy or gung ho! Lives of men are involved and not the chinagraph pencil impressions on a map that looks impressive!

If the war escalated, then it would be a full scale war.

The Kargil Highway was not the only way Siachen was supplied. It was just one way.So, no one would have starved. Then there are stocks at various levels for just this situation.

Snows would come in November and so it was a long time to go from May!

And that would hardly be statesman like.

It is easy to pass judgement, but remember, uneasy lies the head that wears the crown.

See the bind the PPP is in right now.


----------



## TALWAR

AM,

Also Kargil cannot be compaired to Siachen. 

Siachen- was in the northen areas where LoC was not defined. So it was virtually a race between India and Pakistan to reach the top of Siachen. India captured some peaks and Pakistan managed to keep some.

But Kargil is different- the LoC is clearly defined, and do you expect country the size of India, will "race" to reach the top of kargil. Its is our land, and LoC is mutually agreed. India will flex its full strength to defend it.
This is a common mans thinking, don't know why the Pak Generals missed it.

Regd Nawaz, agreed he was on board. But the question is, did he order the Army to cross Loc. Because the Army is suppose to do what the Govt orders. I sure he would not have given such orders. I would not even entirely blame mushraf. Its the army top brass that commited the bluder. All Indian soldiers who died have been cremated with full honour - there name is in Army website and a war memorial would be raised for them.
But some pak generals played with the life and blood of some loyal soldiers. I also heard that there were some protests in Pakistan from famalies who could not get the bodies of the soldiers and was angry at govt calling them terrorists who have infilterated.

There has to be some gain from any military operation. Either territory, or diplomatic support or patriotic feelings in Nation.

No one gained any territory - both lost blood- the exact numbers will be never known - India won diplomatic support the world over - while pakistan lost its stand in Kashmir - Chaos in Pakistan after that - military coup was easy because people hated Nawaj. While patriotic feeling were very high in India - millions were given to Army in the form of donations from public - I even remember kids in school putting coins in donation and giving it to school authorities.


----------



## cactuslily58

mujahideen said:


> They with drew because the political leadership offered them no support. An Army relies on its politicians to support it, which did not happen here.



*Since when has the Pakistani Army relied on support from Politicians to wage war or anyother thing for that matter ??*

The Pakistani troops withdrew simply coz they realised that this was a ' no go & no win' situation.The consquences of escalation were too severe. Musharraf had simply shot himself in the foot ( & put the other foot in his mouth).


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

> Its is our land, and LoC is mutually agreed.



The LoC is mutually agreed, but the very fact that it is called the LoC, and not the International Border, means that it is not Indian territory.

India claims all of JK, so Siachen would fall under that category as well.

That said, Pakistan believes that India has infringed upon territory on its side of the LoC in Siachen, so while as an Indian the argument that "Siachen is not clearly demarcated" is plausible, for Pakistanis it is not, and hence the incursion into Kargil may have been viewed in the same light as India's incursion into Siachen.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

cactuslily58 said:


> *Since when has the Pakistani Army relied on support from Politicians to wage war or anyother thing for that matter ??*



When has the PA waged war without the government supporting it or government leadership signing off on it? Including kargil- NS was on board.


----------



## indiapakistanfriendship

> The LoC is mutually agreed, but the very fact that it is called the LoC, and not the International Border, means that it is not Indian territory.



Why not call it a De facto border.



> India claims all of JK, so Siachen would fall under that category as well.


So does Pakistan. Your point being?



> That said, Pakistan believes that India has infringed upon territory on its side of the LoC in Siachen, so while as an Indian the argument that "Siachen is not clearly demarcated" is plausible, for Pakistanis it is not, and hence the incursion into Kargil may have been viewed in the same light as India's incursion into Siachen.



Err wasn't it Pakistan which first laid claim to Siachin indirectly by issuing passports for some Japanese(correct me) mountain expedition team and by that process tried to gain internation recognition that Siachin is part of Pakistan , in that process provoking Indian army to scale the heights.

Siachin like Kargil was a coup for India in that it took place by issuing papers ,and in Kargil crossing the LOC physically.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> When has the PA waged war without the government supporting it or government leadership signing off on it? Including kargil- NS was on board.



You seem pretty sure about that, inspite of what both Musharraf and Nawaz Sharif have to say.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

indiapakistanfriendship said:


> Why not call it a De facto border.



That would depend on a resolution of the dispute between India and Pakistan.



> So does Pakistan. Your point being?


That the argument that "India was fighting for its territory" in Kargil, but not in Siachen (as I read it) does not seem quite right.



> Err wasn't it Pakistan which first laid claim to Siachin indirectly by issuing passports for some Japanese(correct me) mountain expedition team and by that process tried to gain internation recognition that Siachin is part of Pakistan , in that process provoking Indian army to scale the heights.
> 
> Siachin like Kargil was a coup for India in that it took place by issuing papers ,and in Kargil crossing the LOC physically.



From Pakistan's perspective Siachen was India occupying territory that Pakistan considered on its side of the LOC. Of course Pakistan would claim it.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Stealth Assassin said:


> You seem pretty sure about that, inspite of what both Musharraf and Nawaz Sharif have to say.



Nawaz Sharif is also arguing for "thousands dead in the LM" operation and other nonsense.

Jamshed Kiyani, who seems an utterly confused fellow at his point, even referenced Nawaz being briefed.


> In an interview with a private TV channel on Monday, Jamshed said that he had briefed about the Kargil situation partially to the then PM Nawaz Sharif in a meeting chaired by Nawaz on May 17, 1999. Pervez Musharraf was also present in the briefing, he said. When Nawaz Sharif consulted his team, former minister Sartaj Aziz was the first one who stood up and said that it would be difficult to defend the operation on diplomatic front, he added. He said that at that stage, Nawaz gave a positive clue to back the operation, but at the same time, *Nawaz had made it clear the support would be as long as the operation was successful, and in case of defeat, it would be difficult for the government to defend it.*



The part in bold makes pretty clear where the denials regarding "being informed" stem from.

And just before that he said:


> Ex-Corps Commander Rawalpindi Gen (Retd) Jamshed Gulzar Kiyani has said that former PM Nawaz Sharif was not taken on board regarding Kargil operation


Nawaz wasnt taken on board on Kargil, says Gen Jamshed | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online


----------



## indiapakistanfriendship

> From Pakistan's perspective Siachen was India occupying territory that Pakistan considered on its side of the LOC. Of course Pakistan would claim it.



Nope you are completely wrong here. In the initial days Siachin was a contentious issue beteen both the sides, however both India and Pakistan did not station any troops owing to the vagaries of existance in such terrain. That said it was after Pakistan unilaterally went ahead and issed authorisation papers for tourists and in the process laying claim to dispute territory that India went and occupied the glacier.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

indiapakistanfriendship said:


> Nope you are completely wrong here. In the initial days Siachin was a contentious issue beteen both the sides, however both India and Pakistan did not station any troops owing to the vagaries of existance in such terrain. That said it was after Pakistan unilaterally went ahead and issed authorisation papers for tourists and in the process laying claim to dispute territory that India went and occupied the glacier.



You are missing the point - why did Pakistan issue papers for the territory? Because it considered it territory on its side of the LoC. 

The entire region of Jammu and Kashmir is disputed, technically then Kargil should be fair game, under the "Siachen analogy", since Pakistan would view the Indian presence there, or any other part of Kashmir, as "laying claim" to the territory.

The point here is that this is all Grey area, as the entire region is disputed. And trying to nitpick over why Siachen was OK but Kargil wasn't on the basis of "demarcation" is not very valid.

There are several other reasons why Kargil should not have happened, some of which I have posted already.


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> That the argument that "India was fighting for its territory" in Kargil, but not in Siachen (as I read it) does not seem quite right.
> 
> 
> 
> From Pakistan's perspective Siachen was India occupying territory that Pakistan considered on its side of the LOC. Of course Pakistan would claim it.



India was re-establishing its writ on an area that was mutually agreed on, by an Agreement demarcating the Line of Control (LC) after the 1971 War at Suchetgarh on 11 December 1972 as that being under Indian control. Crossing it and occupying unheld area constituted an breach of the Agreement and faith.

In these volatile areas if either country goes and occupy unheld areas at will, then there will be chaos and wars all the time.

Therefore, the inference is yours what you want to ascribe to.

In so far as Siachen is concerned, because of the forbidding terrain, none wanted to physically verify the CFL or the LC. Therefore, both the Karachi and the Suchetgarh Agreements left if vague after NJ 9842 with the words ''thence Northwards". Thus, this ' thence Northwards' became anybody's guess and India occupied before the Pakistani realised to establish its writ on ''then Northwards''.

Kargil should not have happened because it flouted all military principles. One cannot maintain strung out forces in hostile areas on mere foot trails that are knife edge and movement clearly detectable by the adversary through footprints on the perennial snow. It is more so ridiculous since in High Altitude, the load carrying capacity of men and animal are highly restricted and it would mean huge men and animal trails to ensure the logistics backup daily and in stocking - a luxury a force that surreptitiously is planted to achieve strategic surprise does not have.

Thus, the Kargil Operations came to its logical military conclusion!


----------



## Flintlock

OK Let's trace the whole line of arguments and counter-arguments:

India occupied Siachen Illegally, so Pakistan can do the same for kargil.
|
If Pakistan occupy "Azad" Kashmir and NA illegally, then India can also occupy Siachen
|
Pakistan's claim on Kashmir is legal whereas India's is illegal because Muslim majority areas were to go to Pakistan.
|
India's claim is legal because the Maharaja acceded to India
|
The papers were either forged or the Maharaja was coerced and there has been no referendum in Kashmir
|
The papers were legal and the referendum only applies to the whole of kashmir. So it cannot be done because 3 countries- INdia, Pakistan, and CHina occupy Kashmir.
|
But India has the moral responsibility to conduct referendum in kashmir
|
Even Pakistan has the moral responsibility
|
But India is waiting for Pakistan to show a positive step by withdrawing troops and stop Terrorism
|
Pakistan is waiting for India to stop atrocities in Kashmir and give the "freedom fighters" their way
|
But India holds elections in its areas whereas Pakistan doesnt
|
But Indian elections are a sham/ don't count because they don't ask kashmiris if they want to be within India.
|
Indian elections are free and fair, and the referendum is not applicable to territories within India. It only applies to the whole of kashmir, which is impossible as explained earlier.
|
But Indian army is raping Kashmiris
|
Pakistan is sending terrorists which forces large troop concentration and hence occasional transgressions.
|
Indians are evil hindus who like to rape kashmiris
|
Pakistanis are evil terrorists who like to encourage Jihad and extremism.

......anything else?


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Stealth Assassin said:


> OK Let's trace the whole line of arguments and counter-arguments:
> 
> India occupied Siachen Illegally, so Pakistan can do the same for kargil.
> |
> If Pakistan occupy "Azad" Kashmir and NA illegally, then India can also occupy Siachen
> |
> Pakistan's claim on Kashmir is legal whereas India's is illegal because Muslim majority areas were to go to Pakistan.
> |
> India's claim is legal because the Maharaja acceded to India
> |
> The papers were either forged or the Maharaja was coerced and there has been no referendum in Kashmir
> |
> The papers were legal and the referendum only applies to the whole of kashmir. So it cannot be done because 3 countries- INdia, Pakistan, and CHina occupy Kashmir.
> |
> But India has the moral responsibility to conduct referendum in kashmir
> |
> Even Pakistan has the moral responsibility
> |
> But India is waiting for Pakistan to show a positive step by withdrawing troops and stop Terrorism
> |
> Pakistan is waiting for India to stop atrocities in Kashmir and give the "freedom fighters" their way
> |
> But India holds elections in its areas whereas Pakistan doesnt
> |
> But Indian elections are a sham/ don't count because they don't ask kashmiris if they want to be within India.
> |
> Indian elections are free and fair, and the referendum is not applicable to territories within India. It only applies to the whole of kashmir, which is impossible as explained earlier.
> |
> But Indian army is raping Kashmiris
> |
> Pakistan is sending terrorists which forces large troop concentration and hence occasional transgressions.
> |
> Indians are evil hindus who like to rape kashmiris
> |
> Pakistanis are evil terrorists who like to encourage Jihad and extremism.
> 
> ......anything else?



In not so many words, and minor and major quibbles here and there, my point exactly.

Trying to come up with a validation of one sides actions in Kashmir, while invalidating the other's, is a useless track to go onto.

This thread is about the repercussions of Kargil, what could have been and what is. 

I suggest we get back to that.


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

Kashmir indeed is fair game.

What Pakistan can do, India can do too!

But then that would be the Asian 100 year War.

Neither India nor Pakistan can afford it. 

Thus the Suchetgarh Agreement that left out the Siachen in the most vague terms and made this area alone as fair game!

It does not mean that other areas are not to be attacked. Indeed, any part of J&K can be attacked. The only thing is then that it will a breach of the Agreement with its consequences. Till the LC is not violated, all remains calm and aggression free.

The Siachen being the grey area, is contested daily and none complains; though now, it is an armed hostile peace, but still in a contestable mode.


----------



## cactuslily58

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> When has the PA waged war without the government supporting it or government leadership signing off on it? Including kargil- NS was on board.




The point I was making is that the Army has been the Govt..whose permission did they need ? In '65 FM (!)Ayub was at the helm, in '71 Gen Yahya khan was at the helm.

As regards Kargil, ' briefing " NS alone ( which also is contentious) was not enough. Why would a PM sack his Chief if he was taken on board ?


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

That is an interesting observation that it is only when the military was in power that Pakistan embarked on war!

And Zia too in Afghanistan, though through the backdoor!

Civilian govts have been more or less on even keel.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

cactuslily58 said:


> The point I was making is that the Army has been the Govt..whose permission did they need ? In '65 FM (!)Ayub was at the helm, in '71 Gen Yahya khan was at the helm.
> 
> As regards Kargil, ' briefing " NS alone ( which also is contentious) was not enough. Why would a PM sack his Chief if he was taken on board ?



The army may have been running the government, but my point is that the Government has been involved - the Army has not merely gone ahead with whatever it feels like without the Government (Military or civilian) knowing about it.

Even Jamshed Kiyani, who has not been flattering to Musharraf by any means, and has been criticized for factual inaccuracies, admits (as I posted above) that NS essentially signed off.

Read the post with his comments and what he says NS's remarks at the briefing were. NS signed off on Kargil. There is no other way to interpret his position based on Kiyani's comments.

As regards your and Salim's comments about the Army being in charge when war's were initiated by Pakistan, only 1965 comes to mind. In 1971 it was Indian aggression and India that initiated the war. 

So yours and Salim's observation is inaccurate in the context of "only the Military embarking on war".


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

1971 was India's call. 

The remainder was when Pakistan military was in the chair and not the civlian govt.

Kiyani may have had his say, but then I saw the interview with President Musharraf where he was embarrassed when asked if an Inquiry should be done on the Kargil issue to pinpoint who initiated it and how much one played a role in embarking on the adventure and if Nawaz Sharif was the man behind it. He merely dismissed the question with the comment that confidentiality of military and political decision making should be respected.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Salim,

That leaves 1965 - which is hardly a case for arguing that "only the military embarks on war".

As far as Musharraf's reluctance to have a commission, it may still be a sore spot for him, and he may have a valid point about keeping information related to such a recent event classified for the time being.

However that does not take away from the fact that per Jamshed Kiani's own statements NS was in the know and for all intents and purposed signed off on Kargil, hence giving a civilian government's stamp of approval to the incursion.


----------



## cactuslily58

Was it possible that NS came along in the hope that he could take the credit if things were successful.

When it boomeranged.. he backed off denying any knowledge as is the wont of politicians.


----------



## XxX_Sniper_Wolf_XxX

*It is obvious to even a layperson (other then complete retarded) that Pakistan gave a good stick to India in Kargil war and if it were not for Nawaz Shareef, map of Kashmir would have been different.

If one reads western newspapers of the time (Kargil war and after-war), even British newspaper of the time when Musharraf took over Pakistan (October 1999), one can read a lot about what happened in Kargil and how Indian suffered huge casualties without achieving anything until Nawaz Shareef came to Indian rescue just to please USA. Well, many newspapers wrote that, Pakistan won Kargil war on the ground but lost on the table.

Regardless, a very important ground reality followed Kargil war, is evidence itself (for people with little intelligence and not complete retard) about what happened during Kargil war.

Before Kargil war, Nawaz Shareef was a very strong politician in Pakistan, got away with everything. He sacked President, Chief justice and even Chief of army staff without anyone daring to challenge him. He was the only prime minister ever in Pakistan that had over two-third majority in Pakistan parliament and was thinking to become ameer-ul-momeneen with absolute power . He had full cooperation of Pakistan army and had huge popularity and absolute control over Punjab (that matters a lot in Pakistan politics as well as army).

No army chief could have challenged him (not even someone from Punjab, like Jahangir Karamat) and Musharraf with his minority province background was least person that could have challenged him even while he was army chief.

What really happened in Kargil can be anyones guess looking at the after event, that made a big proportion of army not only loyal to Musharraf and against Nawaz, but army loyalty to Musharraf became so unquestioned that it did not mattered if he was army chief or not. 

We should remember that when army acted on behalf of Musharraf in October 1999, Musharraf was officially not army chief, as Nawaz (however improperly) sacked him and thus in theory Musharraf was no more army chief, something army did not recognised.

Regardless, the event shows how popular Musharraf became in the army after Kargil and how villain Nawaz became in Pakistan army after Kargil. Even people of Pakistan know a lot about Kargil and villain character Nawaz played, that showed from the way people of Pakistan reacted when Nawaz was kicked out of power by army on behalf of Musharraf. Obviously, for such change of fortune amongst army and amongst people of Pakistan, something special must have happened in Kargil that army also knows as well as most Pakistanis (whatever the propaganda by Indians, Pakistani politicians and west). 

The event along with villainous role played by politicians was such that Pakistani politicians became so scared that even they started doing propaganda against army and Kargil war.

Note: 1999 coup was something special in history of coup. Musharraf was a sacked army chief (Nawaz has sacked him), and was not even in the country. Army could have easily kept quite and could have stayed aloof, but why not? The answer is obvious, that was: 

Hero of Kargil (aka Pervaiz Musharraf), a brilliant thinking general, intelligent and brave, one that gave army a precious victory in Kargil and showed Indian forces the gutter they belong, was sacked by the villain of Kargil (aka Nawaz Shareef). This action of Nawaz, that turned a victory on ground into defeat on table and caused lot of army casualties by asking them to retreat, just to make USA happy (and to get few dollars in his foreign account), was too much for the army to accept.

Now, any person (other then complete retard) would realise that if Pakistan had lost Kargil war and Nawaz had saved them, army would have never acted on behalf of Musharraf against Nawaz and people of Pakistan would not have been happy by sacking of Nawaz and President Musharraf taking over Power in Pakistan. 

Even if Kargil war was stalemate and Pakistan did not gave a big stick to Indian forces and won it, army would not have taken such step to kick the prime minister (that was one of the most popular prime minister ever in the army and Pakistan) on behalf of an army chief who was on paper sacked. Actually, IF Musharraf had lost the Kargil war and Nawaz saved them, army would have been happier to see Musharraf back and would have been more indebted to Nawaz. 

Thus, ground reality speaks itself for any one with little intelligence but retarded would still say may na manu 

If anyone that think they are not retarded and still wants to question my analysis, than give a logical answer to counter what I wrote, that is: 

Why army would side with a sacked general if that general led them to a loosing war, against a prime minister if that prime minister really gave them face saving retreat? 

Why no Pakistani came out on the road for the most popular prime minister ever (even in his own constituency Lahore) against a general that was unknown other then of kargil episode, if Kargil was lost war?

How Kargil made Musharraf popular and Nawaz villain in the eyes of Pakistanis (army and people alike) even though political government of Pakistan wanted things differently by doing propaganda against army, Musharraf and Kargil war (if Kargil war was a loosing war for Pakistan)?

And many more facts I raised above, etc, etc .. read the post again *


----------



## amna

Kargil war lead to loss of democracy and almost a decade of martial rule in one country. the other country didn't even stop to yawn. 

How exactly are we defining victory here?


----------



## Flintlock

Wow...all I see in your posts are cheap tactics ("agree wid me or ur retarded") and flight of imagination.


----------



## ejaz007

Sniper Wolf,
These are your personal views. Facts are not exactly the way you have described. A lot has been said and written about Kargil. It is difficult to say who won and who lost. Both sides have reasons to celebrate victory.


----------



## mujahideen

amna said:


> Kargil war lead to loss of democracy and almost a decade of martial rule in one country. the other country didn't even stop to yawn.
> How exactly are we defining victory here?



What democracy are you talking about. At the time their was a bill in the National Assembly which would of made Nawaz Ameer-ul-Momineen. So when you say a dictator killed democracy which dictator are you talking about. Fine lets say General Musharraf had no legal excuse for dismissing a democratic governemt, them what excuse does Nawaz have for hijacking a plane an dismissing a Army Chief without any cerimony. Loss of democracy. When did we really have democracy.


----------



## Flintlock

Comeon guys, I don't know how exactly you define victory and loss.

By my definition, if the aggressor nation is driven back, it has been defeated.


----------



## Goodperson

PA was rejecting its involvement, PF was nowhere to be seen, 

1) Why would Nawaz Sharif insist on investigations ? Why would Musharraf reject them ?
2) Why does not Musharaf and PA come clean on Kargil ?
3) Why US had to prove PA involvement to push Sharif for withdrawal ?


----------



## ejaz007

If you have managed to achieve surprise against your enemy and caught the defenders sleeping that too is a victory. While no regular army units were used by Pakistan India used its regular army and Pakistan gained valuable information about their tactics and capabilitites. IAF performance was also observed and would be considered while planning any future mission.


----------



## Flintlock

ejaz007 said:


> If you have managed to achieve surprise against your enemy and caught the defenders sleeping that too is a victory. While no regular army units were used by Pakistan India used its regular army and Pakistan gained valuable information about their tactics and capabilitites. IAF performance was also observed and would be considered while planning any future mission.



That's too convenient. You can't simply redefine your objectives after the war and claim victory.

Imagine a swimmer deciding to clock 10 seconds. After a lap, he realizes that he's managed just 15 seconds. So he changes the original target to 16 seconds and claims that he achieved his goal.

The objective of Kargil was to capture the Kashmir valley. It doesn't matter whether you managed to surprise the IA or you gained some knowledge about the tactics or whatever.
The fact still remains that the Pakistani forces were driven out.


----------



## blain2

Stealth Assassin said:


> The objective of Kargil was to capture the Kashmir valley. It doesn't matter whether you managed to surprise the IA or you gained some knowledge about the tactics or whatever.
> The fact still remains that the Pakistani forces were driven out.



I disagree. There were a few reasons for the Kargil operation. None of them was to capture Kashmir Valley. The key was to interrupt Indian supplies to Siachen and counter the interdiction of Neelum Valley on the Pakistan side prior to the start of the Kargil conflict. 

I also disagree with the point that Pakistani forces were driven out. Aside from the Tiger Hill complex, Pakistani side vacated about 120 or so posts voluntarily after realizing that prolonged operations were not going to yield any further dividends.

A Pakistani view (military one) is well represented by Maj Gen Ali Hamid:

*Kargil: the military dimensions*


MAJOR GENERAL (R) SYED ALI HAMID


&#8220;Victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan&#8221; is a saying popularized by JFK after the Bay of Pigs invasion, but has its roots further back in time. Tacitus, remembered as Rome's greatest historians, stated that &#8220;It is the singularly unfair peculiarity of war that the credit of success is claimed by all, while a disaster is attributed to one alone&#8221;.


It has become fashionable to criticize the Kargil conflict. Last night I saw the interview of a retired Lieutenant General of the Pakistan Army on Geo TV who referred to it as a debacle. I would like to believe that we live in a free society and have a right to express our opinion so I would like to be one of those who for a change swim against the tide of the current criticism and say something in support of the military dimensions of Kargil. I leave the political side to those who may know better.


I would request the reader to disassociate himself from the media images of Indian troops assaulting Tiger Hill, or Indian air strikes on our posts. Instead, I would request you to focus the analysis on facts as presented and judge whether it was a military success or otherwise. An extract from an article written by Lt Gen Mohinder Puri, who was the GOC of 8 Mountain Division at Batalik, may help you in separating fact from fiction.


&#8220;Employment of air per se was a morale raising factor for our troops and conversely it had an adverse effect on the enemy. But its effectiveness was questionable. Like us, the pilots were not acclimatized to fight in this type of terrain and did not have the right ordnance to deliver on the target. When they did use the laser guided bombs, their effectiveness improved marginally, but not enough to have an impact on our ground operations or the enemy.&#8221;


Like the Bay of Pigs and some other conflicts of the past century, Kargil was a limited conflict.


Some analysts consider General Wars as a legacy of the past. In the environment of the 21st Century, increasingly nations will find themselves caught up in limited conflicts and from this perspective it is important to understand the dynamics of the Kargil conflict, which were very different to fighting a general war.


For military commanders and staff, a General War is in many ways much easier to execute. War is formally declared by the government, full mobilization is ordered, contingency plans are implemented, civil transport is requisitioned, reservists are called up, the armed forces move into their battle locations as per plan, air bases are activated, war stocks start flowing to the battle front, the national war effort goes into full drive, the diplomatic maneuver is launched, etc, etc. The same is happening on the other side and ultimately, both sides engage through maneuver and counter-maneuvers in all three dimension of combat, air, land and sea till superior strategy or will or quantum of forces or all three prevail, and one side is the victor, the other the vanquished.


Paradoxically, a limited conflict like Kargil is much more difficult to plan and conduct. The government&#8217;s and military&#8217;s freedom of maneuver and action is constrained by the international environment which in turn limits the political aim and objectives. What was the political aim of Kargil? Wikipedia, the biggest free-content encyclopedia on the Internet has an excellent and quite objective article on Kargil which states:

&#8220;The aim was to sever the link between Kashmir and Ladakh, and cause Indian forces to withdraw from the Siachen Glacier, thus forcing India to negotiate a settlement of the broader Kashmir dispute. Pakistan also believed that any tension in the region would internationalize the Kashmir issue, helping it to secure a speedy resolution. Yet another goal may have been to boost the morale of the decade-long rebellion in Indian Administered Kashmir by taking a proactive role. Some writers have speculated that the operation's objective may also have been as retaliation for India's Operation Meghdoot in 1984 that seized much of Siachen Glacier.&#8221;

In the 10 years preceding Kargil, Pakistan&#8217;s Schwerpunkt, or point of main effort, in the Kashmir region, was neither Siachen nor the LOC. To launch Kargil as retaliation to an Indian operation in Siachen 15 years earlier was meaningless. From 1990 onwards, the main maneuver was the insurgency in Indian Held Kashmir, which ten years down the line was reaching a stage of exhaustion. To reenergize the Mujahideen, Pakistan needed to display a direct commitment to the cause. The diplomatic maneuvers in support of the insurgency had not succeeded and the only other option was a military action as a supporting maneuver to the main effort.


I have explained this to establish that obviously, Kargil was not conducted in isolation, nor as some analysts have stated, a misadventure by the Pakistan Army. It was executed as part of a larger canvas and in support of an ongoing insurgency that every political government was aware of and supported since 1990. Consequently it had its linkages in the decision making circles within the government, its agencies and the military.


When a government decides to engage in a military conflict the instructions to the military, take the form of a War Directive. The war directive lays down the aim (i.e. what are the end expectations of the government), the manner in which the operation is to be conducted and particularly in the case of a limited conflict, limitations imposed on the military in the shape of scale of operation (time, space and quantum of forces), the area and duration.


The military transforms the War Directive into a military directive that converts the political aim into a military aim, identifies the objective, the strategy to achieve aim, distribution of forces and a host of other details that need to be addressed. Obviously no formal War Directive was issued, but the military planners of Kargil had the professional acumen, experience, and knowledge of the operational environment to understand the effects to be sought, and the limits to the military operation. In the absence of a formal War Directive the military would most likely have constructed a political aim from which the rest would have flowed.


How do I know that? Was I involved in the planning process? No! But that is exactly how the Pakistan Army does all its planning. That is how, through an intensive process of training, it approaches all strategic and operational problems. And, why should they have done it any differently for Kargil. Lt Gen Tauqir Zia who was the Director General of Military Operations at GHQ at the time of Kargil had been my instructor at the National Defense College and had taught us exactly this, as I (and many before and after) taught the same process at the National Defense College. Following a structured thought process is part of our military culture and if everybody was not privy to the planning for Kargil, it is wrong to conclude that it was based on a whim and a song. The general perception that one morning the army commander rolled out of his bed and said &#8220;Hey boys! Let&#8217;s go and take Kargil&#8221;, is based on a total lack of understanding of the military planning process.


At this stage, I am tempted to hypothesize and reconstruct a politico-military aim the planners at GHQ would have set for themselves in the absence of a War Directive.


Political Aim: While ensuring security along the LOC and the international border, and keeping the dimensions of the conflict restricted, launch a limited operation to seize and hold critical terrain across the LOC with a view to engage sizable Indian Forces thus facilitating the operations of the Mujahideen in IHK.


The aim has four distinct components: firstly ensuring security along the LOC and the international border; secondly keeping the dimensions of the conflict restricted; thirdly seizing and holding critical terrain through a limited operation; and fourthly engage sizable Indian forces. Facilitating the operations of the Mujahideen was an end product that lay in the political dimension.


Let us see how well was the aim was achieved. War is both a science and an art. The science of war is reflected in the doctrine that the military is structured under and the procedures it follows. The art of warfare has no laws but a set of principles that are tenets used by military organizations to focus the thinking of leaders toward successful prosecution of battles and wars.


The environment under which the operation is to be conducted will dictate which principles will take precedence over others. In Kargil the element of surprise (and consequently secrecy) was paramount. The political aim limited the scale of operation and the only way a small force could achieve the effects sought required that the buildup was conducted under a tight umbrella of secrecy. It goes to the extreme credit of the commanders and staff at GHQ, 10 Corps and FCNA that not a word leaked out till the first contact with an Indian patrol. No written instructions; just directive control. And it paid (off). From the strategic through to the operational and the tactical level, surprise on the Indian side was absolute. On the Pakistani side, information was on a strict need to know basis. Neither the rest of the Army, nor the Air Force or the Navy had any advance information. This decision (much criticized) was based both on historical precedence as well as a very sound analysis and conclusions drawn from the environment, as well as the Indian and own capabilities.


In 1965 when the raiders were launched into Kashmir as part of Operation Gibraltar, the Indians with a much smaller force in IHK didn&#8217;t immediately respond with an offensive across the international border. In spite of the sensitivity of Kashmir, it was a limited operation which the Indians could and did curtail. It was the thrust towards Akhnur through Chhamb with tanks and a regular infantry division of the Pakistan Army that triggered the Indian assault towards Lahore and elsewhere.


In 1999, with two corps and seven division stationed in IHK it was safe to conclude the there would be no knee-jerk reaction by the Indian and an attack across the international boundary. The time it would take for the Indians to assess the situation and decide whether to restrict the conflict to the Dras-Kargil Sector or expand the dimensions, was sufficient for the Pakistan Armed Forces to balance themselves against a counter offensive either in Kashmir or across the International border. The limited mobilization of the Armed Forces was carefully regulated. There was no panic, no mass movement of troops, and no mad rush to the battle locations.


Through a sound appreciation of the environment and ensuring that there was no escalation through deployments that would have initiated a spiraling effect running out of control the military avoided a general war. That is how the (Pakistan) Armed Forces succeeded in keeping the dimensions of the conflict limited.


It is said that the Indians did not launch a full scale counter offensive because they held the moral high ground. This is partially correct. The Indian Army lacked the forces to develop an offensive maneuver elsewhere in Kashmir. Having failed in their initial efforts to retake even a few of the posts, the Indians had to commit up to four infantry divisions with the bulk of the Indian Army 155 Artillery Guns and the best of their air force ground attack capability, in an attempt to dislodge 5-6 lightly equipped battalions holding semi-prepared positions. Even with this force by the time of ceasefire, they had only retaken some of the features. What then were the chances of success of a counter offensive anywhere else in Kashmir against regular infantry battalions holding defenses hardened over 30 years.


For the Indians to even contemplate an offensive across the international border, would have subjected their decision makers to tremendous international pressure. Two nuclear powers fighting a limited conflict in a disputed area somewhere in the high reaches of the Himalayas where either side could only achieve tactical gains, is not so dangerous a scenario. Of more serious concern to the global community was two nuclear powers fighting a full scale war in belt 800 kms wide and stretching 1500 kms along an international border with armored and infantry divisions grouped and employed to create strategic effects and a conflict that could degenerate into a nuclear exchange. Our years of effort in developing a nuclear capability with the necessary delivery means had paid off: without fighting a war, as in 1965, we achieved a stalemate on the international border. Even if the Indians had decided to launch an offensive across the international border, the scale of operations would have been severely constrained by the need to keep within Pakistan&#8217;s nuclear threshold.


Actually the Indians had only a small window of opportunity to launch a full-scale counter offensive. That window was available before the Indian&#8217;s decided to concentrate on retaking the heights overlooking Kargil at all cost. Once that decision was taken and the Indian stuffed the narrow valleys in the Dras and Batalik Sectors with troops, artillery and ammunition and supplies, they foreclosed the option of expanding the dimensions of the conflict. In a general war scenario in which operations would be conducted in all three dimension including the air, such a heavy concentration in restricted terrain was extremely vulnerable to an air strike. No air defense is impregnable and ground attacks by Mirage-IIIs armed with cluster bombs would have had devastating effects. That is why the Indian planners strongly resisted attacking our bases across the LOC. They were themselves extremely vulnerable.

*
In conclusion, the aim of Kargil was not to &#8220;win&#8221;. It was to deliver a statement. It goes to the credit of the commanders, planners and the troops on ground that the military dimensions of the aim as hypothesized for the Kargil Conflict were totally achieved. The LOC and the international border remained secure; the conflict remained restricted to a specific area; critical terrain features were occupied and sizable Indian forces were engaged. To what extent this achieved the political aim of facilitating the operations of the Mujahideen in IHK and reenergizing them is a subject for a separate debate.*


----------



## Flintlock

blain2 said:


> I disagree. There were a few reasons for the Kargil operation. None of them was to capture Kashmir Valley. The key was to interrupt Indian supplies to Siachen and counter the interdiction of Neelum Valley on the Pakistan side prior to the start of the Kargil conflict.



Sorry, but that makes nos sense to me whatsoever. 

What exactly did Pakistan seek to gain by "Delivering a statement" to India?

Pakistan lost its face, lot diplomatic support, lot troop morale, went through a huge political upheaval, and gained nothing.

If the objective was to "deliver a statement', then the only statement it delivered was to show the weaknesses of the Indian armed forces. 
Needless to say, after the war was over, there was a lot of introspection in the IA and measures were taken.

It did nothing for kashmir or kashmiris, but infact made it necessary to increase troop concentrations in the valley, thus worsening the situation.



> I also disagree with the point that Pakistani forces were driven out. Aside from the Tiger Hill complex, Pakistani side vacated about 120 or so posts voluntarily after realizing that prolonged operations were not going to yield any further dividends.



But why vacate the posts? You had gained territory right? 
Why give up territory if you can sustain the conflict?

Either Pakistan was unable to sustain the conflict i.e. it lost
or the political will was no longer there, which also translates into a loss.

Now lets read the article:



> The aim was to sever the link between Kashmir and Ladakh, and cause Indian forces to withdraw from the Siachen Glacier, thus forcing India to negotiate a settlement of the broader Kashmir dispute. Pakistan also believed that any tension in the region would internationalize the Kashmir issue, helping it to secure a speedy resolution. Yet another goal may have been to boost the morale of the decade-long rebellion in Indian Administered Kashmir by taking a proactive role. Some writers have speculated that the operation's objective may also have been as retaliation for India's Operation Meghdoot in 1984 that seized much of Siachen Glacier.



Were any of these objectives completed? Not a single one.


----------



## Xeric

People quite often ask me what would happen in case of Indo-Pak war...I usaully reply them by saying that imagine a 55-lb dude wrestling with a 230-lb big dude and not leting the big dude beat him, that would be the case if we fought again.
Kargil was never meant to be "won." It was just there to give the indians a message that we no more are a defence loving nation..we too are now capable of no bullshit offensive at our own choosing of time and space, and I am sure and the world says that the message was amply understood by the other side.
Had Nawaz not screwed up today the things should have been diffrent.


----------



## Xeric

amna said:


> Kargil war lead to loss of democracy and almost a decade of martial rule in one country. the other country didn't even stop to yawn.
> 
> How exactly are we defining victory here?



Ever heard of a thing known as a "Civilain Dictator".... if not ...then peep into our history....


----------



## Flintlock

^^^^It sure was one heck of an expensive message.


----------



## Xeric

Stealth Assassin said:


> ^^^^It sure was one heck of an expensive message.



Ask your senior military leadership...havent they started peeing in their pants since Kargil... lets see if now india has the guts to attack Pakistan.....except making their soldiers to lay eggs on the borders and LoC as done in 2001-02 escalation between indian and Pakistan.


----------



## vish

enigma947 said:


> People quite often ask me what would happen in case of Indo-Pak war...I usaully reply them by saying that imagine a 55-lb dude wrestling with a 230-lb big dude and not leting the big dude beat him, that would be the case if we fought again.
> Kargil was never meant to be "won." It was just there to give the indians a message that we no more are a defence loving nation..we too are now capable of no bullshit offensive at our own choosing of time and space, and I am sure and the world says that the message was amply understood by the other side.
> Had Nawaz not screwed up today the things should have been diffrent.



You may like to go through this thread:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/general-military-history/11832-kargil-debacle-lost-opportunity.html

Kargil was a blunder; the people who planned it never took into account that India would actually react with a "heavy hand." The planners also miscalculated the international community's reaction.

If internationalizing the Kashmir issue was the sole objective of the Kargil "operation" (something which I find hard to believe) then it did succeed but resulted in re-affirming the LoC as the de facto border.

If Kargil was never meant to be "won," why waste young lives conducting it?

"too are now capable of no bullshit offensive at our own choosing of time and space" that is mired with grave geo-political risks and international isolation.

"the message was amply understood by the other side" and the international community that Pakistan can behave very recklessly.

Further, what resort did Pakistan have besides backing off?


----------



## vish

enigma947 said:


> Ask your senior military leadership...havent they started peeing in their pants since Kargil... lets see if now india has the guts to attack Pakistan.....except making their soldiers to lay eggs on the borders and LoC as done in 2001-02 escalation between indian and Pakistan.



Why should we attack Pakistan? Attacking Pakistan is the least of our concerns.

We are more than happy with the status quo if your "moral support" to the "freedom fighters" ceases.

Operation Parakram was never meant to go live.


----------



## Flintlock

enigma947 said:


> Ask your senior military leadership...havent they started peeing in their pants since Kargil... lets see if now india has the guts to attack Pakistan.....except making their soldiers to lay eggs on the borders and LoC as done in 2001-02 escalation between indian and Pakistan.



I think India got the wrong message.

The new doctrine ("Cold Start") talks about preemptive strikes against Pakistan, something that was unheard of earlier.


----------



## EagleEyes

> Kargil was a blunder; the people who planned it never took into account that India would actually react with a "heavy hand." The planners also miscalculated the international community's reaction.



Please... how do you know that people who planned it never thought of a military response from India even with very "severe casualties"?

What you dont know. Dont speak of. Simple as that.


----------



## vish

WebMaster said:


> Please... how do you know that people who planned it never thought of a military response from India even with very "severe casualties"?
> 
> What you dont know. Dont speak of. Simple as that.



Then would you please care to explain the actions of Pakistan and the PA? 

So let us assume that the planners were aware of the extent of the Indian reaction.

Then, why is it that the "withdrawal" of those troops was so chaotic and unplanned?

If the Indian response was anticipated, isn't it foolish of the "planners" to not formulate an effective exit strategy? Or is it that the "planners" believe that cannon fodder is aplenty in Pakistan?


----------



## cactuslily58

The answer to the question about who won can be answered by doing a check on which of the two belligerents achieved their aim ?

*Pakistan*
a) Was the Pakistani aim to merely occupy real estate & return ?
b) Did they intend ( & hope) to remain there forever & thereby "choke" Siachen or whatever ?
c) Did the Pak army intend ( & hope ) to alter the LC forever ?
d) Was it the intention to draw attention of the world to something ? If so did it have the desired effect & how ? More so coz when 9/11 came everything came tumbling down on the military machine who made U turn upon U turn.

*India*

a) Did India intend to do anything other than to kick out the intruders ?
b) Was the intention to send a strong , clear & unequivocal message to muddle headed Generals to stop behaving like school boys.
c) Was it the intention to expose the machinations of a junta where two power centers ran , each with its own agenda ?

Without going on endlessly, I leave it to the reader to draw his own infrences to suit himself/ herself depending on which side of the border you are.


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

http://smallwarsjournal.com/mag/docs-temp/66-pandy.pdf


----------



## Flintlock

Salim said:


> http://smallwarsjournal.com/mag/docs-temp/66-pandy.pdf



Great find, Salim!


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Stealth Assassin said:


> I think India got the wrong message.
> 
> The new doctrine ("Cold Start") talks about preemptive strikes against Pakistan, something that was unheard of earlier.



That would be in the aftermath of the Parakram Op. - to address that failures vis a vis Pakistan's conventional deterrent, not Kargil.

I think the article posted by Blain raises some very valid points about the strategic and tactical calculations Pakistan made that would ensure India would not be able to escalate the conflict into a broader war, though I think there were miscalculations made regarding the diplomatic isolation and pressure Pakistan would suffer.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Threads merged.

No point having two on the same issue.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> That would be in the aftermath of the Parakram Op. - to address that failures vis a vis Pakistan's conventional deterrent, not Kargil.



I was responding to his assertion about Indian Generals "pissing their pants ever since" which implied that the pissing is still going on.

Obviously, if the pissing ever happened, it has stopped ever since the new doctorine was envisaged.




> I think the article posted by Blain raises some very valid points about the strategic and tactical calculations Pakistan made that would ensure India would not be able to escalate the conflict into a broader war, though I think there were miscalculations made regarding the diplomatic isolation and pressure Pakistan would suffer.



In that case Pakistan shot itself in its diplomatic foot.

The non-escalation of the conflict, and Indian's (forced or unforced ) decision not to cross the LOC instantly earned respect all over the world.

It resulted in a general tilting of world opinion towards India's position on Kashmir, and a recognition of India as a responsible nation.

It also confirmed Pakistan as an aggressor and won it many enemies, especially in the EU.

Personally, based on the sources I consider to be credible (Indian ones and western ones), India's decision not to escalate the war or cross the LOC was a wise and unilateral one.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Stealth Assassin said:


> In that case Pakistan shot itself in its diplomatic foot.
> 
> The non-escalation of the conflict, and Indian's (forced or unforced ) decision not to cross the LOC instantly earned respect all over the world.
> 
> It resulted in a general tilting of world opinion towards India's position on Kashmir, and a recognition of India as a responsible nation.
> 
> It also confirmed Pakistan as an aggressor and won it many enemies, especially in the EU.
> 
> Personally, based on the sources I consider to be credible (Indian ones and western ones), India's decision not to escalate the war or cross the LOC was a wise and unilateral one.



Thats what I mean by "miscalculated the diplomatic repercussions".

However the authors arguments regarding tying down the Indian military to where it could not escalate remain valid ones. The fact that India did not escalate (was not able to escalate) led to an earning of respect is a retrospective position.

It couldn't have worked out better (for India), since the very thing that Pakistan tied India down with, contributed to the diplomatic pressure to withdraw and an increase in India's stature.

A strategy that turned out to be too successful perhaps.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Thats what I mean by "miscalculated the diplomatic repercussions".
> 
> However the authors arguments regarding tying down the Indian military to where it could not escalate remain valid ones. The fact that India did not escalate (was not able to escalate) led to an earning of respect is a retrospective position.
> 
> It couldn't have worked out better (for India), since the very thing that Pakistan tied India down with, contributed to the diplomatic pressure to withdraw and an increase in India's stature.
> 
> A strategy that turned out to be too successful perhaps.



So how exactly did Pakistan prevent India from escalating the conflict? 

India could have crossed the LOC, I don't see how any tactic of Pakistan could have prevented that if India wanted to.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Stealth Assassin said:


> So how exactly did Pakistan prevent India from escalating the conflict?
> 
> India could have crossed the LOC, I don't see how any tactic of Pakistan could have prevented that if India wanted to.



The article posted by Blain discusses those points. Did you read it?


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> The article posted by Blain discusses those points. Did you read it?



Yes I did, and it seems to me more like a last-minute face-saver. 

The guy is talking about how the Indian Army had "stuffed the valleys with troops" thus making them vulnerable to air-strikes.

Right....Pakistan wasn't even willing to use its own Army. Do you seriously think they would have used their air-force?
Even when India started to bomb the hills with their migs, the Pakistanis didn't retaliate with their own troops.

Infact, the Pakistani strategy was quite different....the plan was to disguise this war as a "freedom struggle" by using lots of mujahideen and dressing up PA soldiers as jehadis.

I still don't understand how Pakistan forced India to limit the conflict, since the ultimate decision whether to open a new front would always rest with India.
Even the article admits that the fact is "partially true" that India decided to limit the conflict in order to get the moral high-ground, if not the physical one.

If India had indeed decided for a full scale conflict, nothing short of International Pressure would have stopped her from doing so. You seem to forget and in spite of whatever advantages Pakistan had in terms of time, India had a vastly superior and bigger military, as well as far more resources to outlast Pakistan.

The guy has little information and is simply hypothesizing, he admits so himself: "


> "At this stage, I am tempted to hypothesize and reconstruct a politico-military aim the planners at GHQ would have set for themselves in the absence of a War Directive.



India infact had to bear a huge strategic disadvantage by not crossing the LOC and not using the full range of its capabilities.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Stealth Assassin said:


> Yes I did, and it seems to me more like a last-minute face-saver.
> 
> The guy is talking about how the Indian Army had "stuffed the valleys with troops" thus making them vulnerable to air-strikes.
> 
> Right....Pakistan wasn't even willing to use its own Army. Do you seriously think they would have used their air-force?
> Even when India started to bomb the hills with their migs, the Pakistanis didn't retaliate with their own troops.
> 
> Infact, the Pakistani strategy was quite different....the plan was to disguise this war as a "freedom struggle" by using lots of mujahideen and dressing up PA soldiers as jehadis.



Pakistan would not have escalated unless India escalated the war along the entire border, which is where the author argues Indian forces would have been at a complete disadvantage, and hence the calculation that the conflict would not escalate.

Pakistan did not retaliate to the Migs being used because, as you yourself said, the idea was to not project the conflict as one started by Pakistan.

The IM itself took pains to clarify that the fighters that went down in Pakistan were not in in Pakistani airspace. 



> I still don't understand how Pakistan forced India to limit the conflict, since the ultimate decision whether to open a new front would always rest with India.
> Even the article admits that the fact is "partially true" that India decided to limit the conflict in order to get the moral high-ground, if not the physical one.


"Partially true", but if India had essentially focused so much of its resources in one theater, vulnerable to considerable damage in the case of a full blown conflict, then military considerations against escalation would have been paramount.

There are similar reasons to why India was not able to do much with Op. Parakram, which led to rethinking Indian military doctrine and Cold Start. And Op. Parakram was with all of the IM might directed against Pakistan, without the distraction and usage of resources in Kargil.



> India infact had to bear a huge strategic disadvantage by not crossing the LOC and not using the full range of its capabilities.



That limitation of not being able to cross the LoC is what the author is claiming was one of the successes of how Kargil was planned.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Pakistan would not have escalated unless India escalated the war along the entire border, which is where the author argues Indian forces would have been at a complete disadvantage, and hence the calculation that the conflict would not escalate.



The side which has been attacked is always at a disadvantage. That doesn't stop them from attacking.

The real reason why India didn't escalate had nothing to do with Pakistan's strategic maneuvering during the war, but more to do with the danger of it degenerating into a nuclear conflict. 

India with its superior numbers and staying powers could have taken down Pakistan's defences if it wanted to. The real danger was Pakistan's low nuclear threshold.



> Pakistan did not retaliate to the Migs being used because, as you yourself said, the idea was to not project the conflict as one started by Pakistan.



Exactly. Now if India had decided to cross the LOC by bombing the supply routes, and made its troops blockade the occupied peaks, what would have Pakistan done?

Why would India rob itself of such an obvious advantage? An elementary military tactic of blockading supply routes?



> "Partially true", but if India had essentially focused so much of its resources in one theater, vulnerable to considerable damage in the case of a full blown conflict, then military considerations against escalation would have been paramount.



How much of India's resources were used again?

India used at max 30,000 troops in the actual battle. Close to 200,000 troops were stationed in the kashmir valley.

Infact, Pakistan would have been unable to sustain a conventional conflict:



> the former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharief later disclosed that Pakistan was left with just six days of fuel (POL) to sustain itself if a full fledged war broke out.
> Source: 1999 Kargil Conflict



This is further proven by a rather shocking admission that Pakistan had prepared a nuclear strike against India:

[Grapevine] For 16 May, 2002



> There are similar reasons to why India was not able to do much with Op. Parakram, which led to rethinking Indian military doctrine and Cold Start. And Op. Parakram was with all of the IM might directed against Pakistan, without the distraction and usage of resources in Kargil.



Again, India never executed Parakram because of the threat of nuclear conflict, not because of the inefficient troop mobilization

I mean comeon, we've had 3 full-scale wars before. Indian army was much, much slower during that time.



> That limitation of not being able to cross the LoC is what the author is claiming was one of the successes of how Kargil was planned.



There are still no concrete reasons for India not to cross the LOC, other than diplomatic ones.
Crossing the LOC would have given it tremendous advantages.

The author infact claims that India would be at a disadvantage had they crossed over, which is completely false.


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

Restraint as a Successful Strategy in the 1999 Kargil Conflict (SWJ Blog)


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

Restraint as a Successful Strategy in the 1999 Kargil Conflict - Small Wars Council


----------



## Xeric

Stealth Assassin said:


> I think India got the wrong message.
> 
> The new doctrine ("Cold Start") talks about preemptive strikes against Pakistan, something that was unheard of earlier.



Exactly, lets see how much time would this Cold Start so called strategy will take to mature....well i'll love to see those 8 Battle Groups taking their places and executing the Cold Start. Oh! and yes you did have an "succsessful" exercise of this concept...ya keep it up...


----------



## Xeric

vish said:


> Why should we attack Pakistan? Attacking Pakistan is the least of our concerns.
> 
> We are more than happy with the status quo if your "moral support" to the "freedom fighters" ceases.
> 
> Operation Parakram was never meant to go live.



O ya Operation Parakram was never meant to go live....ofcourse until we occupied our defences at the right time(hats off to our DGMO) and the Gujrat masscare didnt commit one of ur complete corps. 
Moreover, Lets go layman...ever heard of 1:3...???


----------



## vish

enigma947 said:


> O ya Operation Parakram was never meant to go live....ofcourse until we occupied our defences at the right time(hats off to our DGMO) and the Gujrat masscare didnt commit one of ur complete corps.
> Moreover, Lets go layman...ever heard of 1:3...???



Operation Parakram was meant to be a show of force... the chances of it going live were minimal to say the least. These chances were further minimized by PA's mobilization. This led to Cold Start.

So aren't some of PA's assests involved in COIN and policing duties in Pakistan?

1:3... are you implying the ratio of defenders to attackers?


----------



## Xeric

vish said:


> Operation Parakram was meant to be a show of force... the chances of it going live were minimal to say the least. These chances were further minimized by PA's mobilization. This led to Cold Start.


Avoid repeatetion please.


> So aren't some of PA's assests involved in COIN and policing duties in Pakistan?


Be updated dude...cant u find a diffrence between the year 2001-02 and 2007-08, dont compare the internal problems of then with the one occuring now..


> 1:3... are you implying the ratio of defenders to attackers?


Oh yes....do the math yourself....i'll not say anthing more...


----------



## vish

enigma947 said:


> Avoid repeatetion please.



Same goes for you.



enigma947 said:


> Be updated dude...cant u find a diffrence between the year 2001-02 and 2007-08, dont compare the internal problems of then with the one occuring now..



Wouldn't the same logic apply to India as well? Plus why exactly did you bring the Gujarat riots in the picture here?



enigma947 said:


> Oh yes....do the math yourself....i'll not say anthing more...



The 3:1 (attackers to defenders) ratio does not merely mean that the attacking force has to be three times the defending force. This figure is far more complicated than that.

PS: Stop getting personal.


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

enigma947 said:


> Exactly, lets see how much time would this Cold Start so called strategy will take to mature....well i'll love to see those 8 Battle Groups taking their places and executing the Cold Start. Oh! and yes you did have an "succsessful" exercise of this concept...ya keep it up...



They are already in place and practised.


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

It is not fashionable to criticise the Kargil debacle. It has been always fashionable to uphold the reality.

What has the undermentioned extract of Mohinder Puri to do with separating facts from fiction? 

_An extract from an article written by Lt Gen Mohinder Puri, who was the GOC of 8 Mountain Division at Batalik, may help you in separating fact from fiction.


Employment of air per se was a morale raising factor for our troops and conversely it had an adverse effect on the enemy. But its effectiveness was questionable. Like us, the pilots were not acclimatized to fight in this type of terrain and did not have the right ordnance to deliver on the target. When they did use the laser guided bombs, their effectiveness improved marginally, but not enough to have an impact on our ground operations or the enemy.

_

If the good General SYED ALI HAMID, understood the nuances of external ballistics, he would not have come out so militarily illiterate. 

The good General is glib to suggest that it was a limited conflict. Is he a soothsayer that he is so sure that it would not escalate like all other India Pak conflicts? It is good to act sagacious after the event.

He again is Oraclish to decree that in the 21st Century, wars will be confined to limited conflicts! Who told him so? In the India Pak scenario, it will always be along the whole front. Kargil was an exception and that too because of many internal and external reasons.

The Generals notion how wars are to be fought is too bookish and he seems to be living in his own dream world. Cold Start puts his postulations into cold storage.

His quote from Wikipedia

_*The aim was to sever the link between Kashmir and Ladakh, and cause Indian forces to withdraw from the Siachen Glacier, thus forcing India to negotiate a settlement of the broader Kashmir dispute. Pakistan also believed that any tension in the region would internationalize the Kashmir issue, helping it to secure a speedy resolution. Yet another goal may have been to boost the morale of the decade-long rebellion in Indian Administered Kashmir by taking a proactive role. Some writers have speculated that the operation's objective may also have been as retaliation for India's Operation Meghdoot in 1984 that seized much of Siachen Glacier.

*_

is emotionally perfect, but militarily stupid as event proved.

The real reason for Kargil could be because:

*



The 1971 War was a watershed. Unlike before, where the troops returned to status quo ante after the war, the Simla Agreement stated that the Line of Control would be as is where the troops finally were. Thus the Suchetgarh Agreement redrew the Cease Fire Line to the present Line of Control. It meant de facto that what was captured in Jammu and Kashmir, belonged to the captor!

The terrorism unleashed by Pakistan assisted terrorists, mostly foreign terrorists, for nearly two decades were spluttering. The pipedream of wresting Kashmir which was an impossibility, given the terrain and the military capability was about to be snuffed out since there appeared to be a serious move towards a peace standstill between the governments led by Vajpayee and Sharif. It was the last chance to grab as much territory before it happened and it would give the necessary fillip to the Moslem pride of having had a victory in the end, washing away the previous ignominy! 

Ideal to the plot of a final victory was the sparsely guarded area of Kargil, where an independent brigade with elements of the Border Security Forces guarded the rugged, knife edged High Altitude and glaciated frontier from West of Dras to East of Turtuk . The troops were inadequate if it were to have been in the classical LC deployment but the appreciation pre Kargil indicated that it would be sufficient to guard the avenues of approach, whereby large gaps and unheld heights were commonplace. 

Given the density of deployment elsewhere in Jammu and Kashmir, Kargil appeared to be ideal for the picking. And so the plot was cast. 

However, while on a sand model (sand table) it was an easy operation, logistically it was and proved to be a nightmare. Infiltrating and holding unheld heights was not difficult, but the Pakistani Army blundered on the logistics essential to sustain isolated post well within the Indian territory with hostile adversaries on the flanks and rear, in addition to the problem of moving porter and animal will logistics over knife edged, deep snow covered and rugged footpaths, there being no roads or transport capable tracks. Courage and Allah (as the diary of an officer indicated was the motivation) alone cannot overrule military necessities of food and ammunition replenishment and casualty evacuation and reinforcement. And it was impossible to move by day and some posts created deep was beyond a one night march, given the terrain and climatic conditions!

Thus, failure was axiomatic!

Pakistan has always used the Indian card to divert attention from internal problems. However, it is foggy as to whether Nawaz Sharif had categorically given the green signal or was it a sleight of hand of the Pakistani Army that embarked on this foolhardy and highly flawed military operation. What is the truth will never be in the public domain unless Pakistan has a Commission to probe the debacle. Even then, it might be a whitewash as the Justice Hamdoor Rehman Commission probing the 1971 Bangladesh rout!!

While it was a diplomatic coup for India not to escalate the conflict, it is moot point if India could have confined the area of conflict to J&K if the conflict changed from push to a shove! There can be no doubt that Pakistan would open all the fronts so as to ensure that the Indian forces are dispersed and not concentrated anywhere. 

The Indian public indeed wanted Pakistan to be put in its place. However, none wanted the conflict to escalate into a full blown war. The involvement of the Indian public with the Indian war machine was for the first time intimate since the private TV channels and newspapers vied with each other to be first with the news and reporting from the frontline itself! One TV anchor was so enthusiastic that the anchor gave away the game even before it was executed! Of course, the anchor was no Pakistani agent, merely a starry eyed teenager having a grandstand view!! The Army HQ baulked and for a short while all reporters were expelled to only return since it did mobilise the public support!

In so far as Indian politicians were concerned, they were back to the usual game of doing each other down with no a shred of nationalism to care for! Natwar Singh of the opposition Congress Party was at his shrill best and was dithering and frothing at his mouth like a raving lunatic!

In so far as the contention that India could have embarked on a full scale war, the defence purchases during the conflict is an indicator of the feasibility of a win win situation.

In so far as the Air Force is concerned, they had never operated in a combat profile in the High Altitude and thus there were many limitations to their success in the High Altitude. It was a repeat of using Bofors in Siachen till the new Range Tables were formulated. Even PGMs had their limitations.

Notwithstanding what is written by various commentators and notwithstanding the debate whether it would be a better option to cross the Line of Control and take the war into Pakistan held Kashmir, the maturity shown by the then Indian government was an example of statesmanship and in the overall context, India did appear to be a responsible nation that could assert its will without endangering world peace!



Click to expand...

*
How about considering:



> The Pakistan Army has always been psyched to believe that one Pakistani is equal to ten Indians.
> 
> This has been repeatedly debunked in all the wars fought between India and Pakistan.
> 
> While the outcome of wars is debatable, 1971 and 1965s Battle of Assal Uttar (the physical graveyard of Patton tanks which were superior to anything India had) gave Pakistan no leeway to cover up their inadequacy at combat unlike the fact wherein Pakistans Operation Grand Slam is not discussed in history, military or otherwise or for that matter, any other debacle, not even the 1971 fiasco of their own making (except in general vague and defensive terms)!!
> 
> That apart, Musharraf has a chip on his shoulder. He is a Mohajir and hence non martial as per the British classification. And yet he was the COAS. In addition, he pipped Khatak (a blue blooded Pathan and a martial race man) to the post of COAS. He also had a personal grievance to settle. Gen. Zia chose Gen. Musharraf (then a Brigadier) in 1987 to command a newly-raised Special Services Group (SSG) base at Khapalu in the Siachen area. To please Gen. Zia, Gen. Musharraf with his SSG commandos launched an attack on an Indian post at Bilfond La in September, 1987, and was beaten back.
> 
> Therefore, Kargil.
> 
> Mujahideens were not used as a front. They were used as porters. The whole campaign of Pakistan was excellent so long as it was confined to the sand model discussions (sand table). As is wont with all Generals, the logistic aspect was given short shrift. That is where the Waterloo manifested. No re-supply, NO victory! No medevac, low morale! The diary of a Pakistani officer indicated that Allah alone was the panacea! That does not work in real life!



The Good General Hamid should also see this angle!

Indeed Pakistan did internationalise the whole operation and that is why she came a cropper!! The world stood against her, including her favourite ally, the US in all India Pak conflicts!!

Genera Hamid is pathetic to claim that diplomatic manoeuvres failed to support terrorism and so the military action was inevitable. Who in the hell's name would support terrorism? How pathetic a justification!

I will comment once I have the time.


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

the General is in a typical state of denial!!


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

> The Pakistan Army has always been psyched to believe that &#8220;one Pakistani is equal to ten Indians&#8221;.
> 
> This has been repeatedly debunked in all the wars fought between India and Pakistan.



I think the good general Puri needs to lay of the jingoism a bit.

No military man I have come across has done anything but laugh at the suggestion that the PA believed in the 10 to 1 ratio.

Not to say that some did not say it, but then was it a means to boost confidence and courage in the heat of battle or a matter of policy?

Somehow I have a hard time believing the PA plans its offensives thinking; "Hmmm... the Indians have 1000 men over here, lets send 200, and we have a 2 to 1 advantage!"

Any Indian article or analysis that includes that 10 to 1 rubbish as part of a proper analysis deserves to be treated as rubbish.


----------



## Flintlock

^^^It was a motivational tool, if not a strategic one. No point denying that.

And the word used wasn't Indian, it was Hindu.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Stealth Assassin said:


> ^^^It was a motivational tool, if not a strategic one. No point denying that.
> 
> And the word used wasn't Indian, it was Hindu.


Err.. people use all sorts of silly things to motivate themselves, before a final, a presentation, a battle. 

I am using whatever was in the article Salim posted.

My point remains, the fact that so much analysis from the Indian side actually uses this tid bit to describe Pakistani strategy is really indicative of the intellectual deficiency of the analysts.


----------



## SU 30 MKI

Well......

Kargil ........

*Objectives:* Its open Fact that Kargil Operation was launched by PAK like 1947 they have lunched ..

In 1947 PA mixes as local tribals attacked on J& K to take it, they scuessfully taken half of J&K like this surprise raid and till now status is maintained.

In 1999 PA uses the same strategy. But their calculations goes wrong and result was unexpectedly opposite.

1) They though though this they can take Peaks like they taken J&K land 1947 and utilized this position for any future attacks.

2) World Power intervention will Prevent IA to take any action against PAK due to nuclear fear. and World Power will make India Sit and Talk and status will be maintained.

3) With Peaks under their control they can look over srinagar -leh highway. 


*Calculations*
1) IA will not attack PAK due to world pressure and nuclear fear.

2) Due to height and higher position it would be nearly impossible to take back those.

3) IAF will be ineffective as it hilly areas and close to LOC

4) World power force to look into J&K issue.

5) PAK thought that PA Disguise as Fighters will not came to world


*Result* 
1) IA Used all weapons in its inventory. All War on Indian side Fought in full glare of Media and Camera. Where they clearly shows High Positions of intruders and then after retake those positions.

2) PA Lost almost all the important Heights by the time cease fire was taken into effect Namely Tiger Hills. Its calculation it can hold position goes haywire 

3) World Power forced PAK on wrong foot and now PAK have to look into Honorably Exit.


Facts: 

1) During Kargil War PA Denied Presence of its mens but later admit it.

2) PAK Never told Their losses of its mens, they hided it. So if PAK says its lost 10 soldiers or 100 their is no independent prove. Since its known that PAK Army has lots of secret away from public eyes.

Where as India has democracy when Army cant hide anything from Public so number disclosed is Might be right.

3) PA Army tries to hide its blunder and mistakes to civilian govt. and told PAK public what they want to hear.

*"PA fight like brave and not lost any land during fight and its politicians who make PAK lost Kargil" Music to PAK Public Ears and they also want to hear that.*

*PAK TV never mention or acknowledge of loosing tiger hill etc.*

*But the fact is that Pak Politicians saved the PA from Humiliation which is PA dont to want Public to know.
*
IF fight goes for little longer IA will reach LOC in more time then PA will be in embarrassing position. This is why PA want also early negations, they hide behind Politicians.

PA Never told PAK public that they started to loose positions and how much positions they loses if kargil war continued for more long.


----------



## blain2

Salim said:


> Genera Hamid is pathetic to claim that diplomatic manoeuvres failed to support terrorism and so the military action was inevitable. Who in the hell's name would support terrorism? How pathetic a justification!
> 
> I will comment once I have the time.



What you term as terrorism is a termed a legitimate armed struggle on the other side of the border. The good Maj Gen Hamid is in his right to state that. In the end its a matter of perception on each side. 


> He again is Oraclish to decree that in the 21st Century, wars will be confined to limited conflicts! Who told him so? In the India Pak scenario, it will always be along the whole front. Kargil was an exception and that too because of many internal and external reasons.


Not discounting the fact that future conflicts could be along the length of the IB, however who is to say that similar external and internal reasons may not be around in a future conflict which would inhibit the expansion of the conflict across the whole front?


----------



## blain2

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Err.. people use all sorts of silly things to motivate themselves, before a final, a presentation, a battle.
> 
> I am using whatever was in the article Salim posted.
> 
> My point remains, the fact that so much analysis from the Indian side actually uses this tid bit to describe Pakistani strategy is really indicative of the intellectual deficiency of the analysts.



I have say this with full confidence that as an Army, this thought of 1:10 has never been a factor. People have said it at odd times, but the Army does not train on the basis of something so silly.


----------



## Vinod2070

blain2 said:


> I have say this with full confidence that as an Army, this thought of 1:10 has never been a factor. People have said it at odd times, but the Army does not train on the basis of something so silly.



When did this myth originate? Was it during the Ayub period or even earlier?

I know for a fact that Ayub thought that Indians won't be able to give a good fight and so he launched the Op. Gibralter, perhaps also emboldened by the Rann of Kutch successes. I have read he was an ardent believer in the 1:n ratio.


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I think the good general Puri needs to lay of the jingoism a bit.
> 
> No military man I have come across has done anything but laugh at the suggestion that the PA believed in the 10 to 1 ratio.
> 
> Not to say that some did not say it, but then was it a means to boost confidence and courage in the heat of battle or a matter of policy?
> 
> Somehow I have a hard time believing the PA plans its offensives thinking; "Hmmm... the Indians have 1000 men over here, lets send 200, and we have a 2 to 1 advantage!"
> 
> Any Indian article or analysis that includes that 10 to 1 rubbish as part of a proper analysis deserves to be treated as rubbish.



The 1:10 ratio is what has been propagated by the PA. Check through google and you will find enough of this ratio in PA material.

Indeed, the 1:10 is total rubbish and day dreams or nightmare.

The Kargil War was not rubbish.

Morale is a Principle of War.


----------



## blain2

Salim said:


> The 1:10 ratio is what has been propagated by the PA. Check through google and you will find enough of this ratio in PA material.
> 
> Indeed, the 1:10 is total rubbish and day dreams or nightmare.
> 
> The Kargil War was not rubbish.
> 
> Morale is a Principle of War.



Which PA material are you referring to? People's memoirs do not count for official PA material.


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

Are you denying that the 10:1 ratio is not bandied?

Are people's memoires figment of imagination and they use this 10:1 out of thin air?

How does it regularly crop up if it were not commonplace a feeling or a statement?


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

And it is not Gen Mohinder Puri's article, but mine.

So, don't blame Puri for it.

During the Delineation I have heard it many a time.


----------



## blain2

Vinod2070 said:


> When did this myth originate? Was it during the Ayub period or even earlier?
> 
> I know for a fact that Ayub thought that Indians won't be able to give a good fight and so he launched the Op. Gibralter, perhaps also emboldened by the Rann of Kutch successes. I have read he was an ardent believer in the 1:n ratio.



Ayub never said this nor did he think that Indians would not be able to give a good fight. During the briefings prior to Operation Gibralter, Gen Musa had raised the point about the Indian reaction to this operation, Ayub's response to him was "we would have to take heart sometime"...in essence Ayub (being a professional soldier did not cover his *** or his plans with this 1:n mumbo jumbo.) and told those present that Indian reaction would be forthcoming but Pakistan Army would have to take the risk and go for it.

This "myth" which is exactly what it is has been blown all out of proportion and mostly by the Indians. What is true is that Pakistan Army has always had to fight out numbered by a numerically superior adversary. Maybe the confusion for the Indian side is with this understanding. Add to this the statements of some individuals, but aside from that, there are no takers for it in the Pakistan Army.


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

blain2 said:


> What you term as terrorism is a termed a legitimate armed struggle on the other side of the border. The good Maj Gen Hamid is in his right to state that. In the end its a matter of perception on each side.
> 
> Not discounting the fact that future conflicts could be along the length of the IB, however who is to say that similar external and internal reasons may not be around in a future conflict which would inhibit the expansion of the conflict across the whole front?



If one alludes to the international community as the General has done, then he should realise what is the connotation the international community takes of what you now call armed struggle. To the world it is terrorism and hardly anyone would support terrorism.

True that future could have limited or a full scale war. But to be categorical as the General was, and state that future wars will only be limited wars, is fallcious.

The General is situating the appreciation, rather than appreciating the situation!


----------



## blain2

Salim said:


> Are you denying that the 10:1 ratio is not bandied?



Are you kidding me? Yes Absolutely!


----------



## blain2

Salim said:


> If one alludes to the international community as the General has done, then he should realise what is the connotation the international community takes of what you now call armed struggle. To the world it is terrorism and hardly anyone would support terrorism.
> 
> True that future could have limited or a full scale war. But to be categorical as the General was, and state that future wars will only be limited wars, is fallcious.



The problem with your point is that the international community and the Islamic community have a very different understanding of what terrorism and armed struggle entail (the international community that you refer to does not even bother defining the concept of armed struggle, although at one point or another, every single one of these powers that lead and shape the opinions of the international community have waged an armed struggle of their own against someone else). I am sure we know which of the two opinions Maj Gen Hamid shares. 

As to the second point about being categorical, its not that much off the mark given the whole Cold Start doctrine operates under a similar premise that a future conflict would be limited in terms of time and space.


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

blain2 said:


> The problem with your point is that the international community and the Islamic community have a very different understanding of what terrorism and armed struggle entail (the international community that you refer does not even bother defining the concept of armed struggle, although at one point or another, every single one of these powers that lead and shape the opinions of the international community have waged an armed struggle of their own against someone else).
> 
> As to the second point about being categorical, its not that much off the mark given the whole Cold Start doctrine operates under a similar premise that a future conflict would be limited in terms of time and space.




I am aware what is the viewpoint of Pakistanis about the Kashmir situation.

It is not material as to what the international community has done in the past. It is what the international community thinks as of NOW. Therefore, the General stands incorrect in his writing that military option was the corollary to failed grabbing the international community's attention earlier. The international community cannot take cognisance of terrorism as a means to grab attention.


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

The Cold War doctrine is limited in time and space, not in the linear continuum.

From the conduct point of view, it is hardly limited, there being 8 battle groups across the spectrum.


----------



## blain2

Salim said:


> I am aware what is the viewpoint of Pakistanis about the Kashmir situation.
> 
> It is not material as to what the international community has done in the past. It is what the international community thinks as of NOW. Therefore, the General stands incorrect in his writing that military option was the corollary to failed grabbing the international community's attention earlier. The international community cannot take cognisance of terrorism as a means to grab attention.



Fact remains that the world community did take notice of the situation and there was increased pressure on both Pakistan and India to exercise more restraint. That works to Pakistan's advantage despite the fact that the country received a rebuke from the international community over the operation.



> The Cold War doctrine is limited in time and space, not in the linear continuum.
> 
> From the conduct point of view, it is hardly limited, there being 8 battle groups across the spectrum.


Agree.


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

I was going through the thread since I came on this late.

And so I thought I could clarify some of the issues.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> On the losses inflicted during the withdrawal, which per Musharraf was when the majority of the Pakistani Military losses occurred, were these losses inflicted after the withdrawal was imminent?
> 
> That is the GoI and IA were aware of it, in which case was this not akin to attacking someone when their back was turned?



It must be understood that when the PA came in, none knew in India.

When discovered, the battle began.

When the posts were retaken, obviously, either the defenders fled or were killed! The choice is yours to decide whether they fled or were killed. Ghazi ya Saheed as someone commented.

When any troops withdraw, they do not pack their bags and move. It is a military operation and no one keeps his back towards the adversary.


The attacks were not on the paths but on the posts created by the PA. 

NO one executed PsW. I am surprised to learn that PA claims that their casualties were there when they were withdrawing. Let's look at it practically. When the posts created by Pakistan were attacked, do you think the Pakistanis just took off and fled? Would any soldier of any Army worth his salt just run away and not give a fight? If one fights, won't some die also? Please see the awards given to the Pakistani Army soldiers and officers and check the citations.

On the issue of targeting the supply routes when the withdrawal is on, where is the question of supplies if one is withdrawing. Where do you think the supplies are to be stored when one is withdrawing? Therefore, that is not a correct premise.

As regards the thumb rule for attack:defence, in the plains it is 3:1 and in the High Altitude it is 11:1

Artillery (Bofors) was used in direct firing role and that was an important action taken. 
Artillery is not so effective on the mountains since there are many ''overs'' and ''unders'' that miss the peak and fall beyond or short and hence the amount of rounds to be fired for effect increases and that means a whole lot more ammunition is required; and that means a huge burden on the logistics!!



******************

In so far as the number of caskets bought to send back the dead, (23March) it was for all operations in J&K. Earlier, the bodies were buried/ cremated in situ with military honours. Then the mode was changed to sending bodies back to their home towns in wooden crates. And later since the wooden crates looked rather pathetic, these caskets were bought. These caskets are reusable.

As far as Kasrkin feeling that India would only make noise if Siachen was isolated, it appears he does not understand geopolitics and national imperatives.

It is also interesting to note that Karskin feels that Indian casualties occurred due to ''stupid mass infantry attacks''! One wonders what is mass infantry attack and why attacking in overwhelming strength is stupid. In fact, it would be stupid to attack without overwhelming strength since it would only mean defeat! Odd logic and odd statement, Karskin.

Sniperwolf's PA gave a good stick to India post is like the story of the wolf and the sour grapes!

Ejaz's "If you have managed to achieve surprise against your enemy and caught the defenders sleeping that too is a victory. While no regular army units were used by Pakistan India used its regular army and Pakistan gained valuable information about their tactics and capabilitites. IAF performance was also observed and would be considered while planning any future mission" post is interesting in so far as the comparison goes - no news is good news! A good attempt to make the best of a disaster. 

Similar is Engima947's "Ask your senior military leadership...havent they started peeing in their pants since Kargil... lets see if now india has the guts to attack Pakistan.....except making their soldiers to lay eggs on the borders and LoC as done in 2001-02 escalation between indian and Pakistan." Does this make any sense except venting bile to wipe the wounds?


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by TALWAR View Post
> 1. Why would the Pak Army withdraw if they were in a strong position ?
> 2. Do you think the Pak Army would have obeyed the withdrawal orders of the PM who was later thrown away ?
> They withdrew because they had no other option. No arti , and no air-support. What will the Infentary do without cover ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They with drew because the political leadership offered them no support. An Army relies on its politicians to support it, which did not happen here.
Click to expand...


A weak argument.

If the Army went in without political support, then they should have fought on without political support. One can't backflip and then claim that they had no political support just because the Army comes a cropper!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## QuickSilver

blain2 said:


> Fact remains that the world community did take notice of the situation and there was increased pressure on both Pakistan and India to exercise more restraint. * That works to Pakistan's advantage despite the fact that the country received a rebuke from the international community over the operation.*
> 
> 
> Agree.



you say Pakistan got rebuked in return to India being asked to observe restraint, and you say its favourable to Pakistan!! how?? 

Pakistan was rebuked because intl community thinks what Pak did was not appropriate( w r t kargil)! which in itself a debacle for pakistan! 

I would say the biggest minus of kargil for Pak was the timing. it was at a time when prime ministers from both sides almost vowed to get peace and this got the intl community to 'rebuke' Pak.


----------



## Captain03

i believe that pakistan won kargill but it was in the hands of bad leadership [nawaz shariff]
inshallah in the future we will have leaders that will unite the country and win back our lost victories


----------



## s90

i agree with captain03


----------



## fatman17

ANALYSIS , INDIA STRIKES BACK AT INTRUDERS 

JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY 

DATE: 09-Jun-1999 

EDITION: 1999 
VOLUME/ISSUE: 031/023 

BY LINE:

Rahul Bedi

INTRODUCTION:

The fear that Pakistan-backed insurgents could take control of the
crucial national Highway 1A has spurred India to launch air power
to push back insurgents in its Kashmir territory, writes Rahul Bedi

TEXT:


*India is using almost its entire aerial arsenal to dislodge more
than 500 armed insurgents entrenched inside its territory within the
disputed northern state of Kashmir.*

Alongside the aerial strikes, ground action involving 30,000 Indian
Army soldiers in Operation Vijay (Victory) in Kashmir's remote
Kargil, Dras, Batalik and Mushkoh region is taking place at heights
above 16,000ft along the line of control (LoC) with Pakistan. The
operation aims to push the intruders, who include Taliban fighters
from Afghanistan, 4 to 7km back into Pakistan-held Kashmir.

India claims the intruders are backed by Pakistan and include
commandos from its Special Forces Group (SFG), trained for mountain
warfare. Lt Gen Hari Mohan Khanna, commander of the Northern Army in
Kashmir's capital Srinagar, said: "We treat it as a war in Kargil
and we will not use kid gloves to deal with the situation." Pakistan
denies India's assertions.

The conflict in Kashmir is the first military confrontation between
the two countries since both became nuclear weapon powers and began
building missiles to strike deep into each other's territory. India
accuses Pa kistan of sponsoring Islamic insurgents fighting a civil
war for an independent Muslim homeland in the disputed state, in
which nearly 20,000 have died since 1989. Lt Gen V R Raghavan,
former director of general military operations (DGMO), said: "The
availability of nuclear weapons with India and Pakistan is a factor
which will impact on managing the situation in Kargil." The
challenge, he said, lies in "localising" the military operations.

"Nuclear weapons have become the key to Pakistan's strategy in
Kashmir," stated a US Republican party report four years ago.

Escorted by Mirage 2000s, the Indian Air Force's (IAF's) MiG-21 bis,
MiG-23s and MiG-27M fighter aircraft accompanied by Mi-17 assault
helicopters - locally retrofitted to fire missiles - and Mi-25
attack helicopters, repeatedly attack the insurgents. MiG-29s are
being employed for air patrolling.

*Officials said the Mirage 2000s, equipped with advanced electronic
warfare (EW) systems, are jamming Pakistani radar and air missile
batteries close to the LoC that downed at least one IAF MiG-21 bis
on the second day of aerial strikes last month. India claimed
another MiG-27 crashed after an engine "flame out", while a day
later an Mi-17 helicopter was knocked down by a shoulder-fired
surface-to-air missile fired by militants killing its four-member
crew. Pakistan, however, claimed to have knocked down both fighters
after they crossed the LoC (Jane's Defence Weekly 2 June).*

Indian officials acknowledge that the Islamic insurgents seized the
military initiative by occupying strategic ridges across a 40km
stretch overlooking the Indian forces. They have successfully
established supply lines and strengthened their positions with
assistance from Pakistani artillery fire from across the LoC. "It
was a methodical operation planned meticulously by professionals,"
said a senior Indian military officer involved in the operations.

Indian diplomats and military officials believe the strategy
employed by the Pakistan-backed insurgents is the same as that used
by Pakistan in the three wars they have fought - to dominate
national Highway 1 A linking Srinagar to Leh, the staging point for
the 20,000ft-high Siachen glacier, occupied by India since 1984.

Officials believe Pakistan aims to "internationalise" the Kashmir
dispute by escalating the conflict as the Indian Army was winning
Kashmir's "proxy war". Pakistan favours UN or third party mediation
in Kashmir, a proposal India opposes.

The 776km-long LoC stretching from the international border in the
Jammu region in the plains to the 14,000ft Zojila Pass at the end of
the Kashmir valley is well guarded. The 180-200km stretch of the LoC
from Zojila Pass to Khor that lies beyond Leh remains relatively
undefended. The remaining 75km of the disputed, Siachen glacial area
held by India since 1984, completes Kashmir's frontier with Pakistan
and China.

Snaking its way through a snowy, mountainous wasteland up to
20,000ft (6,060m), traversed by ridges and deep valleys, this area
is the world's second coldest place after Siberia and is covered by
15-20ft (4.05-6.09m) of snow between October and June. Temperatures
average around -20&#186;C below zero, falling to -60&#186;C in winter and a
wind chill factor of formidable intensity. Consequently there has
been no infiltration of militants from this barren stretch. Over the
years, the Indian Army manned observation posts spaced along the
LoC, conducting infrequent patrols for around four months after the
snows melted in June. "That was exactly what attracted Pakistan,"
said an army officer.

He said Pakistan had long wanted to dominate Highway I A that
meanders alongside the LoC - at a distance of five to 12km - in
order to choke all traffic between Srinagar and Leh by saturating it
with artillery fire and effectively isolating Ladakh. The LoC,
delineated on 19 maps after the 1971 war and agreed to by Pakistan,
provides a small "window" onto the crucial highway. Seizing control
of the conflict area would give Pakistani artillery clear access to
the highway, throttling all movement along it.

If successful, officials said, Pakistan could handicap all future
Indian Army deployments in the Ladakh region. Supply and troop
convoys would be forced to race along Highway 1 A or spend days,
even weeks winding their way to Leh via Manali in neighbouring
Himachal Pradesh state. Should the intruders continue to occupy the
strategic ridges, they could attempt to widen the wedge and inflict
debilitating damage on the Indian Army below.

It is precisely because Indian soldiers are being forced to advance
upwards along terrain that offers no cover, that the air strikes
were launched. Even then, said army officials, it could take up to
six months to push out the intruders. "Each hill is a formidable
battlefield," said a senior army officer involved in the operations.
Battling the well-entrenched militants, he said, was a "slow
process". While all assaults on the intruders had to be executed in
the open, huge rocks and sangars (crude bunkers made of stone and
cement) offered the militants protection from artillery fire and air
strikes.

Indian officials claim the intruders, equipped with high-altitude
clothing and tents, are utilising military radios and frequencies to
direct Pakistani artillery fire. "Their logistics are meticulously
calibrated," he said.

Once the operation has ended, officials said a large military
presence would be retained in the area to prevent a similar
intrusion. Units in the Kargil-Drass sectors have been ordered to
hold their positions and not withdraw even after evicting the
intruders.

The army is concerned that establishing posts in the harsh
Kargil-Dras region would surpass the daily expenditure of Rs30
million ($700,000) it takes to maintain a brigade on the Siachen
glacier that is serviced exclusively by helicopters. It would also
suffer heavy casualties due to the weather, currently averaging
around one per day at Siachen.

The proposed posts would also deplete forces deployed on counter
insurgency operations inside Kashmir which have been proving
successful. Army officers acknowledged that the LoC incursions
presented the "scary spectre" of future intrusions along the porous
border. They admitted that infiltration cannot be prevented even if
soldiers stood shoulder-to-shoulder along the LoC. To prevent
infiltration across the LoC, the army plans to deploy unattended
ground sensors, short-range battlefield surveillance radar and
hand-held thermal imagers, backed by secure modern communication and
signal systems.

Official sources said the Kargil conflict would also resurrect the
army's long-standing requirement for attack helicopters on offer
from South Africa and Russia, stretching scarce resources. The
schedule to upgrade around 350 infantry battalions by enhancing
their fire power, surveillance and mobility would also be speeded up
and funds somehow allocated to achieve this well before the 9th army
plan ending in 2002 (Jane's Defence Weekly 24 February).

- Rahul Bedi is a JDW correspondent based in New Delhi


----------



## Kharian_Beast

Come try it, we're waiting.


----------



## pak_army

i'm not a big fan of NS but if he had not gone to US to ask for its intervention then was Pakistan is a position to face an all out war??As far india is concerned they were getting raped and in retaliation they could have gone for an all out war.My question is was the planners of Kargil Operation had that in mind??Were Pak Armed Forces prepared for it?


----------



## aerial

pak_army said:


> i'm not a big fan of NS but if he had not gone to US to ask for its intervention then was Pakistan is a position to face an all out war??As far india is concerned they were getting raped and in retaliation they could have gone for an all out war.My question is was the planners of Kargil Operation had that in mind??Were Pak Armed Forces prepared for it?



no it wasnt netural military analyssist are of opinion that pak millitarry planner did thought about that inair forces will strike deep
though pak shot 3 inaif planes but they were on spying mode. and that time though pak had f 16 but this plane didnt had long range radar
so indian fightre had free sky and they did their job and sorry if indians were being shot then why ur army run away.and pakistan always said fighter were noy pak army but freedom fightre(or terrorrist)


----------



## Goodperson

Salim said:


> I was going through the thread since I came on this late.
> 
> And so I thought I could clarify some of the issues.
> 
> 
> 
> It must be understood that when the PA came in, none knew in India.
> 
> When discovered, the battle began.
> 
> When the posts were retaken, obviously, either the defenders fled or were killed! The choice is yours to decide whether they fled or were killed. Ghazi ya Saheed as someone commented.
> 
> When any troops withdraw, they do not pack their bags and move. It is a military operation and no one keeps his back towards the adversary.
> 
> 
> The attacks were not on the paths but on the posts created by the PA.
> 
> NO one executed PsW. I am surprised to learn that PA claims that their casualties were there when they were withdrawing. Let's look at it practically. When the posts created by Pakistan were attacked, do you think the Pakistanis just took off and fled? Would any soldier of any Army worth his salt just run away and not give a fight? If one fights, won't some die also? Please see the awards given to the Pakistani Army soldiers and officers and check the citations.
> 
> On the issue of targeting the supply routes when the withdrawal is on, where is the question of supplies if one is withdrawing. Where do you think the supplies are to be stored when one is withdrawing? Therefore, that is not a correct premise.
> 
> As regards the thumb rule for attack:defence, in the plains it is 3:1 and in the High Altitude it is 11:1
> 
> Artillery (Bofors) was used in direct firing role and that was an important action taken.
> Artillery is not so effective on the mountains since there are many ''overs'' and ''unders'' that miss the peak and fall beyond or short and hence the amount of rounds to be fired for effect increases and that means a whole lot more ammunition is required; and that means a huge burden on the logistics!!
> 
> 
> 
> ******************
> 
> In so far as the number of caskets bought to send back the dead, (23March) it was for all operations in J&K. Earlier, the bodies were buried/ cremated in situ with military honours. Then the mode was changed to sending bodies back to their home towns in wooden crates. And later since the wooden crates looked rather pathetic, these caskets were bought. These caskets are reusable.
> 
> As far as Kasrkin feeling that India would only make noise if Siachen was isolated, it appears he does not understand geopolitics and national imperatives.
> 
> It is also interesting to note that Karskin feels that Indian casualties occurred due to ''stupid mass infantry attacks''! One wonders what is mass infantry attack and why attacking in overwhelming strength is stupid. In fact, it would be stupid to attack without overwhelming strength since it would only mean defeat! Odd logic and odd statement, Karskin.
> 
> Sniperwolf's PA gave a good stick to India post is like the story of the wolf and the sour grapes!
> 
> Ejaz's "If you have managed to achieve surprise against your enemy and caught the defenders sleeping that too is a victory. While no regular army units were used by Pakistan India used its regular army and Pakistan gained valuable information about their tactics and capabilitites. IAF performance was also observed and would be considered while planning any future mission" post is interesting in so far as the comparison goes - no news is good news! A good attempt to make the best of a disaster.
> 
> Similar is Engima947's "Ask your senior military leadership...havent they started peeing in their pants since Kargil... lets see if now india has the guts to attack Pakistan.....except making their soldiers to lay eggs on the borders and LoC as done in 2001-02 escalation between indian and Pakistan." Does this make any sense except venting bile to wipe the wounds?
> 
> 
> A weak argument.
> 
> If the Army went in without political support, then they should have fought on without political support. One can't backflip and then claim that they had no political support just because the Army comes a cropper!



Good informative post Salim wonder how I missed reading it earlier.


----------



## must7

*Good informative post Salim wonder how I missed reading it earlier.*

Indian hiding it's losses is nothing new .. After every war IAF never allows third party inventory of it's equipment ! Why ? Of course how will they paint a rosy picture of their actions after 20 years in Wikepedia !

Same goes for the losses in Kargil, however, one must not realize that now Pakistani's know the Kargil mountaineous region in & out + the fact that we still hold atleat a couple of important Indian held peaks !


----------



## Imran Khan

*Gen. Musharraf and Nawaz Sharif with the troops raising slogans of Allah u Akbar in the forward areas during the Kargil conflict*





this pic show whats nawaz will say its no true


----------



## Evil Flare

Lolz


Nawaz Says he Dont know anything abt Kargil ...


Such a liar


----------



## Moorkh

> It is also interesting to note that Karskin feels that Indian casualties occurred due to ''stupid mass infantry attacks''! One wonders what is mass infantry attack and why attacking in overwhelming strength is stupid. In fact, it would be stupid to attack without overwhelming strength since it would only mean defeat! Odd logic and odd statement, Karskin.



i think what is meant by mass infantry attacks is " human waves attack"

the name is self explanatory.

it was stupid in the context because the enemy was entrenched at heights allowing him to simply slaughter the attackers with automatic weapons as they came up. Also the attackers would either reach combat range exhausted because of moving fast up a slope or get shot before reaching it, the defender being at a greater height and therefore having a greater range


----------



## Kasrkin

[Double Post]


----------



## Kasrkin

> The initial mass-infantry attacks were unsuccessful, and frankly stupid.



These are the words of an Indian, not mine exactly. Speaking of which, going over the thread looking for this guys post however lead me to&#8230;



> You jump the gun; you assume that me being an Indian would have trouble accepting that IA's jawans were killed by PA soldiers; you talk about logic: that my friend is a contradiction.



Where the hell is the "contradiction"? You obviously disbelieve that Operation Vijay was the primary source of the considerable Indian casualties. The Indians lost more than 1150 soldiers in 3 YEARS hard fighting in Sri Lanka, and at Kargil in the matter of weeks the Indian figure was 600 plus. How can you suggest that &#8216;probing parties&#8217; are the principle cause of this bloated figure?



> Most of India's losses were during the intitial stage when probing parties were regularly launched to examine and analyse the enemy's positions.



Your view is designed to discourage the notion that India lost men during hard-fast head-on decisive fighting in operations launched with over whelming numbers, firepower and definitive objectives of seizing Pakistani positions. It is unlikely that massed infantry attacks were used in &#8216;probing&#8217; operations, even if it is true to some extent then it represents shocking incompetence. If you experience more resistance than expected and failed to achieve the intended objectives, the mission should not be branded a &#8216;probing&#8217; operation in an attempt to dilute the failure no matter how tempting that might be. 

This would indicate that you are having inconvenience believing that India lost their bulk of men to Pakistani boys in decisively planned confrontations.



> The reason we did not cross the LoC had nothing to do with our "fragile" (perhaps only according to you) international position.



There was immense pressure on India not to widen the conflict, you cannot pretend that India could have launched a full scale war then and crippled Pakistan (which in itself would take considerable time according to the most India-friendly &#8216;experts&#8217 without severe international repercussions and at the same time justify your military setbacks due to international pressure not to cross the LoC. Not that crossing the LoC and engaging other fresh (regular) Pakistani formations would have benefited IA&#8217;s unbalanced and over-committed disposition. 

If you were honorable you would admit that in face of the unrealistic and probably futile option of trying to use your already committed forces and equipment to wrestle control of (well defended) logistics routes inside Azad Kashmir from the regular PA formations, the generals and the politicians decided to stick to Occupied Kashmir and receive the international &#8220;good will&#8221; for using self-proclaimed &#8220;restraint&#8221;. An Indian Mig was shot down in Pakistani territory, so it&#8217;s not like the Indians were particularly careful about provoking us either...fustration was there which I dont deny. 

*I don&#8217;t see how anyone can delude themselves to the gravity of the situation the Indians faced, according to Brian Cloughley in a book the Indian DGMO Gen. V.R. Raghavan says is &#8216;written by an observant military author who is both candid and objective&#8217;, the Pakistanis evacuated from the 14 posts the Indians attacked, while the remaining 120 or so posts were only vacated on orders from across the LoC. Also that Indian casualties would have been &#8216;very much higher&#8217; had the Pakistanis decided to stay. I just don&#8217;t see how bringing the bulk of Pakistani forces into the fray would solve India&#8217;s problems.* Unless you have any concrete proof to suggest the contrary?



> Impailed by own rhetoric; glad to hear your generalization and personal slur.



It wasn&#8217;t a &#8216;slur&#8217;, just an expression. But I can keep it up if you&#8217;re glad to hear it so much.



> I said that had an all-out war broken out Pakistan would have lost much more; you assume something particularly contrary.



Ofcourse I know you have more to lose, i.e. population, economy, investment, etc&#8230;



> So, let me get this straight, "hahahaha" implies you have nothing to say.



Ofcourse I have nothing to express other than amusement for the uneducated opinions some overly nationalistic Indians have expressed in this thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## chindit

> The Indians lost more than 1150 soldiers in 3 YEARS hard fighting in Sri Lanka, and at Kargil in the matter of weeks the Indian figure was 600 plus. How can you suggest that &#8216;probing parties&#8217; are the principle cause of this bloated figure?



the list of casualities along with dates of death are available online on indian army website. it should not take much for either of you to compile them and prove otherwise.

What were the official pak army casualities for kargil? how many of these were in indian territory and how many were inside pak?


----------



## Zob

See from my point of view the mistakes of the Pakistan Army was that it never took into equation the media war as well as the Airforce into consideration. PAF at the time did not get involvled in any offensinve operation. thus the IAF was un challenged and could conduct 5000 sorties. The problem with every greay Army General is they completely omit AIRFORCE out of there equation. situation would have been very diffrent if PAF took active part in the conflict. but as far as losing is concerned pakistan didnot lose due to favourable terrain conditions however the objective was not achieved!


----------



## Zob

one more thing why are Indian army websites considered unbias...i mean seriously...no country will ever admit on there army websites that we lost!! i think the current stand off that india is trying to have with Pakistan and the stand off in 2001 are all a mitilary reaction plan to the operation in kargil. ofcourse u don't expect Indian military to not retalitite with a plan of thereown after we did Kargil. however thanks to the readiness of Pakistan Army and PAF indians can't intitate the plan.


----------



## blain2

chindit said:


> the list of casualities along with dates of death are available online on indian army website. it should not take much for either of you to compile them and prove otherwise.
> 
> What were the official pak army casualities for kargil? how many of these were in indian territory and how many were inside pak?



They were half of the Indian number.


----------



## chindit

blain2 said:


> They were half of the Indian number.




So approximately 275?


----------



## chindit

chindit said:


> So approximately 275?



answering my own question. Musharaf has written in his book that its 357.


----------



## rajk20002002

Zob said:


> See from my point of view the mistakes of the Pakistan Army was that it never took into equation the media war as well as the Airforce into consideration. PAF at the time did not get involvled in any offensinve operation. thus the IAF was un challenged and could conduct 5000 sorties. The problem with every greay Army General is they completely omit AIRFORCE out of there equation. situation would have been very diffrent if PAF took active part in the conflict. but as far as losing is concerned pakistan didnot lose due to favourable terrain conditions however the objective was not achieved!



Don't you think Pakistani army made miscalcualtion in every war they fough with India? In 1965 they thought the war will be limited only to Kashmir, but it spread to Punjab and Rajesthan border also. Same happened in 1971 and finally Pakistan lost their eastren part. In every war there are surprises my friend. Another illusion now Pakistani army has that Nuclear weapons will deter India. In next war this myth will be broken for sure. 

RK


----------



## ahmeddsid

rajk20002002 said:


> Don't you think Pakistani army made miscalcualtion in every war they fough with India? In 1965 they thought the war will be limited only to Kashmir, but it spread to Punjab and Rajesthan border also. Same happened in 1971 and finally Pakistan lost their eastren part. In every war there are surprises my friend. Another illusion now Pakistani army has that Nuclear weapons will deter India. In next war this myth will be broken for sure.
> 
> RK


I seriously believe Nukes wont be used in any future war until and unless Pakistan is gonna be captured fully, which India wont do. The max they will do is capture some strategic points and try to cripple the Pak armed forces!


----------



## Moscow

dear indian and pakistani friends i am not going into the topic of who won and who lost.
the real fact war was fought wasnt it, and in every war you fight you have casulties now it dosent matter who lost more or who lost less.
every life that is lost it matters ask the thousand orphans, the thousand widows,that were created by these war.spare a thought for them what is the big point if you have lost 100 or 1000 , the idea is in a war you always loose never win.

now back to kargil there are conflicting and biased views both parties involved had thier own figures and agenda.
i would not coment on the win or loss but just point to some positives and negatives from both side, you might agree with me or disagree.

1--- pakistan goverment's handling<diplomatic front> of the whole situation was woefull to say the least.

2. --- the indian establishments underestimating the situation and their false belief of superiority caused most of their troubles.

3--- the indian political establishment was found napping and acted late in every decision they took until the last half where they were little better if put positively.

4--- pakistan was stunned by the indian media, it acted better than its goverment did,it covered the whole world with stories from the indian prespective pakistan did not have a proper answer to this.

5--- the war proved to the indian army that their days of false claims about superiority has come to an end, their arms and ammunitions were found wanting at times<there are conflicting reports i dont want to engage in this, but post war indian defence budget was highly hiked and the modernasitation process was quickened thats enough proof>


6--- major pakistani failure was that paf was not brought into the equation, why wasnt it time for the moral support to be strengthed by military support also, its a very major diplomatic failure they could not convince the world about their position.


7--- indian intelligence --------- need i say more about its failure.

all in all you see that there were drawbacks from both countries actually kargil was an eye openar to both just see for your self how pakistani media has worked in recent times,also indias defence procurement has being highly enhanced and modernised.

pakistan won the war in terms of INTELLIGENCE,ENDING india's military superiority claims.
india won the war in terms of MEDIA, DIPLOMATIC

other than this there is no change except for the hundreds of life lost, materials lost, billions of money lost. the ground position is still the same so where is the question of winning, both parties had partial wins.

thanks


----------



## chindit

Good post moscow but



> pakistan won the war in terms of INTELLIGENCE,ENDING india's military superiority claims.



Can you elaborate? How can you win a war of Intelligence? If the Pakistansi did not forsee the Indian massive response - it is actually a failure of intelligence on the Pakistani side.



> ENDING india's military superiority claims



is this even a measurable parameter?


----------



## Moscow

chindit said:


> Good post moscow but
> 
> 
> 
> Can you elaborate? How can you win a war of Intelligence? If the Pakistansi did not forsee the Indian massive response - it is actually a failure of intelligence on the Pakistani side.
> 
> 
> 
> is this even a measurable parameter?



yes sir i shall elaborate on this how can so many occupy the the heights for so long time without the indian administration or army not knowing it, why didnt the intelligence agencies have any report about this
my post was related to this the pakistani intelligence and planning succeded in beating the indian counterparts who were kept in the blind for long only to be awakned too late.
and yes pakistan i think always knew that indians would mount a massive offencive against this but they failed diplomatically to counter this this is where pakistans loss lies, they knew what would happen but still could not avert it.

thanks.


----------



## Amanpuneet Singh

moscow said:


> dear indian and pakistani friends i am not going into the topic of who won and who lost.
> the real fact war was fought wasnt it, and in every war you fight you have casulties now it dosent matter who lost more or who lost less.
> every life that is lost it matters ask the thousand orphans, the thousand widows,that were created by these war.spare a thought for them what is the big point if you have lost 100 or 1000 , the idea is in a war you always loose never win.
> 
> now back to kargil there are conflicting and biased views both parties involved had thier own figures and agenda.
> i would not coment on the win or loss but just point to some positives and negatives from both side, you might agree with me or disagree.
> 
> 1--- pakistan goverment's handling<diplomatic front> of the whole situation was woefull to say the least.
> 
> 2. --- the indian establishments underestimating the situation and their false belief of superiority caused most of their troubles.
> 
> 3--- the indian political establishment was found napping and acted late in every decision they took until the last half where they were little better if put positively.
> 
> 4--- pakistan was stunned by the indian media, it acted better than its goverment did,it covered the whole world with stories from the indian prespective pakistan did not have a proper answer to this.
> 
> 5--- the war proved to the indian army that their days of false claims about superiority has come to an end, their arms and ammunitions were found wanting at times<there are conflicting reports i dont want to engage in this, but post war indian defence budget was highly hiked and the modernasitation process was quickened thats enough proof>
> 
> 
> 6--- major pakistani failure was that paf was not brought into the equation, why wasnt it time for the moral support to be strengthed by military support also, its a very major diplomatic failure they could not convince the world about their position.
> 
> 
> 7--- indian intelligence --------- need i say more about its failure.
> 
> all in all you see that there were drawbacks from both countries actually kargil was an eye openar to both just see for your self how pakistani media has worked in recent times,also indias defence procurement has being highly enhanced and modernised.
> 
> pakistan won the war in terms of INTELLIGENCE,ENDING india's military superiority claims.
> india won the war in terms of MEDIA, DIPLOMATIC
> 
> other than this there is no change except for the hundreds of life lost, materials lost, billions of money lost. the ground position is still the same so where is the question of winning, both parties had partial wins.
> 
> thanks


Moscosw i feel ur post not full of facts
1) Pakistan was aggressor in this war, they wanted to highlight Kashmir and want to repeat siachen in which they failed.
2) India never believed in superiority on the contrary our armed forces were in woeful state modernization was slow all our leaders thought that after testing nuke no one will make this kinda misadventure.
3)India used there air force that's why they lost jets on contrary their jets were resting in sheds so how can they say our air force was doomed whn there never took to skies.
4)Their P.M was going on the world tour to convince,mind u friend when ur wining u don't need to convince anybody.
5)They say withdrew coz USA told them so otherwise they were winner before the withdraw Pakistan have lost all the major peaks in kargil and drass sector u can check that from neutral source urself.
6)Pakistan first said they were freedom fighters so how many were killed there pakistan will never except as thy were from army so how can u believe nation who wont even accept his soldiers bodies whn they die in battlefield.
7)Media can never win u war as u said in end otherwise USA would have won vietnam and iraq longtime ago.
8)Last but not least pakistan invaded we push them back whichever way we won the war coz our soilder and indian flag is there,so its Vijay divas for us whn we pushed back the invader.


----------



## Moscow

Amanpuneet Singh said:


> Moscosw i feel ur post not full of facts
> 1) Pakistan was aggressor in this war, they wanted to highlight Kashmir and want to repeat siachen in which they failed.
> 2) India never believed in superiority on the contrary our armed forces were in woeful state modernization was slow all our leaders thought that after testing nuke no one will make this kinda misadventure.
> 3)India used there air force that's why they lost jets on contrary their jets were resting in sheds so how can they say our air force was doomed whn there never took to skies.
> 4)Their P.M was going on the world tour to convince,mind u friend when ur wining u don't need to convince anybody.
> 5)They say withdrew coz USA told them so otherwise they were winner before the withdraw Pakistan have lost all the major peaks in kargil and drass sector u can check that from neutral source urself.
> 6)Pakistan first said they were freedom fighters so how many were killed there pakistan will never except as thy were from army so how can u believe nation who wont even accept his soldiers bodies whn they die in battlefield.
> 7)Media can never win u war as u said in end otherwise USA would have won vietnam and iraq longtime ago.
> 8)Last but not least pakistan invaded we push them back whichever way we won the war coz our soilder and indian flag is there,so its Vijay divas for us whn we pushed back the invader.





sir i already posted that you might agree with me or you might not now i dont agree to some of your ipoints i will say why so.

1-if pakistan was realy the aggressor then they would not have shyed away from using their air-force in the operations, now why didnt they its because it wantnt a full scale official war from the pakistani establishment.

2-you say sir that india never believed in their superiority yet you claim that after the nuclear tests the leaders thought no one would dare an adventure,isnt this contradictory< this is more like a satisfactory feeling> which i refered to as superiority thought.
your post explains my full point sir.

3--i have never posted on my previous post that indian jets were doomed, please do not equate others opinion with mine.
india lost the jets in patrolling mission before the actual operations started so i did not claim anything about IAF OR PAF in my previous post.

4--yes pakistani P.M. went on tour to gather international support and opinion in its favour and i already posted that they failed in this effort so there is no difference on this point.

5--sir again do not mix others opinion with mine i never claimed anything about winning peaks in my post, iam not at all interested in getting into this kind of claims.

6-- your sixth point is explained by my previous post when i wrote that pakistani establishment was woeful in its effort in managing the whole issue.

7--sir i think you underestimate the media,its a mass medium it can change the opinions of masses by the way it operates. i didnt claim that indian media won it the war i said in the war among the media between the two the indian part were more successful i their efforts inchanging world opinion.


8---yes you did push back the invaders but at what cost you did win on one front sir but in the other front you lost a lot of life, property, for someof your citizens this war changed thier lives for ever for the worst isnt it. didnt you lose on that front sir, could this not have being averted by better inteligence.


sir now i think i answered all your points one on one if you still have questions regarding my posts<only my posts> we can always discuss iam ready for it.
moreover sir i have repeatedly said i dont want to get into the who won and who didnt fight.

thanks


----------



## Amanpuneet Singh

moscow said:


> sir i already posted that you might agree with me or you might not now i dont agree to some of your ipoints i will say why so.
> 
> 1-if pakistan was realy the aggressor then they would not have shyed away from using their air-force in the operations, now why didnt they its because it wantnt a full scale official war from the pakistani establishment.
> 
> Mr mascow Pakistan was aggressor in this war because they crossed L.O.C
> simply by crossing it they have become aggressor if they don't use their air power its their problem and their military was involved u cannot deny tht fact.
> 
> 2-you say sir that india never believed in their superiority yet you claim that after the nuclear tests the leaders thought no one would dare an adventure,isnt this contradictory< this is more like a satisfactory feeling> which i refered to as superiority thought.
> your post explains my full point sir.ting
> Sir its not superiority complex we never boasted if we had boasted then u have been rite on the contrary our generals was demanding more funds for arms.
> 
> 
> 8---yes you did push back the invaders but at what cost you did win on one front sir but in the other front you lost a lot of life, property, for someof your citizens this war changed thier lives for ever for the worst isnt it. didnt you lose on that front sir, could this not have being averted by better inteligence.
> 
> Mascow sir as your countary have been in deadliest wars and suffered lot in eastern front u know better the only front in war, how much land u gain not how many people died r how many soldiers died if we look that way then so your beloved Russia never won this front,its called war coz people and solider die for their countary only front that matter is when it all ends where are your soilders you must be knowing this better after all the NAZI's were at Mascow door in 1942.and yes it was big intelligence failure but it canot be criteria of rating this front coz in end pakistani intelligence failed to when they could not pik the response of india whn it all started.


----------



## Moscow

Mascow sir as your countary have been in deadliest wars and suffered lot in eastern front u know better the only front in war, how much land u gain not how many people died r how many soldiers died if we look that way then so your beloved Russia never won this front,its called war coz people and solider die for their countary only front that matter is when it all ends where are your soilders you must be knowing this better after all the NAZI's were at Mascow door in 1942.and yes it was big intelligence failure but it canot be criteria of rating this front coz in end pakistani intelligence failed to when they could not pik the response of india whn it all started.



sir i have already told you that i am not into the win-lose game me personally is not for war as you can see from my posts, my countries opinion is not the same as mine. i have my own way of looking at things but supported by facts and logics.

now sir i answered all your 8 points the first seven seems ok now the last point.
my country misjudged the affect of war and you can see the results for yourself.where is the USSR now.?war is only fought when its a necessity the german invasion was our necessity to defend our motherland it was thrust upon us and only the true slaviks know how much casulties they suffered in ww2.
and sir as per your definition winning depends on the amount of land you gain on that front how did india gain? the land was always their they only recaptured unlike the german invasion in our country when the war ended we had significant gains terms of new land.also 
you are right sir when you judged that pakistani intelligence misjudged the indian response even if they had judged it properly the political establishment failed in their efforts to implement it.

sir your idea of war is judged on the amount of land gained, dosent it have an effect on the economy, isnt it dependent on the establishment who runs the war.in pursuit of land if you loose the economy is it wise, my country learnt it the hard way,, <what happened to the fate of ussr after the war> even the americans are learning it now.

a win is a win only when you totally annihilate the enemy like in ww2 then its a different story unlike in afgan war when we actually did not loose/gain any of our original land< so according to your definition loss should be insignificant but it did have a big bearing. >

again sir i repeat please view my posts not in terms of win or loss but just as an assessment to the after situation .


----------



## A1Kaid

ISI and Pakistani Army officials were disappointed with the decision of the civilian leadership of Nawas Sharif. His decision to withdraw forces and his request and plea to Washington to establish a mutual cease fire, was the wrong move.


Pakistani Army believed Kargil would be a limited conflict and they were right, due to the political bungling by our civilian leader Kargil like 1962 Sino-Indian War was another "Missed Opportunity"

Pakistan simply did not take full advantage.


----------



## Vinod2070

A1Kaid said:


> ISI and Pakistani Army officials were disappointed with the decision of the civilian leadership of Nawas Sharif. His decision to withdraw forces and his request and plea to Washington to establish a mutual cease fire, was the wrong move.
> 
> 
> Pakistani Army believed Kargil would be a limited conflict and they were right, due to the political bungling by our civilian leader Kargil like 1962 Sino-Indian War was another "Missed Opportunity"
> 
> Pakistan simply did not take full advantage.



We all saw the war happening live on TV.

We all know that Gen. Musharraf sent him off at the airport requesting him to pull his chestnuts out of the fire. We all saw the Tiger hill, Tololing and other peaks being captured by Indian soldiers.

How can something like that (a clear military debacle on top of diplomatic and political one) be spun like this. Would Musharraf allow that to happen? Would the army allow some Shariff to destroy a victory if they thought they could achieve it?

Politicians have been disposed of for much smaller reasons in Pakistan. This seems another fairy tale to keep the folklore alive.


----------



## A1Kaid

Vinod2070 said:


> We all saw the war happening live on TV.
> 
> We all know that Gen. Musharraf sent him off at the airport requesting him to pull his chestnuts out of the fire. We all saw the Tiger hill, Tololing and other peaks being captured by Indian soldiers.
> 
> How can something like that (a clear military debacle on top of diplomatic and political one) be spun like this. Would Musharraf allow that to happen? Would the army allow some Shariff to destroy a victory if they thought they could achieve it?
> 
> Politicians have been disposed of for much smaller reasons in Pakistan. This seems another fairy tale to keep the folklore alive.



Well we all saw the pleas of Nawas Sharif, we know about the meeting held between Pres. Clinton and PM. Sharif, and we know about the pleas he made to the U.N....

We also know Nawaz Sharif was a coward when it came to Kargil...He supported suspending operations, and supported a cease-fire, he did not want to continue the battle...






President Clinton and Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif depart Blair House following a meeting concerning the tension between Pakistan and India in Washington on Sunday. &#8212; AP/PTI


"WASHINGTON, July 5 &#8212; Pakistan appears to have given a commitment to withdraw its forces from Indian territory in the Kargil sector during marathon talks between US President Bill Clinton and Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who rushed here amidst mounting international pressure."

Date: Tuesday, July 6, 1999

Source: tribuneindia...Index

P.S many other sources conclude the same information...


----------



## Vinod2070

^^ Yes, and that happened when things started going horribly wrong.

The diplomacy proved as big a part in that as the military situation on the ground.


----------



## Kasrkin

*We all saw the war happening live on TV.*

We all know that Indian media coverage of the war had been the _most_ unbalanced in modern history.

*We all know that Gen. Musharraf sent him off at the airport requesting him to pull his chestnuts out of the fire. We all saw the Tiger hill, Tololing and other peaks being captured by Indian soldiers.*

We all know that you are free to take things in the way you like, but we also know that Tiger Hill and some 13 others were the _only_ posts out of a total of 120 that you were able to drive us from through military action. The rest was diplomacy and our civilian leadership's incompetence. 

*Politicians have been disposed of for much smaller reasons in Pakistan. *

This is a generalized, ignorant and stereotypical view people like you have about Pakistan and the Army. The Army had plenty of reason to act against Nawaz Sharif before and after Kargil, including the premature dismissal of a popular Army Chief (Gul Hasan), the much publicized feud with the chief justice, attacks against the press and degradation of the economy, etc. The final straw came when Nawaz Sharif almost got the Army Chief killed and screwed things up beyond repair. Before that Musharraf was NOT inclined to seize power instead he preferred to help NS out in whatever capacity he could, this much is attested by all professional scholars and impartial sources familiar with Musharraf&#8217;s affairs. The military has always acted when it felt the direction of the country&#8217;s long term wellbeing was under threat, not over some successful skirmish the civilian premier messed up. It is arguable even if the military hierarchy discussed the possibility, they would have considered it quite futile not to mention counterproductive internationally when people find out that a spineless &#8220;peace maker&#8221; PM has been swiftly over thrown and his orders withdrawn by the Army in Pakistan in the middle of a potential war. It would have caused great confusion in the rank and file too, withdrawing of relayed orders is always a messy affair in war.

We have accepted facts, learned from our mistakes and moved on. Maybe it is time you do the same and stop deluding yourself over the Indian media coverage you &#8220;saw on TV&#8221; and learn to accept what the ground reality _actually_ was.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zob

i seriously feel that indian media is able to make all these gallible people believe what they want them to believe!! the problem is the nation is a bollywood nation they love the sad tragic drama...they cry when sharukh cries...anyhow...firstly just look at 2 things the amount of troops india moved the the front and the amount we put up....it just shows that no matter how hard india tried no matter how many troops it committed it was not enough...so india did one thing say that fine we will attack the whole front.....and nawaz lost his nerve on the indian bluff...but i will tell u something else...no matter what u say we won the war we shot down ur planes we destroyed ur battallions...and since then indian military went hay wire and started the whole crazy military accusations of all the hi-tech things....now my boy call this propaganda!!! don't i sound like a ZEE NEWS anchor...!!


----------



## Zob

arite finally u and me again rajk2000 see my buddy....PAF did not let india get air superiroty in 1965....and our army did let u get 2 LAHORE ur aim....& as for 1971 it was a civil war that u got involved in so that u can use it as a thing to lick ur wounds of 1965 humiliation by a smaller adversary...in 1999 at kargil i doubt we lost... just see how much money of ur war effort was put and that also a ceasfire and withdrawl happened...!! so my friend admit it india never won any war... 1971 was not a victory but india getting involved in a civil war and by allah we will do the same with u in KASHMIR till we get it liberated like u did with bangladesh...so yes we will give u taste of ur own medicine...enjoy boys and wait for us!!


----------



## Vinod2070

Kasrkin said:


> *We all saw the war happening live on TV.*
> 
> We all know that Indian media coverage of the war had been the _most_ unbalanced in modern history.



I am sure the Pakistani coverage was the *most balanced *in history. But then on second thoughts, perhaps not....



Kasrkin said:


> *We all know that Gen. Musharraf sent him off at the airport requesting him to pull his chestnuts out of the fire. We all saw the Tiger hill, Tololing and other peaks being captured by Indian soldiers.*
> 
> We all know that you are free to take things in the way you like, but we also know that Tiger Hill and some 13 others were the _only_ posts out of a total of 120 that you were able to drive us from through military action. The rest was diplomacy and our civilian leadership's incompetence.



The diplomacy did play it's part. Not before the military tide had already turned. Decisively.

I know that it gives you comfort to just call the civilians incompetent. You may continue living in that comfort zone. Fact is the military comes from the same society as the politicians and can be as much competent or incompetent as the rest of the society.



Kasrkin said:


> *Politicians have been disposed of for much smaller reasons in Pakistan. *
> 
> This is a generalized, ignorant and stereotypical view people like you have about Pakistan and the Army. The Army had plenty of reason to act against Nawaz Sharif before and after Kargil, including the premature dismissal of a popular Army Chief (Gul Hasan), the much publicized feud with the chief justice, attacks against the press and degradation of the economy, etc. The final straw came when Nawaz Sharif almost got the Army Chief killed and screwed things up beyond repair. Before that Musharraf was NOT inclined to seize power instead he preferred to help NS out in whatever capacity he could, this much is attested by all professional scholars and impartial sources familiar with Musharrafs affairs. The military has always acted when it felt the direction of the countrys long term wellbeing was under threat, not over some successful skirmish the civilian premier messed up. It is arguable even if the military hierarchy discussed the possibility, they would have considered it quite futile not to mention counterproductive internationally when people find out that a spineless peace maker PM has been swiftly over thrown and his orders withdrawn by the Army in Pakistan in the middle of a potential war. It would have caused great confusion in the rank and file too, withdrawing of relayed orders is always a messy affair in war.
> 
> We have accepted facts, learned from our mistakes and moved on. Maybe it is time you do the same and stop deluding yourself over the Indian media coverage you saw on TV and learn to accept what the ground reality _actually_ was.



By all accounts Kargil was a major setback for Pakistan and damaged her "long term wellbeing" as you put it. The LOC became internationally recognized as a de-facto border and Pakistan was considered the aggressor and an irresponsible state by the international community. As bad as it gets!

If the civilians messed up something that was going great guns (during a war no less), it would appear it is a ripe case the military action.

But yes, time to move on while learning the lessons. We did that long back. Good to see you catching up.


----------



## Kasrkin

*I am sure the Pakistani coverage was the most balanced in history. But then on second thoughts, perhaps not....*

Irrelevant. Im not the one here quoting what I saw on T.V as if its a substitute for irrefutable evidence. And the Pakistani media at the time, for all intents and purposes didnt exist. There was just state run TV, which when you think about it was at least not as ridiculously unprofessional as many of the supposedly impartial Indian news media. 

Allow me to give you an example. Here are the likes of people which Vinod seems to trust with impartiality so much.

*India Today

He is a prized possession. The sight of him motivates the men and gears them for the next round of battle. Seeing him at the make-shift army headquarters in Dras sends their adrenaline pumping. The dead Pakistani Army regular-hung on a tree before his body was buried and a grid reference made on the map in accordance with the Geneva Convention-was a morale booster. More than 439 Pakistani casualties so far.*

As you can see the level of professionalism and humanity apparent not only in your soldiers, but your journalists as well. The fact that this made it into print, despite all crappy figures and information it purports, the pure disguising and naked shamelessness and bias would have given most editors reason for thought. But obviously not, this was the impartial Indian media at work here in times of war.

Like I said, the sooner you except realities, the better it will be for you. The world is not an Indian movie, and the world is not an Indian news channel either.

*The diplomacy did play it's part. Not before the military tide had already turned. Decisively.*

Hm, you dont need to be a highly accomplished military tactician to know that 4 divisions with heavy artillery and air support managing to *acquire 16 outposts out of a 125+* from a couple of lightly armed paramilitary battalions by the end of a war is not much of a decisive anything. Oh let me guess, irrefutable facts dont hold much sway over you because you saw Tiger hill, Tololing and other peaks being captured by Indian soldiers on your completely impartial TV networks, right? But Im sure even you mustve tried to consider the possibility that maybe, just _maybe_ your beloved TV didnt give you the whole picture?

Lets see now, 630 Indian soldiers killed. 16 out-posts captured. (Both according to sources the Indian DGMO Lt-Gen V.R. Raghavan calls candid and objective.)

630 lives = 16 outposts
1 outpost = 40 Indian lives

Wow, thats not very decisive anything. But I dont suppose that is the picture you get from your trusty TV, eh? 

Provide any impartial evidence to the contrary and well talk about your decisive victories. (But then again given your rather loose qualifications for the word impartial, Im not sure youll produce any)

*damaged her "long term wellbeing" as you put it.*

LOL, how so exactly, do you reach to that conclusion?

*The LOC became internationally recognized as a de-facto border*

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the status of the LoC has remained _exactly_ the same before and after the Kargil skirmish. Which is a line dividing the forces of Pakistan and India in an international recognized Disputed Territory. Dont let your imagine take a leap ahead of reality here. Produce some official international documents that have the words internationally recognized and border like we have numerous ones declaring internationally recognized Disputed Territory and nothing else. Youll find none, because Kashmir has always been a DT, and Kargil didnt change a word, only gave it a whole lot of International attention, something India bemoans. 

*As bad as it gets!*

Like I pointed out, if youd care to read and switch off that alternative reality of yours for a bit, youd understand that things could have been MUCH worse. Especially in the prospects of a military coup.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Vinod2070

Kasrkin said:


> *I am sure the Pakistani coverage was the most balanced in history. But then on second thoughts, perhaps not....*
> 
> Irrelevant. I&#8217;m not the one here quoting what &#8220;I saw on T.V&#8221; as if it&#8217;s a substitute for irrefutable evidence. And the Pakistani media at the time, for all intents and purposes didn&#8217;t exist. There was just state run TV, which when you think about it was at least not as ridiculously unprofessional as many of the supposedly &#8216;impartial&#8217; Indian news media.
> 
> Allow me to give you an example. Here are the likes of people which Vinod seems to trust with impartiality so much.
> 
> *India Today
> 
> He is a prized possession. The sight of him motivates the men and gears them for the next round of battle. Seeing him at the make-shift army headquarters in Dras sends their adrenaline pumping. The dead Pakistani Army regular-hung on a tree before his body was buried and a grid reference made on the map in accordance with the Geneva Convention-was a morale booster. More than 439 Pakistani casualties so far.*
> 
> As you can see the level of professionalism and humanity apparent not only in your soldiers, but your journalists as well. The fact that this made it into print, despite all crappy figures and information it purports, the pure disguising and naked shamelessness and bias would have given most editors reason for thought. But obviously not, this was the &#8216;impartial&#8217; Indian media at work here in times of war.
> 
> Like I said, the sooner you except realities, the better it will be for you. The world is not an Indian movie, and the world is not an Indian &#8216;news&#8217; channel either.
> 
> *The diplomacy did play it's part. Not before the military tide had already turned. Decisively.*
> 
> Hm, you don&#8217;t need to be a highly accomplished military tactician to know that 4 divisions with heavy artillery and air support managing to *acquire 16 outposts out of a 125+* from a couple of lightly armed paramilitary battalions by the end of a war&#8230; is not much of a &#8216;decisive&#8217; anything. Oh let me guess, irrefutable facts don&#8217;t hold much sway over you because you saw &#8220;Tiger hill, Tololing and other peaks being captured by Indian soldiers&#8221; on your completely impartial TV networks, right? But I&#8217;m sure even you must&#8217;ve tried to consider the possibility that maybe, just _maybe_ your beloved TV didn&#8217;t give you the whole picture?
> 
> Let&#8217;s see now, 630 Indian soldiers killed. 16 out-posts captured. (Both according to sources the Indian DGMO Lt-Gen V.R. Raghavan calls &#8216;candid and objective&#8217;.)
> 
> 630 lives = 16 outposts
> 1 outpost = 40 Indian lives
> 
> Wow, that&#8217;s not very decisive anything. But I don&#8217;t suppose that is the picture you get from your trusty TV, eh?
> 
> Provide any impartial evidence to the contrary and we&#8217;ll talk about your &#8220;decisive victories&#8221;. (But then again given your rather loose qualifications for the word &#8216;impartial&#8217;, I&#8217;m not sure you&#8217;ll produce any)
> 
> *damaged her "long term wellbeing" as you put it.*
> 
> LOL, how so exactly, do you reach to that conclusion?
> 
> *The LOC became internationally recognized as a de-facto border*
> 
> Sorry to burst your bubble, but the status of the LoC has remained _exactly_ the same before and after the Kargil skirmish. Which is a line dividing the forces of Pakistan and India in an international recognized Disputed Territory. Don&#8217;t let your imagine take a leap ahead of reality here. Produce some official international documents that have the words &#8216;internationally recognized&#8217; and &#8216;border&#8217; like we have numerous ones declaring internationally recognized Disputed Territory and nothing else. You&#8217;ll find none, because Kashmir has always been a DT, and Kargil didn&#8217;t change a word, only gave it a whole lot of International attention, something India bemoans.
> 
> *As bad as it gets!*
> 
> Like I pointed out, if you&#8217;d care to read and switch off that alternative reality of yours for a bit, you&#8217;d understand that things could have been MUCH worse. Especially in the prospects of a military coup.



We say that "aankhon dekhi" is the best evidence you have. I am not aware of any other "irrefutable evidence" that you have brought here!

The quote seems to be in bad taste especially for a magazine of India Today's stature. Probably the heat of the war. A link would have made the quote more credible.

Regarding diplomacy, it was always a parallel track to hasten what the military was achieving on the ground. The tide had turned decisively and it was a matter of time before the remaining "ghuspaithias" (infiltrators) were turned out.

It does not matter how many resources we deployed to get them to vacate the land. We would have done whatever it took to get them out. At whatever cost.

I am sure this lesson has been learnt by those who matter.

I see that you have learned funky mathematics from a TT here. Good for you!

A lot has changed about the way the world perceives LOC. De-facto if not de-jure. Deny that all you want but now it is a recognized border in all but name.

*PS:* Regarding humanity, I hope you have not forgotten the bodies of Lt. Kalia and his troops and in what condition they were sent back! We have not.



> In the first fortnight of May 1999, he went out for patrol duty three times in the Kaksar area of Kargil. He observed and reported large-scale intrusion of Pak Army and foreign mercenaries in Indian side of LoC (Kargil). He assumed guard of "Bajrang Post" at the height 13,000-14,000 feet to check infiltration along with 5 soldiers in the Kaksar area.
> 
> On May 15, 1999, after a continuous cross fire with Pakistan armed forces from across the LoC, he and his troops ran out of ammunition. It is also believed that their signal instrument was out of order, or not working in those conditions. They were finally encircled by a platoon of Pakistan rangers and captured alive before any Indian reinforcement could reach for their help. No trace of this entire patrol was left and Skardu Radio of Pakistan reported that Lt. Saurabh Kalia and five of his men were captured alive.
> 
> *They were in their captivity for over twenty-two (May 15, 1999 &#8211; June 7, 1999) days and subjected to unprecedented brutal torture as evident from their bodies handed over by Pakistan Army on June 9, 1999. The postmortem revealed that the Pakistan army had indulged in the most heinous acts; of burning their bodies with cigarettes, piercing ear-drums with hot rods, puncturing eyes before removing them, breaking most of the teeth and bones, chopping off various limbs and private organs of these soldiers besides inflicting all sorts of physical and mental tortures before shooting them dead, as evidenced by the bullet wound to the temple.*



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saurabh_Kalia

_Professionalism and humanity, your style!_


----------



## chindit

> The quote seems to be in bad taste especially for a magazine of India Today's stature. Probably the heat of the war. A link would have made the quote more credible.



Vinod. i can confirm that INDIA TODAY printed something on the lines, it was also confirmed by another book. But what the Pakistanis fail to notice it was that the dead body was displayed in the initial days when the whole of Pakistan was in denial and all the intruders were tom-tomed to be "Mujahids". even the indian press was refering to them as 'militants'. Someone in the army got a bright idea and hauled a dead regular (with complete uniform and fittings - belt, khaki jacket/sweater, cap etc) down the mountains and put it up in the local brigade HQ for all to see. If there was any convincing that the press needed then that was enough! Once the message was done the body was buried. The indian army estimated that it buried more than 250 dead pakistanis in Indian territories. They took back only three to five bodies.

Displaying bodies of dead terrorists is not a new phenomena. but displaying the bodies of dead soldiers of the opposite side is. But if the Pakistan govt was completely denying their involvement, it left no choice to the army but to show proof.


----------



## chindit

> Lets see now, 630 Indian soldiers killed. 16 out-posts captured. (Both according to sources the Indian DGMO Lt-Gen V.R. Raghavan calls candid and objective.)



Indian casualities were not more than 540 or so - the list of the martyrs are online on every website. on the other hand, very little has been published about the Pakistani kargil dead other than varying numbers.


----------



## chindit

Stingers in Kargil 

Indian Forces captured atleast two Stingers





Does anyone know how many Stingers were deployed by Pakistan in Kargil? How many were fired and how many were lost? or all these still state secrets?


----------



## Vinod2070

chindit said:


> Vinod. i can confirm that INDIA TODAY printed something on the lines, it was also confirmed by another book. But what the Pakistanis fail to notice it was that the dead body was displayed in the initial days when the whole of Pakistan was in denial and all the intruders were tom-tomed to be "Mujahids". even the indian press was refering to them as 'militants'. Someone in the army got a bright idea and hauled a dead regular (with complete uniform and fittings - belt, khaki jacket/sweater, cap etc) down the mountains and put it up in the local brigade HQ for all to see. If there was any convincing that the press needed then that was enough! Once the message was done the body was buried. The indian army estimated that it buried more than 250 dead pakistanis in Indian territories. They took back only three to five bodies.
> 
> Displaying bodies of dead terrorists is not a new phenomena. but displaying the bodies of dead soldiers of the opposite side is. But if the Pakistan govt was completely denying their involvement, it left no choice to the army but to show proof.



I have read that the extremely brutal, uncivilized and inhuman treatment meted out to Lt. Kalia and his mates at the hand of Pakistani army caused a great deal of anger in the Indian soldiers. This led to the bodies of the intruders being hung from the trees in some cases. It was not to prove that Pakistani army was involved. That was known to all from day-1 in India, the pathetic denials notwithstanding.

Indian army ensured proper Islamic burial for these intruders even after that incident and the refusal of Pakistan to own up to them. This alone should clear any doubts about the issue of "Professionalism and humanity" once and for all!

The military leaders of Pakistan gave a poor account of themselves in the situation and failed to honor those they had sent to death.


----------



## chindit

Vinod2070 said:


> I have read that the extremely brutal, uncivilized and inhuman treatment meted out to Lt. Kalia and his mates at the hand of Pakistani army caused a great deal of anger in the Indian soldiers. This led to the bodies of the intruders being hung from the trees in some cases. .



Read it where? My impression is that Kalias body was returned later into the war. Can we have dates and sources?


----------



## duhastmish

SIR,

i don't know why most post are inclined to what media projected to their following nations. 
it was said Pakistan was in better strategic location. they were informed about war earlier. so how cam Pakistan loose more soldiers than us in that war. you should have seen what happened in mahendra garh. how many dead bodies arrived. in this small village near Delhi. Not that these soldier were anywhere less capable to hit pakistan, but because of our top official and politicians. who just bloody sent the (***) regiment without proper planning. thank goodness that sensibility prevailed and India hit back hard, after initial fallback we suffered.


----------



## chindit

duhastmish said:


> SIR,
> 
> i don't know why most post are inclined to what media projected to their following nations.
> it was said Pakistan was in better strategic location. they were informed about war earlier. so how cam Pakistan loose more soldiers than us in that war. you should have seen what happened in mahendra garh. how many dead bodies arrived. in this small village near Delhi. Not that these soldier wer .




Umm. where exactly is this mahendra garh in delhi? And what is your definition of 'many dead bodies'?


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> I have read that the extremely brutal, uncivilized and inhuman treatment meted out to Lt. Kalia and his mates at the hand of Pakistani army caused a great deal of anger in the Indian soldiers. This led to the bodies of the intruders being hung from the trees in some cases. It was not to prove that Pakistani army was involved. That was known to all from day-1 in India, the pathetic denials notwithstanding.
> 
> Indian army ensured proper Islamic burial for these intruders even after that incident and the refusal of Pakistan to own up to them. This alone should clear any doubts about the issue of "Professionalism and humanity" once and for all!



The 'torture and mutilation' stories were not true - they were propaganda according to several analyses in the Indian media as well.

I had the links bookmarked, but none except one work any more.


> The return of six tortured bodies of Indian soldiers by Pakistan on June 10, 1999, is an incident,108 which, in addition to inflaming passions (the perceived force multiplier effect), also revealed the loss of restraint and objectivity in the media. Siddharth Vardarajan observes that:
> 
> _Virtually every newspaper carried the gory details released by an Indian wire service without waiting for independent confirmation. Such confirmation never arrived&#8230;. probably only one of the bodies bore signs of mutilation_&#8230;109
> 
> 
> The issue here is not about the veracity of the torture. To manage emotions and balance them efficaciously with judicious observation is a hallmark of conflict reportage. The semantics of reportage in this case led to a proliferation of exaggerated stories about the mutilation, since certain sections of the media presumed that to contradict or question would appear unpatriotic or anti-national:
> 
> _All of this is shocking and deeply reprehensible. Nevertheless, it does not amount to mutilation&#8230;. But the mutilation story &#8211; which so inflamed passions in India &#8211; remained in print because we (emphasis added) felt that to contradict the army would be unpatriotic and demoralizing._110
> 
> 
> Objectivity, while reporting on terrorism from the theatres of conflict, is at best difficult to approximate, much less, to achieve. Nevertheless, if one regards discovery and disclosure to be
> 
> The Media in Terror



A couple of my links were also used in the SATP analysis, but are not workig anymore, nonetheless satp still has them listed under its references for the conclusions it drew.


> 109: "Lies out of control", www.himalmag.com/99Sep/lies.htm; "Pak sends mutilated bodies ahead of Aziz", Indian Express, June 11, 1999; "Pakistan tortured soldiers, reveals post-mortem report", Financial Express, June 12, 1999; "Torture Finger Pointed at Pakistan Army", Telegraph, June 12, 1999.
> 
> 
> 110: "Defending the indefensible", Hindustan Times: Latest Breaking News from India, Cricket, Bollywood, World, Business, Videos /nonfram/200899/detOP101.htm.



Resorting to lies and propaganda to malign the PA, and then subsequently allowing those lies and propaganda to 'hang dead bodies from trees' does not in anyway indicate 'professionalism and humanity'.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

chindit said:


> Vinod. i can confirm that INDIA TODAY printed something on the lines, it was also confirmed by another book. But what the Pakistanis fail to notice it was that the dead body was displayed in the initial days when the whole of Pakistan was in denial and all the intruders were tom-tomed to be "Mujahids". even the indian press was refering to them as 'militants'. Someone in the army got a bright idea and hauled a dead regular (with complete uniform and fittings - belt, khaki jacket/sweater, cap etc) down the mountains and put it up in the local brigade HQ for all to see. If there was any convincing that the press needed then that was enough! Once the message was done the body was buried. The indian army estimated that it buried more than 250 dead pakistanis in Indian territories. They took back only three to five bodies.
> 
> Displaying bodies of dead terrorists is not a new phenomena. but displaying the bodies of dead soldiers of the opposite side is. But if the Pakistan govt was completely denying their involvement, it left no choice to the army but to show proof.



Hanging a dead body from a tree was necessary for proving that the body was that of a Pakistani soldier? 

Oh please - your don't even believe that BS. If 'showing a dead body' was necessary for 'proving PA involvement' then images of the bodies in the morgue or on the ground would have sufficed. Stringing up a body on a tree only indicates a malicious and dishonorable mind.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

On the body counts - the IA is lying (and perhaps the PA is too).

Given that the the militants/NLI were defending from dug in defenses on peaks, there is no way on earth that PA casualties could have been higher than India's. Salim himself admitted that the 'rule of thumb ratio of losses' (attackers to defenders in mountain combat) was 9:1. 

PA losses were likely a few hundred, but there probably is a lot of truth to the story published in India about '3000 coffins being ordered'.


----------



## vish

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> On the body counts - the IA is lying (and perhaps the PA is too).
> 
> Given that the the militants/NLI were defending from dug in defenses on peaks, there is no way on earth that PA casualties could have been higher than India's. Salim himself admitted that the 'rule of thumb ratio of losses' (attackers to defenders in mountain combat) was 9:1.
> 
> PA losses were likely a few hundred, but there probably is a lot of truth to the story published in India about '3000 coffins being ordered'.




What are you talking about?

Salim said, and this is widely known, that the required ratio of attackers to defenders in a high altitude mountainous terrain for victory is 11:1. He never said that casualties/losses are in the ratio 11:1 in favor of defenders.

Further, those 3000 coffins were bought to meet the needs of the forces at large. These are used to deliver the bodies of fallen soldiers to their families and, if I'm not wrong, are reused. These are still being used by the forces. India lost 527 men in Kargil.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vinod2070

^^ I was about to say the same thing.

Also why did Mr. Sharif, your elected PM of the time openly say that he went to the USA at the prodding of the army and to maintain the folklore, one that is so dear to many: "The army can do no wrong"!

Also he talked about 4000 casualties (mainly in NLI?). I think Pakistan has never done or revealed a detailed inquiry into the Kargil fiasco and so no one knows the real truth.

The fact remains that the mutilation stories were widely believed in India at that time and hanging bodies of some of the "enemies" (those who were not owned up by even Pakistan) would appear to be an angry response in the heat of the war and the inflamed passions, though not one that should be condoned. Even now I don't see any report credible enough to discredit those reports. It is ultimately what you want to believe.


----------



## vish

Kasrkin said:


> These are the words of an Indian, not mine exactly. Speaking of which, going over the thread looking for this guys post however lead me to&#8230;



It was me. And calling those mass infantry attacks stupid was my wrong. 



Kasrkin said:


> Where the hell is the "contradiction"? You obviously disbelieve that Operation Vijay was the primary source of the considerable Indian casualties. The Indians lost more than 1150 soldiers in 3 YEARS hard fighting in Sri Lanka, and at Kargil in the matter of weeks the Indian figure was 600 plus. How can you suggest that &#8216;probing parties&#8217; are the principle cause of this bloated figure?



I disagree that 600 plus people lost their lives in Operation Vijay. We lost 527 men.



Kasrkin said:


> Your view is designed to discourage the notion that India lost men during hard-fast head-on decisive fighting in operations launched with over whelming numbers, firepower and definitive objectives of seizing Pakistani positions. It is unlikely that massed infantry attacks were used in &#8216;probing&#8217; operations, even if it is true to some extent then it represents shocking incompetence. If you experience more resistance than expected and failed to achieve the intended objectives, the mission should not be branded a &#8216;probing&#8217; operation in an attempt to dilute the failure no matter how tempting that might be.
> 
> This would indicate that you are having inconvenience believing that India lost their bulk of men to Pakistani boys in decisively planned confrontations.



You may be right here in that some of these failures may have been branded as probing parties. Also, you are right in that the fight was tough and NLI fought often beyond its means. But the end-result is that you guys lost and withdrew. And yes, IA did loose men in these attacks.



Kasrkin said:


> There was immense pressure on India not to widen the conflict, you cannot pretend that India could have launched a full scale war then and crippled Pakistan (which in itself would take considerable time according to the most India-friendly &#8216;experts&#8217 without severe international repercussions and at the same time justify your military setbacks due to international pressure not to cross the LoC. Not that crossing the LoC and engaging other fresh (regular) Pakistani formations would have benefited IA&#8217;s unbalanced and over-committed disposition.
> 
> If you were honorable you would admit that in face of the unrealistic and probably futile option of trying to use your already committed forces and equipment to wrestle control of (well defended) logistics routes inside Azad Kashmir from the regular PA formations, the generals and the politicians decided to stick to Occupied Kashmir and receive the international &#8220;good will&#8221; for using self-proclaimed &#8220;restraint&#8221;. An Indian Mig was shot down in Pakistani territory, so it&#8217;s not like the Indians were particularly careful about provoking us either...fustration was there which I dont deny.
> 
> *I don&#8217;t see how anyone can delude themselves to the gravity of the situation the Indians faced, according to Brian Cloughley in a book the Indian DGMO Gen. V.R. Raghavan says is &#8216;written by an observant military author who is both candid and objective&#8217;, the Pakistanis evacuated from the 14 posts the Indians attacked, while the remaining 120 or so posts were only vacated on orders from across the LoC. Also that Indian casualties would have been &#8216;very much higher&#8217; had the Pakistanis decided to stay. I just don&#8217;t see how bringing the bulk of Pakistani forces into the fray would solve India&#8217;s problems.* Unless you have any concrete proof to suggest the contrary?



True there was pressure on us, and there was pressure on you guys to stop acting silly every now and then. But had the peaks not fallen in a timely manner, India was willing to go to war.

You are quoting Brian Cloughley... more than enough for me to not chuckle.



Kasrkin said:


> It wasn&#8217;t a &#8216;slur&#8217;, just an expression. But I can keep it up if you&#8217;re glad to hear it so much.



Please continue, proves how worthwhile and orgasmic your neuroplasm is.



Kasrkin said:


> Ofcourse I know you have more to lose, i.e. population, economy, investment, etc&#8230;



How?



Kasrkin said:


> Ofcourse I have nothing to express other than amusement for the uneducated opinions some overly nationalistic Indians have expressed in this thread.



Thank you for clearing the air.


----------



## Zob

ok see the problem here is that indians are very good at one thing BOLLYWOOD NATION....media and fake propaganda played so many times over that it seems like the truth!! about ur some colonel dying and stuff listen i am sure that ur torture is well known to us...like the two hollow civilian bodies we got with nothing in them no organs....and we remeber what u did to our lance naik who was captured in 1971 and u cut his tongue and tortured him to insanity.....indian media is the strongest arm of ur government and i have 2 give them credit for that!! u cry when sharkh cries u bollywood nation!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kasrkin

*Regarding humanity, I hope you have not forgotten the bodies of Lt. Kalia and his troops and in what condition they were sent back! We have not.

Professionalism and humanity, your style!

I have read that the extremely brutal, uncivilized and inhuman treatment meted out to Lt. Kalia and his mates at the hand of Pakistani army caused a great deal of anger in the Indian soldiers.

That was known to all from day-1 in India, the pathetic denials notwithstanding.

This alone should clear any doubts about the issue of "Professionalism and humanity" once and for all!*

Vinod, I always knew you were little more than a loud mouth enthusiast with little concern for objectivity. But you continue to astound me with your ignorance, and what is even worse is the pathetically primitive mentality that dictates your opinions. 

You&#8217;ve all but publicly confessed your inclination to believe whatever you see on &#8216;your TV&#8217;, but have you ever concerned yourself with reading a simple book? Or an impartial article even? I mean sure you come here and rant about things as if nothing has ever escaped your knowledge. But your attitude and words seem to indicate otherwise. However worry not, for I shall endeavor to illuminate you and rid you of your character defining arrogance.

Now Brian Cloughley is a widely acknowledged commentator on South Asian affairs and he is appropriately qualified as he has served as the deputy head of the UN mission in Kashmir among other things. He has close contacts in the Pakistani as well as the Indian militaries and his impartiality is beyond dispute. His particular work that I refer to, in the hopes that you might sum up the courage to read this widely distributed book yourself, is described as having *&#8220;the special advantage of being written by an observant military author who is both candid and objective&#8221;* by the Indian Director General of Military Operations himself. So therefore, you cannot hope to dispute and discredit its &#8216;candid and objective&#8217; nature without looking like complete fools yourself. It is irrefutable, and I as a Pakistani won&#8217;t get my hands on any evidence more &#8216;irrefutable&#8217; than that having Indian DGMO&#8217;s own shining endorsement. 

Furthermore in the hopes of comforting any lingering insecurities here, I would point out that while Cloughley did appreciate the professional competence and inherit valor with which the Pakistanis carried out the Kargil endeavor, he does hold Pakistanis responsible for breaking the terms of the Simla Accords by launching Kargil (just like he accuses the Indians of doing the same in Siachen and skillfully refutes their &#8216;excuses&#8217. The following extract contains ridiculing of Pakistani as well as Indian claims:

*&#8216;The temperature in the mountains is zero and below but has risen markedly in New Delhi and Islamabad, in part because Pakistan reported that Indian has used chemical weapons, and largely because of Indian allegations of torture of prisoners of war. The former claim is nonsense, for many technical reasons, but the accusation of torture in more serious, if only because it has inflamed public opinion in India. There is not an Indian who disbelieves that the half-dozen soldiers whose bodies were delivered to the Indian Army (across the Line from the Pakistani side, to the significance of which little publicity has been given) were tortured and put to death after capture. There is no point in attempting to question the Indian version- although any soldier who has seen the result on a human body of concentrated firing from an ambush will know that the victims resemble pulped and messy colanders of meat, with eyes and teeth shattered and bits of flesh torn away by the lacerating impact of point-blank bullets. It was the fact that eyes had been destroyed &#8211; &#8220;gouged out&#8221; &#8211; that particularly upset Indian public opinion.

It has been acknowledged in some quarters in India that the claims were exaggerated, but the damage has been done and it would be a brave Indian commentator who would deny that torture took place. 

&#8230;and it was easy to believe what was being retailed in the media as a result of statements by government spokesmen. There may have been hesitancy, later, about the truth of the stories, especially as the matter was not taken up by the international media (which would have been more than happy to expand on such a juicy story had they considered it credible), but tales of atrocities are easier to spread than to deny, even if the originator sincerely wishes to do that.

There is terrible irony in the gleeful description in India Today of the body of what might have been a soldier of the NLI.&#8217;*

Now I knew of this for a long time, through other international sources and articles as well, as did AM obviously and by the looks of it some adequately educated Indians here do too. But you Vinod are obviously part of the crowd that passionately believes in whatever BS the Indian government fed the masses to distract the nation from continuing defeats. But why Vinod, do you feel so drastically obliged to demonize Pakistan? What compels you to convince yourself of fake-righteousness and ignore the real human right abuses and sub-human conduct? Though in all fairness to you, I do applaud what no doubt would have required you to summon monstrous will-power in saying you do not 'condone&#8217; the hanging of dead bodies upside down with ropes. Bravo Vinod.

But unfortunately for you, in an effort to justify your own human right abuses you not only exposed your own ignorance and mentality, but you were also forced to acknowledge (despite trying to deny it first) the inhumane nature of your own troops. If the Pakistanis thought the Indians were using chemical weapons, we didn&#8217;t consider deploying nerve gas ourselves and descending to the same level did we? So there were international law breaches in Kargil, and we all know who did it. If we Pakistanis possessed even a fraction of arrogance, vanity, hate and shameless ambition you and large portions of your nation represent, then we would have pursued this further. But we didn&#8217;t. Consider this an appropriate answer to some of your unseemly insults to our soldiers, our nation and our honor. For the rest&#8230; I don&#8217;t want to stoop to your level. But be advised, what you&#8217;re doing here (and given the level of your own credibility) can easily be described as trolling. If you can&#8217;t talk in the domain of facts and credibility, then don&#8217;t throw crap at our faces.

*P.S.* The figure of 600+ Indian killed, 1800 wounded is accurate.
www.subcontinent.com/sapra/military/kargil11.html quoting the Times of India on 6 and 9 July 1999.
As is the Pakistani figure (perhaps as high as 400).

*If 'showing a dead body' was necessary for 'proving PA involvement' then images of the bodies in the morgue or on the ground would have sufficed.*

Even that is something only the IA indulges in AM. Dancing around dead bodies and picturing them as trophes. Every soldier knows that picturing the dead is indecent. Pakistan Army never does it. Weapons ought to suffice.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Vinod2070

I had some respect for you as someone who can possibly debate without getting personal.

That was before this post.


----------



## Kasrkin

*Professionalism and humanity, your style!*

If you can't finish what you started, not my fault.


----------



## Vinod2070

The same posts were read by both AM and you.

AM came back with his own facts that said why he believed it was not true.

You came back trying to judge my personality!



> Vinod, I always knew you were little more than a loud mouth enthusiast with little concern for objectivity. But you continue to astound me with your ignorance, and what is even worse is the pathetically primitive mentality that dictates your opinions.



You may always have known something and I may always have known something. Doesn't matter.

You can have a good debate when you try not to judge the other person and comment about him but about the contents of his posts. I have seen for some time that you find it difficult at times and then instead of the original issue, the mutual bickering takes over which we all should avoid.

I think of myself as an objective person. I go more with facts than opinions something I have seen missing from most Pakistani members (with few honorable exceptions) including you. I am ready to change my opinion if an alternate fact is presented which is creditworthy. I don't think you have been able to present one or you have seriously devalued what you presented because of the way it was done.

AM's post on the other hand was much more effective in conveying the message that he did not find the torture story true based on facts rather than rhetoric.

Anyway you are a good poster overall. Lets keep going. Drop this discussion as it has degenerated to personal attacks (from your side).


----------



## Vinod2070

Kasrkin said:


> *Professionalism and humanity, your style!*
> 
> If you can't finish what you started, not my fault.



Please don't assume what I can finish or not.

I presented my facts for my saying that as you accused India for disregarding these based on a media report. I retorted that your record was much worse (and that by the army not some journalist) if those torture reports are to be believed.

I see no need to keep on repeating the same thing or to "finish" it. What would that mean anyway! Would pasting a 100 links for the same story be finishing it!

Or if I prove how the Ghaddafi stadium was used to hold rallies where a severed head (supposedly of an Indian army captain) was shown to delirious crowds (perhaps an LET rally), that would prove it?


----------



## Tornado

The Kargil truth is hidden under secrecy laws and the politicization of the event&#8211;both India and Pakistan makes it very difficult to get to the truth. But the basic question remains the same . what forced pakistanis to infiltrate at the crucial time when top leaders of both counteries were on table to discuss peace.
And most political probables;
1. Pakistan sponsored insurgency in the Kashmir valley and J&K had been effectively contained by India, and Pakistan political leadership was at a loss to keep Kashmir boiling. 
2. International community was no more interested in the Kashmir problem and even USA and China were urging Pakistan to stop supporting the insurgency.
4. Domestic problems of Pakistan were again raising their head, the Mullahs were demanding their pound of flesh, Taliban trained, equipped and supported by Pakistan for invasion of Afghanistan now wanted same sort of shariat rule in Pakistan, and the provinces were restive.
5. Pakistan's new Chief of Army Staff, Gen Parvez Musharraf was a mohajir and needed to establish his credentials as more Pakistani than even a Punjabi. He was a commando and a prot&#233;g&#233; of Zia-ul-Haq, and needed to take on India to show his Napoleonic military qualities. He had been deeply involved in the fight in Afghanistan against Soviet forces. He felt that if he could worst the Soviets, Indians would be a cakewalk.
6. Both countries were now nuclear weapons states, and an all out war was perhaps ruled out, as it involved the danger of escalation to nuclear war, thus negating India's conventional superiority and permitting Pakistan to fight the war on its ground and time of choosing. And militarily
1. Kargil is the most crucial part of Indian held sector on the LOC, where the NH1A passes closest to the LOC and Pakistan can intercept our Lines of Communication to Leh in Ladakh region, thereby cutting off Indian army's 3 Infantry Division in Ladakh facing Chinese on Aksai chin and Pakistan at Siachin.
2. Kargil is far removed from both Srinagar and Leh for any quick reaction by Indian army. It is in a bowl, flanked by Zojila on this side and Tungla on the other side.
3. Zojila, the pass of blizzards at 11,578 ft remains closed for over six months in the year, thus cutting the line to Kargil from Srinagar. Kargil sector is stockpiled for six months, any more ammunition or rations have to be brought through Zojila only
4. Terrain is the most inhospitable in this region, on par with next only to Siachin. Any territory captured once by the Pakistanis will be most difficult to recapture due to the difficulty of terrain and weather.
5. Kargil defended by only one infantry brigade of Indian army, with four infantry battalions covering an area of over 200 Km frontage, thus with very low density of troops.
6. Indian army due to inhospitable weather in winters withdrew to lower posts leaving upper posts empty, and only surveillance mounted by foot patrols in the lower regions as higher region extremely difficult to reach.
7. Aerial surveillance mounted irregularly due to bad weather conditions.
8. Pakistan Lines of Communication on the other side are more stabilized and he can reach the heights even in winters from Skardu side, as Skardu is connected to Gilgit through an all weather motorable road throughout the year.
9. Pakistan had an overlooking position on the Srinagar- Leh road even in normal times and could monitor our activities.
10. Kargil sector had remained dormant since 1971 after the Shimla agreement. No activity of infiltration or sabotage had taken place as it was a Shia dominated area and was far removed from the Kashmir valley.Indian security forces thus were less vigilant. source

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

^^ A decent analysis of the strategic/tactical aspects of Kargil - unfortunately the usual Indian canards of 'Pakistan needed to 'bolster domestic opinion' to explain the justification behind Kargil.


----------



## Kasrkin

*AM's post on the other hand was much more effective in conveying the message that he did not find the torture story true based on facts rather than rhetoric.*

Yes I saw how &#8216;effective&#8217; AM&#8217;s polite correction of your inherit misconception was.

*Even now I don't see any report credible enough to discredit those reports. It is ultimately what you want to believe.*

So I was compelled to ask you, why do you insist on believing crap about Pakistan in defiance of logic all the time? 

*Drop this discussion as it has degenerated to personal attacks*

Ha! Isn&#8217;t that convenient for you? Your persistent and dishonorable rants have been neatly and effectively refuted. Why did you not bother reading any of it because I questioned your neutrality? Or was the English not simple enough for you? I can simplify the extracts if you require. 

You&#8217;re the one who crossed the line here, but what&#8217;s the point elaborating. You don&#8217;t even acknowledge your obvious factual mistakes, let alone any inherit impulsive troll-like tendencies that have ruined this discussion. But you won&#8217;t get away so easily next time if you keep this completely unsubstantiated raw and rhetorical B-S up. 

*The military leaders of Pakistan gave a poor account of themselves in the situation and failed to honor those they had sent to death.*

I&#8217;ve never been so insulted in my life. You have exposed your bitter and frustrated mentality, as well as your credibility. Don&#8217;t do it again.


----------



## Vinod2070

Kasrkin said:


> *AM's post on the other hand was much more effective in conveying the message that he did not find the torture story true based on facts rather than rhetoric.*
> 
> Yes I saw how effective AMs polite correction of your inherit misconception was.
> 
> *Even now I don't see any report credible enough to discredit those reports. It is ultimately what you want to believe.*
> 
> So I was compelled to ask you, why do you insist on believing crap about Pakistan in defiance of logic all the time?



This is called polite disagreement! I know you seem to have trouble understanding the concept.

AM's post does convey an alternate viewpoint but is not in anyway any proof. It just keeps the second option open which I will surely consider if I get a more rigorous proof in future. On the contrary if I get a solid proof to the contrary, I am sure he would be ready to change his opinion about the issue.



Kasrkin said:


> *Drop this discussion as it has degenerated to personal attacks*
> 
> Ha! Isnt that convenient for you? Your persistent and dishonorable rants have been neatly and effectively refuted. Why did you not bother reading any of it because I questioned your neutrality? Or was the English not simple enough for you? I can simplify the extracts if you require.



Man, you have just decided to become convinced by your own less than honest and honorable rhetoric here.

You have not refuted anything. None at all. Except if making personal attack counts for that in your language.

While I agree that you are too verbose and use a lot of unnecessary bandwidth to convey what can be more effectively conveyed in a few sentences, don't bother about my English at all!



Kasrkin said:


> Youre the one who crossed the line here, but whats the point elaborating. You dont even acknowledge your obvious factual mistakes, let alone any inherit impulsive troll-like tendencies that have ruined this discussion. But you wont get away so easily next time if you keep this completely unsubstantiated raw and rhetorical B-S up.



Point me to any factual mistake and prove it and I will agree. You have failed to do so.

Just imagining the same without proving it is not the same thing!

I can use some words to describe you too. There is no point. I don't know Kasrkin, it is unlikely I will meet him ever. I don't care if he is a troll or not. All I care for is this discussions on an anonymous internet forum with an anonymous person at this point.



Kasrkin said:


> *The military leaders of Pakistan gave a poor account of themselves in the situation and failed to honor those they had sent to death.*
> 
> Ive never been so insulted in my life. You have exposed your bitter and frustrated mentality, as well as your credibility. Dont do it again.



This is just a statement of the fact that your military leaders refused to acknowledge the intruders as their own, as the military men of Pakistan who were just following orders.

What is insulting in just the mention of an obvious fact that we all know to be true!

Do let me know if you have an alternate version of this fact.


----------



## Kasrkin

Very well, if you insist

*This is called polite disagreement! I know you seem to have trouble understanding the concept*

Im afraid this is not disagreement. This is denial. Your belief has been thoroughly analyzed, then refuted and then the damage done by it lamented. Youre attitude is part of that damage. I ask again, would you like me to rephrase the extracts?

*AM's post does convey an alternate viewpoint but is not in anyway any proof*

Since when the hell did this world become about guilty until proven innocent? AM and I have explained the reality of the situation logically, we have referred you to the fact that this is the prevalent belief among educated and impartial observers, furthermore it has been explained to you how and why your belief is taken up by the more sentimental, uneducated and primitive lot. I have given you a thorough example in the words of such a commentator, whose very words have been endorsed by no one other than the Indian General very much relevant to this affair. Whose view, I should say will be considered a billion times more credible than yours and leaves you hanging.

No, youre trying to dismiss this over semantics, youre failing miserably. And everyone can see that.

*On the contrary if I get a solid proof to the contrary, I am sure he would be ready to change his opinion about the issue*

What solid proof do you want? Im sure somehow even if the dead soldiers climb out of their graves and come to you, slap you in the face and say we werent tortured, that wont be enough for you will it?

Youre such a hypocrite. Just look at the quality and level of proof youve provided to this forum. A Wikipedia page about some lieutenant, entirely quoted from 3rd rate Indian nationalist websites, and I went through the trouble of finding the book and quoting the entire damn portion along with its Indian endorsement credentials. Just look at the quality of the commentary and commentators. Look at the quality of the research (if what youve given can be called research) you have and I have, and still you insist that you are not narrow minded and biased? Still you refuse to acknowledge that your very specific and dramatic allegations were misplaced?

*You have not refuted anything. None at all. Except if making personal attack counts for that in your language*

Was Cloughley making a slur at you? Well I suppose he was in a way when he criticized those who believe and insist on un-real crap because it gives them a fake sense of moral self-assurance. Ill ask again, would you like me to rephrase the highlighted part of my earlier post? Its no problem, youve admitted to blocking out contents of my posts before, Id explain it again for reasons of posterity. 

*Point me to any factual mistake and prove it and I will agree. You have failed to do so*

I wouldve loved to do that if you wouldve provided any facts in the first place. 

But since you asked, Im going to indulge you a bit. Lets go over some of your proof. So now, according to Vinods indisputable Wikipedia page Saurabh Kalia was supposedly tortured for over 22 days by Pakistan. None of the dramatics and gross imagings were spared here

_Pakistan army had indulged in the most heinous acts; of burning their bodies with cigarettes, piercing ear-drums with hot rods, puncturing eyes before removing them, breaking most of the teeth and bones, chopping off various limbs and private organs of these soldiers besides inflicting all sorts of physical and mental tortures before shooting them dead, as evidenced by the bullet wound to the temple_

The piercing ear-drums with hot rods, puncturing eyes before removing them, chopping off limbs and private parts are all sort of things that are likely to cause severe shock, loss of consciousness and subsequent death due to fatal blood loss. So unless he was given timely, comprehensive medical attention and immediate blood transfusion, there is no way on earth he could have survived those 22 days with even 1 of the above having been done to his body. And even then why would Pakistan save him? Why would Pakistan go through all the difficulty of keeping an eye gauged, ears busted, limps and private parts chopped, teeth and bone broken body alive just so they can shoot it in the head? And the MOST lamest part of all, why would we have bothered returning the completely mutilated body? The body would be looking more like bags of spilled surgical waste than a body if these stories were true anyway, why would we have been stupid enough to return it? Did we think you would not notice the body being in 4 pieces? According to your precious Wikipedia article, we never acknowledged that we had taken prisoners of war, so they would have been Missing in Action like most of your casualties are listed from the Rann of Kutch war. So by what logic would we want to give them back? 

Next point. Even if you say we were stupid enough to give them back to you. Why did India refrain from seeking justice for crimes of such an incriminating nature? Why was none of this documented? Why were no pictures taken? Why was methodical proof not supplied to international media and human right organizations? Why didnt the said organizations take up such a juicy story on their own? Because, as Cloughley says, your stories were not credible. Even your government knew it. It could have been the crown of Indias international propaganda campaign against Pakistan in Kargil; if only it were true. India never holds back from an opportunity to belittle and embarrass Pakistan, but what happened now? Looks like someone didnt want too much international attention into moral misconduct in the conflict after all

There may have been certaindisfiguration. But that sort of thing, as Cloughley points out, can be the outcome of a completely legitimate close quarters fire fight. Shattered teeth, eyes, bones and missing chunks of flesh and such. Why do you wish on me having to spoon feed at this to you?

*While I agree that you are too verbose and use a lot of unnecessary bandwidth to convey what can be more effectively conveyed in a few sentences, don't bother about my English at all!*

Hm, lol. Im not worried about your English. Its Brians that usually requires someelaboration. Your English is fine, its just the naïve-ness thats problematic. I would have agreed with your view about me over-elaborating myself, had any of my factual contributions or explanations ever made it inside of that head of yours, ever... But then again, I doubt anything short of written testimonials by your dead soldiers would have an impact on your self made beliefs. 

*This is just a statement of the fact that your military leaders refused to acknowledge the intruders as their own, as the military men of Pakistan who were just following orders.

Do let me know if you have an alternate version of this fact.*

Now we hit the little snag dont we? I dont need to come up with an alternative version for your BS. I deny your right to judge us in this regard in the first place. I question your credibility to make this elucidation. I question your own standards in according with which you might have made this troll-like, inconsequential, very much un-factual, heavily biased and affront-ive allegation. Morality, like everything else, is relative. So by what scale of immorality are you accusing us so? The one Indian military adheres to? Well in that case thank you very much, but were definitely within the universal concepts of discipline, respect and humanism for our soldiers and our enemies. We did acknowledge our fighting men in every way relevant to us. Two of our heroes were given the very highest Pakistani Military Honor, and many many more are revered in ways which you cannot comprehend, even if you had the ability and inclination. Musharraf has talked about them as the couple of NLI battalions who were never defeated till the end in his internationally printed book. The NLI were integrated into the regular Pakistan Army in honor of these very men. Cadets opt to visit their graves and listen to their stories. Not one Pakistan military documentary or book forgets to mention their skills, their courage, their daring and their victories.

So yes I question your right and your intentions in making these trollish claims. I challenge your impartiality, I challenge the notion that you yourself may actually care about the honor of these men. Who are you to decide what is honor for our men and what is not? Who are you to say what is sufficient and adequate acknowledgement and what is not? No one. Youre just a troll, and everyone can see that. 

If I would sink to your level, and give you an alternate version about who honors the lives of their men then I would talk about Operation Vijay. About the callousness with which your troops were committed without acclimatization, clothing, equipment, training and substandard weapons, I could talk about the value placed in those lives and then I could draw up some ethnic or religious connotations with the regiments that took the brunt of the Pakistani tenaciousness to belittle your nation. And then I could say give me an alternate version or except this as fact. But I wont. Im not like you. Heck I dont even think like that. I have no need to convince myself of our enemys shortcomings, I am not that insecure, I am content with letting the honor of your men rest as your responsibility. But you are not. Ive never reacted like this before, but you crossed the line this time. Dont do it again.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vinod2070

I think in the interest of making it clear, let me try to summarize what is being discussed.

*You accused *Indian soldiers and journalists of lacking "*professionalism and humanity*" because of the hanging incidents.

I retorted that these events were the result of the prevalent belief in India about the tortures. The fact of the matter is that at that point most Indians believed those reports and this would surely raise tempers of the troops who hear of such atrocities on their mates.

The follow on part to this is whether these reports were true (irrespective of the belief during the war time that they were). You need to understand that my starting point is those decade old reports which I did believe at the time. Now for me to change the belief would need something beyond another set of _reports_. This is not about &#8220;guilty until proven innocent&#8221;, it is about changing something that you have believed for a decade.

I am open to changing that belief given a strong reason and irrespective of how you may feel, I did not find what was presented as solid enough, though I would keep myself open to the possibility.

*The second part *where you seem to take offense is my comment that it was dishonorable for the Pakistan military leaders to not accept that the fighters were Pakistani soldiers. Their refusal to even accept their bodies!

You may feel that it can be compensated by the steps related to NLI and giving those awards. I don't think so. It is not about making judgment, it is about expressing my opinion. I know that many in Pakistan also did not find much honor in not accepting their own troops and calling them "stateless actors" at the time.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

I think kasrkin raised a valid objection - it is upto Pakistan to determine how to honor her troops, and for Pakistanis to determine whether they were dishonored or not honored enough.

It is inflammatory for Indians to suggest that Pakistan did not honor her troops - there are no two ways about that, so leave that alone and focus on the thread please.


----------



## Contrarian

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I think kasrkin raised a valid objection - it is upto Pakistan to determine how to honor her troops, and for Pakistanis to determine whether they were dishonored or not honored enough.
> 
> It is inflammatory for Indians to suggest that Pakistan did not honor her troops - there are no two ways about that, so leave that alone and focus on the thread please.



Then i merely ask you what does denying to accept soldiers or even citizens of your own country mean? Is that honor or dishonor?


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

malaymishra123 said:


> Then i merely ask you what does denying to accept soldiers or even citizens of your own country mean? Is that honor or dishonor?



I think Kasrkin answered that question quite well in his last post, but the larger point is that covert operations by many countries have required plausible denial - that has not been Pakistan's quandary alone.

Beyond that I have to reiterate my last post. This line of discussion on a Pakistani forum is only going to cause the thread to degrade.


----------



## Contrarian

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I think Kasrkin answered that question quite well in his last post, but the larger point is that covert operations by many countries have required plausible denial - that has not been Pakistan's quandary alone.


The question of Pakistan's PM then blowing the lid really dents Pakistan's image. However at the end of the day, in the final stages, when Pakistan refused to accept the dead bodies is what i was referring to. Seeing your next line, i leave the issue there itself.



> Beyond that I have to reiterate my last post. This line of discussion on a Pakistani forum is only going to cause the thread to degrade.


I agree, i will not pursue this line of discussion any further.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

malaymishra123 said:


> However at the end of the day, in the final stages, when Pakistan refused to accept the dead bodies is what i was referring to.



One other point related to that - the PA objected to the manner in which India wanted the bodies to be handed over - the mechanism India wanted to utilize was different, with more publicity, than the way the two sides typically handled the issue - through the UN I believe. Blain or Kasrkin might correct me there.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kasrkin

No Vinod, you&#8217;re wrong. Allow me to clarify the situation here.

I was having a perfectly reasonable discussion here about the factual aspects of the Kargil conflict i.e. the number of posts we had occupied, the number of posts we had to evacuate because of Indian military pressure, the number of casualties on either side, range and numbers of forces arrayed by each side, etc. But then you tried to dismiss my factual assessments by telling me what you saw on &#8216;your TV&#8217;. I pointed out, very reasonably that the Indian media coverage of the war was most biased; therefore what you must&#8217;ve seen on TV was obviously not the whole picture. You retaliated in line with your well known childish and impulsive &#8220;we Indians are still better than you&#8221; tendencies by accusing PTV of being biased (like if I were the one here making claims based on what I saw on &#8220;my TV&#8221. In light of this I tried to press the point home again by posting that Indian news paper extract, saying it&#8217;s not just that soldiers here who lacked professionalism and humanity (duh), but shockingly it is your &#8216;neutral&#8217; journalists and editors providing all the fanfare as well. Then again as usual you, instead of addressing the issue at hand, let your impulsive troll-ish tendencies kick in again and threw a barrage of crap at our faces. When I came back and saw that you had dedicated at least 4 posts to mythical but gross stories about Pakistanis mutilating soldiers, I&#8217;ll admit I was annoyed. 

*"I retorted that these events were the result of the prevalent belief in India about the tortures..."*

For once in your life cut the crap Vinod and stop lying at us through your face. You made very specific, very uncompromising and dramatic allegations right here. I don&#8217;t have to quote them, they are all right here. Have a shame, you&#8217;ve still not admitted that your accusations were misplaced. Everyone whose read this thread knows this.

You see it all comes down to the sub-human scum in this world that seeks to de-humanize others. They are the worst of humanity in my opinion. Everything from your allegations of Pakistanis mutilating bodies, to you justifying your soldier&#8217;s desecrating Pakistani bodies, to accusing Pakistanis of not honoring their own, to claims of us refusing to accept our bodies&#8230;is geared towards de-humanizing Pakistan. And it&#8217;s disgusting. Its people like you, who teach and preach this senseless, unchecked, reckless hate that leads to things like that reported in India Today. So you can give up your feints at maturity or impartiality. You&#8217;re just a very old troll.

*"it is about changing something that you have believed for a decade."*

You believe what is convenient for you to believe. It makes it easier for you to ignore who the real mutilators are. By all means continue, it&#8217;s no loss to us. You&#8217;re just proving every one of my points.

*"I did not find what was presented as solid enough,"* 

Ofcourse not. You&#8217;re Wikipedia article is much more solid. Sorry my bad, how could I for a second think that anything could be more credible than wiki. Even if it is confirmed by a relevant Indian general, no sir nothing is more rock solid than wiki.

*"Their refusal to even accept their bodies!"*

More BS. You&#8217;re barrage never lets up does it? You sure have hefty reserves of ignorance, no doubting that. Mind providing any impartial source, _anywhere_ about how Pakistan refused? Exchange of bodies is part of war, there is nothing dishonorable about that. Pakistan did except the bodies of their martyred very graciously. As did India obviously, only difference is that Pakistan considers it to be a solemn act of mutual respect and honor, not like the following where a bloody Bollywood style Indian camera man gleefully operates in the hopes of making the most of it and scoring through a youtube video.






Like I said, we did take our bodies and gave you yours (only we didn&#8217;t make a fuss about them being &#8216;tortured&#8217 and it would make no sense for us to take bodies of some soldiers and refuse to take some others. I pity your mentality if you think anyone can do that. There were a few Occupied Kashmir Mujahideen operating in Kargil too no doubt, not many but still. I&#8217;m told most of these guys decided to stay back when orders came to withdraw, because it was their home or they thought they could slip away I dunno. That or as AM suggests an argument over the technicals. Either way we got all _our_ men back as this video proves, its just that some Indians can&#8217;t resist making out of context and proportion BS up to stroke their vanity and hate. BS you passionately believe ofcourse without reservations. 

*"You may feel that it can be compensated by the steps related to NLI and giving those awards. I don't think so."*

I don&#8217;t recall anyone here asking for your much valued, completely honorable and unbiased &#8216;opinion&#8217; now, my troll friend.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vinod2070

Kasrkin, I see where you are coming from and why all those ad homen attacks.

First, ad homen attacks always demonstrate that the person has lost the plot in the debate. Your continuing at that is not helping the discussion at all.

Second, let me assure you whatever I have mentioned is not intended to convey what you have assumed and therefor come to some conclusions.

I would strongly urge you to not try to infer any hidden meanings in what I mentioned, things like dehumanizing or any of the sort! Let us just try to debate the facts and what can be directly deduced form those facts. The issues are obviously sensitive to all of us.

Keeping to those two issues, I believe it is up to me to find any evidence as being convincing enough or not. By no means am I suggesting that the Wiki link is more creditable than anything you or AM have presented. There is no reason for you to take offense on that count.

Regarding the second part of bodies not being accepted which was just a follow up to Pakistan denying the involvement of their troops, I will try to get some details around that. Obviously the record of Gen. Musharraf's conversation is a good start.

I will rephrase my point to just focus on this single issue, that Pakistan disowned the troops doing the fighting during the course of the war. I will take your point that how to honor them is for Pakistan to decide.

Again, I will disregard all those ad homen attacks and refrain from retaliating to the same.


----------



## insas91

A1Kaid said:


> ISI and Pakistani Army officials were disappointed with the decision of the civilian leadership of Nawas Sharif. His decision to withdraw forces and his request and plea to Washington to establish a mutual cease fire, was the wrong move.
> 
> 
> Pakistani Army believed Kargil would be a limited conflict and they were right, due to the political bungling by our civilian leader Kargil like 1962 Sino-Indian War was another "Missed Opportunity"
> 
> *Pakistan simply did not take full advantage.*



When the politicians actually came to know about it, opportunity was was already lost.

The plan by the PA was quite impressive. But they made too many mistakes. So did the Indians which caused much of the avoidable casualities. But India was quick to correct those mistakes PA was not. 

The biggest mistake on the part of PA was repeated shelling. And hence giving out there position to the IA. IA on the other hand carried out suppresive artillery strikes with an aim to restrict PA movement while the mountain regiment moved in. 
The result of the artillery strike was significant as it crippled supply routes of the PA.

But the most applaudable event was when IA sent Mirage's to cause an avalanche which completely erased the supply routes leaving the soldiers of NLI stranded and weakened their morale. 


So, in short. It wasn't an oppurtunity. Capturing a strategic position overlooking NH1 was more of an immediate oppurtunity to push deeper. But wouldnt have succeeded in the longer run. IA had both the troop numbers and the infrastructure to carry out a full scale assault to push PA back had they moved closer to NH1.

Nawaz Sharif was perhaps more intelligent in ending the war when her learnt Pakistan was readying its nukes from US itself. 
US didnt want to interfere. Here two things happened. Pervez wanted US to interfere to initiate a ceasefire and that a new LOC could be drawn. Nawan on the other hand wanted US to interfere as he sensed that the war could escalate and Pakistan didnt have the resources to sustain a full scale war. If I recollect Nawaz was quoted as saying "In case of a full scale war, Pakistan has enough fuel to last only 6 days and that too unless IN didnt moved in to block Karachi port "


----------



## insas91




----------



## sarthak

Kargil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the wikipedia link on kargil war

According to this , 

indian losses = 533

pakistan losses = 357-4000
cross check if you want

Definetely not a 10:1 ratio for pakistan
and if 4000 pak soldeirs died , then..


in simple words , the war was a total blunder . 
If you guys are proud of it , then so be it


----------



## sergente rehan

sarthak said:


> Kargil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> This is the wikipedia link on kargil war
> 
> According to this ,
> 
> indian losses = 533
> 
> pakistan losses = 357-4000
> cross check if you want
> 
> Definetely not a 10:1 ratio for pakistan
> and if 4000 pak soldeirs died , then..
> 
> 
> in simple words , the war was a total blunder .
> If you guys are proud of it , then so be it




What a crap 4000 casualties on Pakistani sides?!!
this informaion is from wikipedia and is no way a reliable....


----------



## maverick2009

Regardless of how many soldiers died wat is obvious is that the Kargil War is portrayed in complete CONTRAST in both nations. 

In india- ITS celebrated as a victory the regaining of the passess at the loss of over 500 young brave soldiers. Its also questioned india,s secret service and the armed forces for not picking up the enemies movements/intentions far earlier. Many lessons where learnt from Kargil including a combined forces Air campaign with real highlights the laser bombing by mirage 2000. 

In pakistan its treated like a expensive mistake a operation led by the Army without full support of Air force and Navy. Highlighted divisions within the military and a real weakness in air power. We all hear about reservations of the plan from the outset in some QTRS. 

This just shows for me for India KARGIL is about heroes for pakistan its described as a BLUNDER many.


----------



## sarthak

sergente rehan said:


> What a crap 4000 casualties on Pakistani sides?!!
> this informaion is from wikipedia and is no way a reliable....



Thats the whole point. There is no reliable source from where you can get the correct information. 

If you have some other neutral link , then please inform me


----------



## ashokc

http://www.nps.edu/academics/sigs/nsa/publicationsandresearch/studenttheses/theses/Acosta03.pdf


----------



## niaz

Main reason for the Kargil episode ending in disgrace was that NS as a PM was acting as a poodle of the Indians. Understand he even handed over tapes of the conversation between Musharraf & his Chief of General Staff (Lt Gen Aziz) to Indians in an effort to prove that he was a good boy and it was only his rogue Army that was acting against his orders. One needs unity when under state of war. The battle was lost beffore it began.

How can Kargil be anything but a disaster when head of the government is claiming his innocence!


----------



## Khajur

niaz said:


> Main reason for the Kargil episode ending in disgrace was that NS as a PM was acting as a poodle of the Indians. Understand he even handed over tapes of the conversation between Musharraf & his Chief of General Staff (Lt Gen Aziz) to Indians in an effort to prove that he was a good boy and it was only his rogue Army that was acting against his orders. One needs unity when under state of war. The battle was lost beffore it began.
> 
> How can Kargil be anything but a disaster when head of the government is claiming his innocence!



Niaz sir,

How about considering Kargil which turned into such a big disaster that noone came forward to own it up whether at its beginning(calling its the mujahidins who occupied the peak) or at it end( nawaz claiming complete innocence and Musharaf shouting "everyone was onboard").

As Kennedy once said success has many fathers but failure is an orphan.

*The case with kargil is thats its an failed operation from the start by assuming the adversary wont retaliate for some wierd bunch of reasons*.


----------



## qsaark

niaz said:


> How can Kargil be anything but a disaster when head of the government is claiming his innocence!


How can Kargil be anything but a disaster when even the heads of the Air Force and Navy were not taken into confidence? How can Kargil be anything but a disaster when except for a couple of, the Corp commanders were not taken into confidence? How can Kargil be anything but a disaster when the PM and his cabinet was given a cursory briefing? How can Kargil be anything but a disaster when our diplomats abroad were not taken into confidence and mobilized to gain support in their respective countries? How can Kargil be anything but a disaster when even friendly nations such as KSA, and China were not taken into confidence?

In a parliamentarian system, who had do decide whether to go for a war or not? the parliament or the rogue Generals? Why should the PM of that time take responsibility of the stupid even criminal actions of his rogue Generals?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## qsaark

Khajur said:


> *The case with kargil is thats its an failed operation from the start by assuming the adversary wont retaliate for some wierd bunch of reasons*.


For how long you are on this forum? Have you not yet understood the mindset of the most of the Pakistanis in general and the Pakistanis in Armed Forces in particular? Have you not sensed the false superiority complex of Pakistanis? Have you not yet sensed that we (not all of us though) think of you as lowly, vegetarian, dark-skinned, short-heighted and cowardly Hindus? Why you are still failed to find out the 'weird bunch of reasons'?


----------



## Khalids

I found this document interesting, want to share with you guys.

*American Diplomacy and the
1999 Kargil Summit at Blair House*
Bruce Riedel*
* Bruce Riedel was Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East and
South Asia Affairs in the National Security Council at the White House from 1997 to 2001. In
that role, Mr. Riedel was President Clintons senior adviser on South Asian issues and
traveled with the President to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh in March 2000. His prior office
was Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Near East and South Asia Issues in the
Pentagon. He is a graduate of Brown (BA) and Harvard (MA) Universities and is currently
a member of the Royal College of Defence Studies in London.
Center for the Advanced Study of India
Professor Francine R. Frankel, Director
University of Pennsylvania
3833 Chestnut Street, Suite 130
Philadelphia, PA 19104-3106
USA
URL: Home | Center for the Advanced Study of India
E-mail: casi@sas.upenn.edu
Tel: 215-898-6247
Fax: 215-573-2595
© 2002 by the Center for the Advanced Study of India
All rights reserved. Published 2002.
Production and design: Shruti Agarwala


----------



## Khalids

INTRODUCTION
July 4th, 1999 was probably the most unusual July 4th in American diplomatic history,
certainly among the most eventful. President Clinton engaged in one of the most
sensitive diplomatic high wire acts of any administration, successfully persuading
Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to pull back Pakistani backed fighters from
a confrontation with India that could threaten to escalate into a nuclear war between
the worlds two newest nuclear powers. The events of that 4th accelerated
the road to a fundamental reconciliation between the worlds two largest democracies,
India and the United States, but also set the scene for another in the series of
military coups that have marred Pakistani democracy. As the Presidents Special
Assistant for Near Eastern and South Asia Affairs at the National Security Council
I had the honor of a unique seat at the table and the privilege of being a key adviser
for the days events.


----------



## Khalids

*KARGIL AND KASHMIR*
For fifty years Pakistan and India have quarreled over the fate of Kashmir. The
dispute is not a cold confrontation like that between the two superpowers over
Germany in the Cold War. Rather it is a hot confrontation, which has been punctuated
by three wars. Since the early 1990s it has been particularly violent with
almost daily firefights along the Line of Control (LOC) that divides the state and
within the valley between the Indian security forces and the Muslim insurgency.
Both India and Pakistan deploy hundreds of thousands of troops in the area.
In the spring of 1999 the Pakistanis sought to gain a strategic advantage in the
northern front of the LOC in a remote part of the Himalayas called Kargil. Traditionally
the Indian and Pakistani armies had withdrawn each fall from their most
advanced positions in the mountains to avoid the difficulties of manning them during
the winter and then returned to them in the spring. The two armies respected each
other&#8217;s deployment pattern and did not try to take advantage of this seasonal change.
In the winter of 1999, however, Pakistani backed Kashmir militants and regular
army units moved early into evacuated positions of the Indians, cheating on the
tradition. The Pakistani backed forces thus gained a significant tactical advantage
over the only ground supply route Indian forces can use to bring in supplies to the
most remote eastern third of Kashmir. By advancing onto these mountaintops overlooking
the Kargil highway, Pakistan was threatening to weaken Indian control over
a significant (yet barren) part of the contested province.
What was all the more alarming for Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee&#8217;s hardline
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government was that the Pakistani military incursion
came after the Prime Minister had made a bold effort in early 1999 at reconciliation
with Pakistan by traveling by bus to the Pakistani city of Lahore for a summit
with Sharif. The spirit of Lahore was intended to be the mechanism for breaking
the two giants of south Asia out of their half century of violence and fear and
moving the subcontinent to a better future. Instead, the Indians felt betrayed, deceived
and misled by Sharif and were determined to recover their lost territory.
By late May and early June 1999 a serious military conflict was underway along a
hundred fifty kilometer front in the mountains above Kargil (some of which rise to a
height of 17,000 feet above sea level), including furious artillery clashes, air battles
and costly infantry assaults by Indian troops against well dug in Pakistani forces.
Pakistan denied its troops were involved, claiming that only Kashmiri militants were
doing the fighting &#8212; a claim not taken seriously anywhere.
The situation was further clouded because it was not altogether clear who was
calling the shots in Islamabad. Prime Minister Sharif had seemed genuinely interested
in pursuing the Lahore process when he met with Vajpayee and he had argued
eloquently with a series of American guests, including U.S.UN Ambassador Bill
Richardson, that he wanted an end to the fifty year old quarrel with India. His
military chief, General Pervez Musharraf, seemed to be in a different mold. Musharraf
was a refugee from New Delhi, one of the millions sent into exile in the 1947 catastrophe
that split British India and the subcontinent. He was said to be a hardliner on
Kashmir, a man some feared was determined to humble India once and for all.
We will probably never know for sure the exact calculus of decision making in
Islamabad. Each of the players has his own reasons for selling a particular version
of the process. Musharraf and Sharif have already put out different versions of
who said what to whom. Others like former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir
Bhutto have also given their views. What is clear is that the civil-military dynamic
between Sharif in Islamabad and Musharraf in Rawalpindi was confused and tense.
The United States was alarmed from the beginning of the conflict because of its
potential for escalation. We could all too easily imagine the two parties beginning to

mobilize for war, seeking third party support (Pakistan from China and the Arabs,
India from Russia and Israel) and a deadly descent into full scale conflict all along
the border with a danger of nuclear cataclysm.
The nuclear scenario was obviously very much on our minds. Since the surprise
Indian tests in May 1998 the danger of a nuclear exchange had dominated American
nightmares about South Asia. Clinton had spent days trying to argue Sharif out
of testing in response and had offered him everything from a State dinner to billions
in new U.S. assistance. Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, Central Command
chief General Tony Zinni, Assistant Secretary for South Asia Rick Inderfurth
and I had traveled to Islamabad to try to persuade him, but all to no avail.
After a few weeks of agonizing, Sharif had gone forward with his own tests citing
as a flimsy excuse an alleged Israel plot to destroy Pakistan&#8217;s nuclear facilities in
collusion with India. (I had the Israeli Chief of Staff deny categorically to the
Pakistani Ambassador in Washington any such plan the night before the tests but
that fact mattered little to Islamabad). In the new post-May era we confronted the
reality of two nuclear tested states whose missiles could be fired with flight times of
three to five minutes from launch to impact. One well-informed assessment concluded
that a Pakistani strike on just one Indian city, Bombay, with a small bomb
would kill between 150,000 and 850,000 alone.
Given these consequences for escalation, the U.S. was quick to make known our
view that Pakistan should withdraw its forces back behind the Line of Control immediately.
At first Rick Inderfurth and Undersecretary Thomas Pickering conveyed
this view privately to the Pakistani and Indian ambassadors in Washington in
late May. Secretary Albright then called Sharif two days later and General Tony
Zinni, who had a very close relationship with his Pakistani counterparts, also called
Chief of Army Staff General Musharraf. These messages did not work. So we
went public and called upon Pakistan to respect the LOC. I laid out our position in

an on the record interview at the Foreign Press Center in Washington. The President
then called both leaders in mid-June and sent letters to each pressing for a
Pakistani withdrawal and Indian restraint.
The Pakistanis and Indians were both surprised by the U.S. position: Pakistan
because Islamabad assumed the U.S. would always back them against India and
India because they could not believe the U.S. would judge the crisis on its merits,
rather than side automatically with its long time Pakistani ally. Both protagonists
were rooted in the history of their half-century conflict and astounded that the U.S.
was not bound by the past.
For the previous fifty years, with a few exceptions, the United States had been tied
to Pakistan, while India had been aligned with the Soviet Union in the Cold War.
Pakistan had been the take off point for U2s flying over Russia and for Henry
Kissinger&#8217;s trip to China. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s
Pakistan had been the U.S.&#8217; critical ally in aiding the mujahedin freedom fighters
against communism, along with Saudi Arabia. In 1971 the Nixon Administration
had &#8220;tilted&#8221; toward Pakistan and against India during the war that led to Bangladesh&#8217;s
freedom. Although U.S.-Pakistani relations had cooled significantly after 1990 when
the U.S. determined Islamabad was building a nuclear arsenal (leading to an aid
suspension), the popular and elite perception in both countries was that the U.S. was
more pro-Pakistani than pro-Indian. The imposition of tough sanctions on both
countries in 1998 (so-called Glenn sanctions) after they tested nuclear weapons had
not altered the perception of American bias for Pakistan.


----------



## Khalids

*NAWAZ CALLS FOR HELP*
By late June the situation was deteriorating fast. The two parties were engaged in
an intense conflict along the Kargil front and both were mobilizing their forces for
larger conflict. Casualties were mounting on both sides. Our intelligence assessments were pointing toward the danger of full-scale war becoming a real possibility.
The danger was that the Indians would grow weary of attacking uphill (actually upmountain)
into well dug in Pakistani positions. The casualties the Indian forces
were taking were mounting. New Delhi could easily decide to open another front
elsewhere along the LOC to ease its burden and force the Pakistanis to fight on
territory favorable to India. Even if the conflict remained confined solely to Kargil,
the danger of escalation was high. While the Indian forces were making some
progress against the Pakistanis and their militant allies, it was slow and both sides
were mobilizing more and more of their regular forces.
Sharif became increasingly desperate as he saw how isolated Pakistan was in the
world. He urgently requested American intervention to stop the Indian counterattack.
Washington was clear &#8212; the solution required a Pakistani withdrawal behind
the LOC, nothing else would do. In the last days of June Sharif began to ask to see
President Clinton directly to plead his case. Sharif had met the President several
times earlier, in New York and Washington and at the funeral of King Hussein in
Amman. They had also spoken extensively in the spring of 1998 when the President
had pleaded with Sharif not to follow India&#8217;s example and test its nuclear
weapons. Although that effort failed (despite promises of enormous U.S. aid to
Pakistan), the two leaders had developed a genuine personal bond and felt comfortable
talking to each other.
On the 2nd of July the Prime Minister put in a call to the President. He appealed for
American intervention immediately to stop the fighting and to resolve the Kashmir
issue. The President was very clear &#8212; he could help only if Pakistan first withdrew
to the LOC. The President also consulted with Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee on
the phone. The Indians were adamant &#8212; withdrawal to the LOC was essential,
Vajpayee would not negotiate under the threat of aggression. The President sought
to reassure Vajpayee that we would not countenance Pakistani aggression, not reward
them for violating the LOC and that we stood by our commitment to the Lahore process, i.e. direct talks between India and Pakistan were the only solution
to Kashmir, not third party intervention.
On the 3rd, Sharif was more desperate and told the President he was ready to come
immediately to Washington to seek our help. The President repeated his caution &#8212;
come only if you are ready to withdraw, I can&#8217;t help you if you are not ready to pull
back. He urged Sharif to consider carefully the wisdom of a trip to Washington
under these constraints. Sharif said he was coming and would be there on the 4th.
The White House and State Department spent much of the rest of the 3rd preparing.
Logistics were one problem. Blair House had to be made available for the Pakistanis
and the Secret Service needed to secure Pennsylvania Avenue. As any
visitor to the Mall on a 4th of July knows, tens of thousands of Americans come
down to the Mall to see the fireworks, many come via the area around the White
House and would be inconvenienced by a shut down of Pennsylvania Avenue.
A small group also prepared for the substance of the encounter. I led the effort at
the NSC to prepare the President, National Security Advisor Samuel R. (Sandy)
Berger and Chief of Staff John Podesta. The State effort was led by Deputy
Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, the senior point man on South Asian issues in the
Department and Karl (Rick) Inderfurth, Assistant Secretary for South Asian Affairs
at State, whose bureau had the strongest expertise on the Subcontinent in the
U.S. government. Strobe, Rick and I had already logged many hours traveling to
South Asia to work to advance the President&#8217;s agenda of improving our relations
with this too long neglected part of the world.
The product of this work was two pieces of paper. The first was a draft statement
the President would issue if Sharif agreed to pulling back his forces to the LOC, the
second a statement which would be used if Sharif refused. The latter would make
clear that the blame for the crisis in South Asia lay solely with Pakistan. On the third, more information developed about the escalating military situation in
the area &#8212; disturbing evidence that the Pakistanis were preparing their nuclear
arsenals for possible deployment. Sharif&#8217;s intentions also became clearer. He was
bringing his wife and children with him to Washington, a possible indication that he
was afraid he might not be able to go home if the summit failed or that the military
was telling him to leave. At a minimum, Sharif seemed to be hedging his bet on
whether this would be a round trip.
Sharif would be met at Dulles Airport, where his commercial PIA flight was being
diverted to from JFK, by the Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Bandar
had a long history of helping assist key American diplomatic initiatives and also had
worked with Pakistan extensively in the past during the Afghan war against the
Soviets. Bandar asked for a briefing on what the President needed from Sharif. I
met with him in his McLean home and gave him our sense of the crisis. Bandar
promised to weigh in forcefully with Sharif on the ride from Dulles to Blair House,
and he secured Crown Prince Abdallah&#8217;s support for our position.
British Prime Minister Blair also contacted Sharif to weigh in as well on the need for
withdrawal. Like us, the British were increasingly worried over the direction the
crisis was headed and the danger of escalation to full- scale war. Other governments,
including Pakistan&#8217;s ally China, shared these concerns as well and we asked
Beijing to weigh in with Islamabad. We concluded that the Chinese played a constructive
role in trying to defuse the crisis.


----------



## Khalids

*THE 4TH DAWNS*
The President&#8217;s advisers gathered early on the 4th to brief him on the meeting ahead
and provide advice. The mood was somber. Sandy Berger opened the session by
telling the President that this could be the most important foreign policy meeting of
his Presidency because the stakes could include nuclear war. He had to press Sharif to withdraw while also giving him enough cover to keep him in office to
deliver the retreat. Strobe noted the importance of being very clear with Nawaz
and not letting the Prime Minister be alone with the President so that he could later
claim commitments not made. A record of who said what was critical. Rick and I
briefed the President on the latest information we had.
There was more disturbing information about Pakistan preparing its nuclear arsenal
for possible use. I recommended that he use this only when Sharif was without his
aides, particularly not when the Foreign Secretary, Shamshad Ahmad, who was
known to be very close to Pakistani military intelligence (ISI) was in earshot.
Bandar called and told me the results of his discussion with Sharif. The PM was
distraught, deeply worried about the direction the crisis was going toward disaster,
but equally worried about his own hold on power and the threat from his military
chiefs who were pressing for a tough stand. I briefed the President and the team.
He said he was ready to go and we crossed Pennsylvania Avenue to Blair House.
Sharif had a couple of hours to rest and refresh himself since his arrival early in the
morning. The President&#8217;s meeting opened at around 1:30 in the afternoon with a
plenary session with their teams. The President began by noting he had to travel on
the 5th to America&#8217;s poorest states, a long planned event to help eradicate poverty in
America and thus was glad the PM could be available on the 4th. He then framed
the day&#8217;s discussion by handing the PM a cartoon from the day&#8217;s Chicago Tribune
newspaper that showed Pakistan and India as nuclear bombs fighting with each
other. Clinton said this is what worried him.
Sharif opened by thanking the President for resolving the long outstanding quarrel
between the two countries over the suspended delivery of F16 fighters &#8212; suspended
when sanctions were imposed in 1990. Clinton had secured a sizable cash
payment to Pakistan that compensated Islamabad for the cost of the never delivered
fighters. Sharif then went into a long and predictable defense of the Kashmiri cause. He
appealed to the President to intervene directly to settle the dispute by pressing India.
Much of his argumentation we had heard before &#8212; only the U.S. could save a
billion and a half South Asians from war, if only the President would devote 1&#37; of
the effort he gave to the Arab-Israeli dispute to Kashmir it would be resolved, etc.
The President pushed back by reminding Sharif that the U.S. played a role in the
Arab-Israeli conflict because both sides invited it to mediate, that is not the case
with Kashmir. The best approach was the road begun at Lahore, that is direct
contact with India. Pakistan had completely undermined that opening by attacking
at Kargil, it must now retreat before disaster set in.
Sharif noted that India had been the first to test nuclear weapons and refused to hold
an election to determine the future of Kashmir. Again the President said that was
all true but the fundamental reality of the day was the Pakistani army and its militant
allies were on the wrong side of the LOC and must withdraw. Only if Pakistan
withdrew completely and quickly could the U.S. help Islamabad. A full and complete
withdrawal without pre-conditions would give the U.S. some leverage with
India, money in the bank of showing America could help India.
The President urged Sharif to give him that money in the bank. But he warned there
could be no quid pro quo, no hint that America was rewarding Pakistan for its
aggression nor for threatening its nuclear arsenal at India. If the United States
appeared to be acting under the gun of a nuclear threat its ability to restrain others
from threatening use of their nuclear forces would be forever undermined. Sharif
must act today.
The room was tense and Sharif visibly worried. The President told the Pakistani
team that he had just read John Keegan&#8217;s new book on the first World War. The
Kargil crisis seemed to be eerily like 1914, armies mobilizing and disaster looming.
The President had sent Strobe and his team to South Asia a half dozen times in the last year to try to halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, ease Indo-
Pakistani tensions and build confidence on both sides. Pakistan was threatening to
undo all of that and plunge the world into its first nuclear exchange.
Sharif handed the President a document which he said was a non-paper provided to
him early in the crisis by Vajpayee in which the two would agree to restore the
sanctity of the LOC (a formula for Pakistani withdrawal) and resume the Lahore
process. Sharif said at first India had agreed to this non-paper but then changed its
mind. Sharif then asked that the meeting continue just with the two leaders.
Everyone left the room except Sharif, Clinton and myself. The President insisted he
wanted a record of the event. Sharif asked again to be left alone, the President
refused. The Prime Minister then briefed the President on his frantic efforts in the
last month to engage Vajpayee and get a deal that would allow Pakistan to withdraw
with some saving of face. He had flown to China to try to get their help to press
India to agree to a fixed timetable for talks to resolve Kashmir. Sharif&#8217;s brief was
confused and vague on many details but he seemed a man possessed with fear of
war.
The Prime Minister told Clinton that he wanted desperately to find a solution that
would allow Pakistan to withdraw with some cover. Without something to point to,
Sharif warned ominously, the fundamentalists in Pakistan would move against him
and this meeting would be his last with Clinton.
Clinton asked Sharif if he knew how advanced the threat of nuclear war really was?
Did Sharif know his military was preparing their nuclear tipped missiles? Sharif
seemed taken aback and said only that India was probably doing the same. The
President reminded Sharif how close the U.S. and Soviet Union had come to nuclear
war in 1962 over Cuba. Did Sharif realize that if even one bomb was dropped&#8230;
Sharif finished his sentence and said it would be a catastrophe. Sharif asked again to have me leave the room. The President dismissed this with a
wave of his hand and then told Sharif that he warned him on the second not to come
to Washington unless he was ready to withdraw without any precondition or quid
pro quo. Sharif had been warned by others as well. The President said he had a
draft statement ready to issue that would pin all the blame for the Kargil crisis on
Pakistan tonight.
The President was getting angry. He told Sharif that he had asked repeatedly for
Pakistani help to bring Usama bin Ladin to justice from Afghanistan. Sharif had
promised often to do so but had done nothing. Instead the ISI worked with bin Ladin
and the Taliban to foment terrorism. His draft statement would also mention
Pakistan&#8217;s role in supporting terrorists in Afghanistan and India. Was that what
Sharif wanted, Clinton asked? Did Sharif order the Pakistani nuclear missile force
to prepare for action? Did he realize how crazy that was? You&#8217;ve put me in the
middle today, set the U.S. up to fail and I won&#8217;t let it happen. Pakistan is messing
with nuclear war.
Sharif was getting exhausted. He denied that he had ordered the preparation of
their missile force, said he was against that but he was worried for his life now back
in Pakistan. The President suggested a break to allow each leader to meet with his
team and consider next steps. He would also call Prime Minister Vajpayee to brief
him on the discussions. After ninety minutes of intense discussion the meeting
broke up.
The President and I briefed the others in our room in Blair House while Sharif
huddled with his team in another room. The President put through a short call to
New Delhi just to tell Vajpayee that he was holding firm on demanding the withdrawal
to the LOC. Vajpayee had little to say, even asking the President &#8220;what do
you want me to say?&#8221; There was no give in New Delhi and none was asked for.
After the intensity of the first round, the President lay down on a sofa to rest his eyes for a few minutes. We all were consumed by the tension of the moment and
drama of the day.
After an hour break the President, Sharif and I returned to the discussion. The
President put on the table a short statement to be issued to the press drawing from
the non-paper Sharif had given us and the statement we had drafted before the
meeting to announce agreement on withdrawal to the LOC. The key sentence read
&#8220;the Prime Minister has agreed to take concrete and immediate steps for the restoration
of the LOC.&#8221; Strobe, Sandy, Rick and I had drafted this key sentence during
the break. The statement also called for a ceasefire once the withdrawal was
completed and restoration of the Lahore process. Finally, the statement included a
reaffirmation of the President&#8217;s long standing plans to visit South Asia.
The President was clear and firm. Sharif had a choice, withdraw behind the LOC
and the moral compass would tilt back toward Pakistan or stay and fight a wider and
dangerous war with India without American sympathy. Sharif read the statement
several times quietly. He asked to talk with his team and we adjourned again.
After a few minutes Sharif returned with good news. The statement was acceptable
with one addition. Sharif wanted a sentence added that would say &#8220;the President
would take personal interest to encourage an expeditious resumption and intensification
of the bilateral efforts (i.e. Lahore) once the sanctity of the LOC had been
fully restored.&#8221;
The President handed the sentence to me and asked my opinion. I said we could
easily agree to this because the President already supported the Lahore process but
we need a clear understanding on how we would portray the LOC issue &#8212; we
would need to explain to our press that this language meant a Pakistani withdrawal.
Clinton agreed and told Sharif that was his intention. Reluctantly, the Prime Minister
said yes. The mood changed in a nano-second. Clinton told Sharif that they had tested their
personal relationship hard that day but they had reached the right ending. Once the
withdrawal from Kargil was done the U.S. would have more credibility with India
and the President expressed his determination to do what he could on Kashmir.
The President called Vajpayee to preview the statement.
As the U.S. delegation was exiting the door from Blair House, Sharif&#8217;s Foreign
Secretary Ahmad, made a last minute effort to reopen the text. He approached
Sandy Berger with a list of alterations in the text. Sandy dismissed him with a curt
&#8216;your boss says it is ok as is.&#8217;
The press briefing by Rick and I was a tough event. The journalists were convinced
there must be some quid for Pakistani withdrawal. We made clear there was none.


----------



## Khalids

*AFTERMATH &#8212; NEW DEAL IN NEW DELHI,
COUP IN ISLAMABAD*
Sharif came to the White House early the next morning for a photo op with his
family and the President. His mood was glum, he was not looking forward to the
trip home. The Prime Minister knew he had done the right thing for Pakistan and
the world, but he was not sure his army would see it that way. He stopped in
London and Riyadh on the way home. Both our allies gave him their support.
The Prime Minister was good to his word. He ordered his army to pull back its men
and its allies and they did so. India was jubilant, Pakistan morose. The fighting had
taken a toll. Estimates of the dead on both sides vary. Indians usually claim 1300
killed on both sides, Pakistanis cite around 1700.
The President also lived up to his word. As soon as the Pakistani forces were back
across the LOC he pressed India for a cease-fire in the Kargil sector. After this occurred he privately invited Sharif to send a senior trusted official to Washington to
begin discrete discussions on how to follow up on his &#8220;personal commitment&#8221; to the
Lahore process.
It soon became apparent, however, that all was not well in Islamabad. For weeks
the Prime Minister did not respond to our queries to send someone to discuss Kashmir.
The only explanation offered was that it was difficult to decide whom the right
person combining the PM&#8217;s trust and the background on Kashmir was. We concluded
the Pakistani internal situation was not ripe for Sharif to take action.
Finally in September Sharif sent his brother, the governor of Lahore, to Washington
for the long awaited discussions. Rick Inderfurth and I met with him for hours in his
suite at the Willard Hotel. A day-long downpour of rain made the capital a wet and
dreary place.
We tried to get a feel for how the Prime Minister wanted to pursue the Kashmir
issue. Instead, Shahbaz Sharif only wanted to discuss what the U.S. could do to
help his brother stay in power. He all but said that they knew a military coup was
coming.
On October 12, 1999 it came. Ironically, it was Nawaz who provoked the coup&#8217;s
timing by trying to exile Musharraf when he was on an official visit to Sri Lanka. His
plane was denied permission to return to Karachi or anywhere in Pakistan. The
military rebelled and forced open the airport. Within hours, Nawaz was in jail and
the army was in control.
The President instructed the NSC to do all we could to convince the new Pakistani
leadership not to execute Sharif as General Zia had executed Prime Minister Bhutto
in 1978. That outcome would have been a horrible one for all Pakistanis and would
have considerably set back the country&#8217;s already slim hope of a better future. The President urged Musharraf to let Sharif free. With our encouragement the Saudis
pressed hard for Sharif&#8217;s freedom. Finally, in December 2000 Sharif was exiled to
the Saudi Arabian Kingdom.
Why did Sharif agree to withdraw on the fourth? Only the former Prime Minister
can answer this question authoritatively. What is clear is that President Clinton was
direct and forceful with him at Blair House &#8212; there were no options except withdrawal
or isolation. Whatever hopes Sharif and the rest of the Pakistani leadership
had of getting American support for their Kargil adventure vanished that afternoon
in Washington.
The most important strategic result of the Blair House summit was its impact on
Indo-U.S. relations. The clarity of the American position on Kargil and its refusal to
give Pakistan any reward for its aggression had an immediate and dynamic impact
on the relationship. Doors opened in New Delhi to Americans that had been shut
for years. The Indian elite &#8212; including the military &#8212; and the Indian public began
to shed long held negative perceptions of the U.S.
The stage was set for the unprecedented back to back summits between President
Clinton and Prime Minister Vajpayee in 2000. After a quarter century gap in Presidential
visits to India, Clinton&#8217;s spring visit symbolized a new level of maturity in the
relationship between the world&#8217;s two largest democracies. Vajpayee&#8217;s return visit
formalized the commitment.
President Bush has accelerated and intensified the process of U.S.-India rapprochement.
After the September 11th attacks on America, he lifted the Glenn sanctions
imposed after the 1998 tests and welcomed Vajpayee to the Oval Office. U.S.
relations with Pakistan have substantially improved as well thanks to the Musharraf&#8217;s
government&#8217;s role in the war against the Taliban and Usama bin Ladin, a striking
reversal of earlier Pakistani policy. But the tensions following the attack on the Indian Parliament show the Kashmir issue remains as dangerous today, however, as
it was in 1999, a time bomb capable of exploding upon the subcontinent with little or
no warning.

*The End*


----------



## Khajur

qsaark said:


> For how long you are on this forum? Have you not yet understood the mindset of the most of the Pakistanis in general and the Pakistanis in Armed Forces in particular? Have you not sensed the false superiority complex of Pakistanis? Have you not yet sensed that we (not all of us though) think of you as lowly, vegetarian, dark-skinned, short-heighted and cowardly Hindus? Why you are still failed to find out the 'weird bunch of reasons'?



"*Have you not yet sensed that we (not all of us though) think of you as lowly, vegetarian, dark-skinned, short-heighted and cowardly Hindus*?"

sir,

*haha, U cant be more right in explicitly clubbing together things what i refered as "weird bunch of reasons".*

And i'm old enough in my age to be careful not to be hurtful towards my hosts here as guest on a pakistani forum and *again i've been here long enough to know that smart members can easily infer what i meant by "weird bunch of reasons".*

So i didnt fail to find out ,but just stopped on my way to explain them fully.

Because i think i see lot many indians who exhibit " socalled pakistnai attitude towards indians" among each other.Yaa , there are lot many indians with *rough macho attitude *same characteristics we see here also championed by many pakistanis.

* Now seriously speaking,the way i see it...i would blame these miscalculations more as desperation on part of the pakistani establishments where it want to act on any plan with slightest hope of pushing its own agenda in the whole kashmir dispute while often disregarding practicality of such plans .*

*Pakistan is desparate about kashmir for very understandable reasons.So kargil debacle or not will repeat itself in future.*


----------



## inayatali

Real truth Kargil WAR.. 

There are two truths about Kargil. The first one is the version of defeatist Pakistanis who cant see us doing any good. And the second truth is the Indian one. 
Surprisingly, some fair minded former Indian army officers are willing to give a balanced verdict on the Pakistani performance in Kargil than the ridiculous assessments of some defeatist and self-hating Pakistanis who have no problem making fun of their homeland and their military just because they differ politically with Gen. Pervez Musharraf. 

I would like to give some of these defeatist Pakistanis a shock: The revealing statement to a Pakistani newspaper, The News, of an Indian army officer having something good to say about the Pakistani military capability as demonstrated in Kargil in 1999. Some of the defeatist, self-hating Pakistanis will find this difficult to swallow since they are more accustomed to criticizing Pakistan, not praising it. 

Read the letter below by retired Col. Harish Puri from the Indian armys Corps of Signals. He uses many of the Indian propaganda lines that raise doubts about the end result of the Pakistani operation, how the Indian people came together in those days to support their military, and how Islamabad underestimated the Indian response. 

All propaganda points. But then he makes two points very clear that I wish some of those self-hating defeatist Pakistanis, especially the ones in our English-language liberal newspapers, read and feel some shame  just a little  about how they have been putting Pakistan down whenever discussing Kargil and facilitating the propaganda victory of the other side.

The two points that Col. Puri makes are:


It is correct to praise the brilliance of the Pakistani tactical maneuver of stealthily occupying the heights and the massive Indian intelligence failure exploited by the Pakistani military. 


The Pakistani military in professional terms ranks among the best in the world, along with the Indian army according to Col. Puri. The implicit irony here is that India is fives times larger than Pakistan. For Islamabad to create this balance of power in just five decades is a Pakistani achievement. 

This is not about clearing the name of Gen. Musharraf. History, and military analysts, will do that. Our job here is just to tell those few, self-bashing, defeatist-minded Pakistanis this: Please spare us your self-hatred. We are good at anything we want to be good at if we put our mind into it. Celebrate your strength instead of wallowing in your weaknesses.




Kargil  nine years later


Letters to the editor, The News International, Karachi.


Sunday, May 18, 2008

This is in reference to an article Kargil  none years on by Brigadier Sher Khan published in your newspaper on May 6. It was an absorbing article which transported me back to my days in the Indian army, and that particular conflict. My reflections, nine years on, focus on the utter futility of the whole exercise  it doesnt matter which side youre on, a soldiers life is always precious, and sadly, expendable as well.

Youre right about the brilliance of the tactical manoeuvre of occupying the heights so stealthily, and about the massive intelligence failure on our part. But the 
Pakistan army underestimated both the ferocity of the Indian reaction as well as the resolve of the Indian nation  never have I seen an entire population come together as one nation as in those days. That was heady stuff  a young Capt Vikram Batra declaring Yeh dil maange more only to lose his life the next day. And the bravado of Capt Kamal Sher Khan is the stuff legends are made of. But, in the ultimate analysis, to what end?

War is too dangerous a game to be left to generals alone. Fortunately in India, the civilians call the shots, and Vajpayees conscious decision not to allow his troops to cross the LoC was a major factor for Indias gaining the high moral ground.

But let us as army men salute the spirit of the soldiers on both sides  professionally, both our armies rank among the best in the world.

Col (retd) Harish Puri 

Indian Army (Corps of Signals),

Pune, India



pakistani1 added 2 Minutes and 32 Seconds later...

The Kargil Conflict between Pakistan and India took place in Kashmir between May and July 1999, the objective of the whole conflict was to cut off the link between Kashmir and Ladakh by hitting National Highway No.1 (NH 1) and cause Indian forces to withdraw from the Siachen Glacier forcing India to negotiate and resolve the decade old Kashmir dispute. 




Detailed map of Control Line showing the flash points Kargil and Drass sectors with NH 1 passing along them. 




Controlling the peaks of Kargil 




Pakistan Army shelling Indian Army positions. 




A Mujahid takes position on a ridge in a battle with the Indian Army during the Kargil conflict. 




Pak Army soldiers with the tail of Indian fighter jet MiG-27 in Hunzi Ghund in Pakistan territory.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## qsaark

inayatali said:


> Real truth Kargil WAR..


The real truth about the Kargil conflict is, Pakistan achieved nothing. India has another route to supply its troops in Siachen. However, that route is not all-weather. Neither militarily, nor politically, nor morally did Pakistan achieve anything. During the conflict, even our friends kept a distance with us and internationally we got isolated. 

What changed after the Kargil? Did UN adopt another resolution to hold free and fair elections in Kashmir so that they can decide if they want to go with Pakistan? Or did the Indian troops stop killing the Kashmiris? Or did we get Siachen back? *Just give me one result that went in the favor of Pakistan after Kargil, just one*.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## chindit

DAWN.COM | Columnists | Brass of a very special kind




> Quote:
> THIS past week the Commando, and his sidekick the Private Banker, or shall we say Tweedledum and Tweedledee, were interviewed by a private TV channel in London, where they live in the lap of luxury after shoving the country into the pit it is in. By gad, do they have brass, the both of them!
> 
> The most interesting part of the Commandos interview was the Kargil misadventure. As usual, he stood the matter on its head and, again as usual, fibbed away to glory with panache, and flair that only the very brazen have, and asserted that he never advised Nawaz Sharif that we should withdraw from Kargil.
> 
> On the July 3, 1999, the Commando tells us, he briefed the defence committee of the cabinet on the military aspects of Kargil. He says he told the DCC that of the five places (whatever the term means), the Indians had only taken one back; had taken two or three posts in one, and that three were completely untouched because they did not even know we were there  un ko pataa hee nahin tha.
> 
> He also analysed a limited war with India in Kashmir, whatever that means, as also the air and naval aspects of a total war with India. According to himself, he told Nawaz Sharif and 15 others present there, including the air and navy chiefs, that we were militarily alright and that the Indians were on a very, very weak wicket. They were weak said the Commando because they had moved all their forces to Kargil as also all their artillery. ALL their forces; ALL their artillery?! Little wonder that we got ourselves in the sort of trouble that we did under his able command, what?
> 
> Throughout the briefing, says the Commando, Nawaz Sharif kept asking him if we should withdraw from Kargil to which he replied that he had given his military assessment and that it was now for the prime minister to take the political decision.
> 
> Then he goes into the details of how, a day later, he was called back from a weekend in Murree with his family  this weekend at a time that our poorly equipped and poorly fed soldiers were dying in Kargil please note  to meet Nawaz Sharif at the Islamabad airport where the PM told him he was off to Washington, and asked him yet again if we should withdraw from Kargil. To which he answered as theretofore.
> 
> Of course, the Commando conveniently forgot to tell us poor Pakistanis who were witness to the Kargil disaster these many years ago, and who were now listening agog to this nonsense, that his tight buddy Marine Gen Anthony Zinni, then commander US Central Command, had visited Pakistan in the third week of June and had met him first and then the PM.
> 
> In Gen Zinnis own words in his book Battle Ready (GP Putnams Sons): I was  directed by the administration to head a presidential mission to Pakistan to convince Prime Minister Sharif and General Musharraf to withdraw their forces from Kargil. I met with the Pakistani leaders in Islamabad on June 24 and 25 and put forth a simple rationale for withdrawing: If you dont pull back, youre going to bring war and nuclear annihilation down on your country. Thats going to be very bad news for everybody.
> 
> Nobody actually quarreled with this rationale. The problem for the Pakistani leadership was the apparent national loss of face. Backing down and pulling back to the Line of Control looked like political suicide. We needed to come up with a face-saving way out of this mess. What we were able to offer was a meeting with President Clinton, which would end the isolation that had long been the state of affairs between our two countries, but we would announce the meeting only after a withdrawal of forces. That got Musharrafs attention and he encouraged Prime Minister Sharif to hear me out.
> 
> Sharif was reluctant to withdraw before the meeting with Clinton was announced (again, his problem was maintaining face); but after I insisted, he finally came around and he ordered the withdrawal. We set up a meeting with Clinton in July.
> 
> Again, exactly a year later (June 20, 2000) this is what Gen Zinni said in Abu Dhabi: I talked to Mr Sharif and the chief of staff and convinced them to take steps to ease tensions and to withdraw from Kargil. They agreed. There was no interest I found in the Pakistanis to see the situation escalate beyond control from either side and they cooperated, making the decision on their own, he said.
> 
> If this doesnt prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the Commando played fast and free with his office and the authority flowing from it then nothing will; from first starting Kargil, and then lying about how well we were doing. Nor was this the only misstatement of facts indulged in by him during the interview which the interviewer should have pointed out. In the matter of the mayhem in Swat, and the delayed action of the security establishment, he has tried to put the main blame on the elected government that was nowhere on the scene when he and his cohorts were making a mess of things.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shiji

Why is that every person who talks about Kargil War in Pakistan is always negative? We have been watching so much Indian NEWS that our minds are filled with the nonsense which they want. Kargil war was nothing more then a skirmish fought on the PA could have made extensive territorial gains into India if Nawaz Sharif hadn't been thinking about his damn seat. Also Indian Causalities were very high as compared to PA's. 
Every Pakistani believes in anything that the Politicians say, Nawaz Sharif said we lost 3000+ soldiers just to come into power and disgrace Musharaf, and our people believe that which is really sad. Also who gives the FRIGGIN RIGHT to our politicians to use the Army for their stupid "Power" Game.


----------



## Always Neutral

Shiji said:


> Why is that every person who talks about Kargil War in Pakistan is always negative? We have been watching so much Indian NEWS that our minds are filled with the nonsense which they want. Kargil war was nothing more then a skirmish fought on the PA could have made extensive territorial gains into India if Nawaz Sharif hadn't been thinking about his damn seat. Also Indian Causalities were very high as compared to PA's.
> Every Pakistani believes in anything that the Politicians say, Nawaz Sharif said we lost 3000+ soldiers just to come into power and disgrace Musharaf, and our people believe that which is really sad. Also who gives the FRIGGIN RIGHT to our politicians to use the Army for their stupid "Power" Game.



Why not have an open inquiry and let the truth come out ?

The PA will never let it happen. If that happens then

Gen M will be living in the house next door to AQK

Regards

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## chindit

Shiji said:


> the PA could have made extensive territorial gains into India if Nawaz Sharif hadn't been thinking about his damn seat..


Read the above article - it says withdrawal was Musharraf's idea as well. why blame takloo for it?



Shiji said:


> Also who gives the FRIGGIN RIGHT to our politicians to use the Army for their stupid "Power" Game.



because the army launches stupid offensives without war gaming the consquences


----------



## pakomar

We did well in Kargil
1.Pakistani strength was 5000 facing 30,000 Indians.
2.Pakistani troops got no air support where Indian got full air support.
3.Pakistani troop&#8217;s morale was high before and after the war by facing such number of odds and gave Indian hard time.
4.Pakistanis shows there stealth and create fear in Indians heart that Pakistani army is near you.
5.Pakistan did achieve something by showing Indian that heavy equipment and number do not matter.


----------



## pakomar

Remember Pakistani withdraw from kargil and never surrender. Pakistani men fought in kargil were never defeated.
Pakistan army zindabad
Pakistan paindabad


----------



## Su 30mki

pakomar said:


> Remember Pakistani withdraw from kargil and never surrender. Pakistani men fought in kargil were never defeated.
> Pakistan army zindabad
> Pakistan paindabad



Oh really?

1) Can Please tell what are the position of Pak Army in India When the Kargil Start? 

2) What are position of Pak Army when kargil End (when they start Withdrawn)? 

3) If War run for one more Month , Those positions was also been cleared by then.


----------



## sarthak

pakomar said:


> Remember Pakistani withdraw from kargil and never surrender. Pakistani men fought in kargil were never defeated.
> Pakistan army zindabad
> Pakistan paindabad




yeah right

No wonder nawaz sharif begged bill clinton for help

No wonder nawaz sharif admitted that pakistan had less than 2 weeks of fuel left to engage in a war because indian navy had blocked all pakistani ports 

No wonder US requested india to enforce a ceasefire

You are right , you won


----------



## Zob

*Gen Zinni&#8217;s own words in his book Battle Ready (GP Putnam&#8217;s Sons): &#8216;I was &#8230; directed by the administration to head a presidential mission to Pakistan to convince Prime Minister Sharif and General Musharraf to withdraw their forces from Kargil. I met with the Pakistani leaders in Islamabad on June 24 and 25 and put forth a simple rationale for withdrawing: &#8216;If you don&#8217;t pull back, you&#8217;re going to bring war and nuclear annihilation down on your country. That&#8217;s going to be very bad news for everybody&#8217;.*


well this sums it up....pakistan was winning and inorder to ease the pressure INDIA was threatning to open a new front 1965 repeated....the only diffrence this time was the NUKES.....india imported coffins...india engaged 3 divisions and changed military commanders repeatedly!! 

pakistans flawed policy was that airforce & navy were kept in the darkness...so was our PM....& we never expected ISRAEL to send in PODS to be fitted on the indian mirages!!


----------



## Zob

@ sarthak can you give me a link saying we had 2 weeks of fuel left & india was blocking our ports....


----------



## chindit

Zob said:


> *Gen Zinnis own words in his book Battle Ready (GP Putnams Sons): I was  directed by the administration to head a presidential mission to Pakistan to convince Prime Minister Sharif and General Musharraf to withdraw their forces from Kargil. I met with the Pakistani leaders in Islamabad on June 24 and 25 and put forth a simple rationale for withdrawing: If you dont pull back, youre going to bring war and nuclear annihilation down on your country. Thats going to be very bad news for everybody.*
> 
> 
> well this sums it up....pakistan was winning and inorder to ease the pressure INDIA was threatning to open a new front 1965 repeated....the only diffrence this time was the NUKES.....india imported coffins...india engaged 3 divisions and changed military commanders repeatedly!!
> 
> pakistans flawed policy was that airforce & navy were kept in the darkness...so was our PM....& we never expected ISRAEL to send in PODS to be fitted on the indian mirages!!



winning my a** . From zinnis account, everyone in pakistan was interested in saving face and withdrawing. NO country withdraws from a winning position . 

and if INdia was threatening to open a 2nd front and you guys were not ready - sorry you guys were NOT winning at all


----------



## chindit

> . There were constant reports of our troops on the LOC disturbed to see, or hear, IAF fighters operating with apparent impunity.





> After one week of CAPs, the F-16 maintenance personnel indicated that war reserve spares were being eaten into and that the activity had to be rationalised, a euphemism for discontinuing it altogether.



and the PAF stayed away from battle



> All the same, it gave the enemy no pretext for retaliation in the face of any provocation



and if you were winning why did this happen?



> Come change-over time of the Chief of Air Staff in 2001, President Musharraf struck at PAFs top leadership in what can only be described as implacable action: he passed over all five Air Marshals and appointed the sixth-in-line who was practically an Air Vice Marshal till a few weeks before. While disregarding of seniority in the appointment of service chiefs has historically been endemic in the country, the practice has been seen as breeding nepotism and partiality, besides leaving a trail of conjecture and gossip in the ranks.



yes, you guys were winning, we were licked.


----------



## pakomar

For both sarthak and Su 30mki
Brave Pakistani men fought in kargil were trained in guerilla warfare. As you know that in guerilla warfare men are not supported by war machine like infantry in convectional warfare. In guerilla warfare only thing they have is time a lots and lots and lots of time, in kargil case these men were given the time needed to finished the job.


Do n t give me the bullshit of nawaz sharif begging . Do n t forget it was Indians also pleading in front of international community.


----------



## Zob

@chindit

if india was defeating us in kargil why was it threatning to open another front....just crush us where you are "ALREADY WINNING" & the enemy is in retreat!! why open more fronts???

well convinently you quoted the part you wanted to and forgot to mention the part that PAF was never asked its opinon about the matter & read the last line PAF discontinued flights....PAF lacked BVRs...

i guess you are not much of an airforce man are you...?

in 1965 when we were capturing AKHNUR india to release the pressure attacked the international border at SIALKOT....

in 1971 we were losing in East PAKISTAN...we opened up the Western border.....

in 1999 india was actually engaging divisions against a few handful of soldiers and height was on our side...


INDIA won the MEDIA war and since then INDIAN media never looked back...and just moved ahead leaps and bounds in media warfare and propaganda!! hands down media war INDIA is victorious compared to pakistan till today even in the 2008 stand off we were made the "AGRESSORS" in indian media & we were provoking!!


----------



## chindit

> well convinently you quoted the part you wanted to and forgot to mention the part that PAF was never asked its opinon about the matter & read the last line PAF discontinued flights....PAF lacked BVRs...





Never try to fight a war that you know you cannot win. If you withdrew from Kargil - you lost  - period. no amount of excuses and blaming takloo or uncle sam will change that fact.

if PAF doesnt have BVR , then what? next you will say, PAF did not have MiG-29s, PAF did not have a forward airbase - excuses excuses.


----------



## ashokc

kargil is the best thing pakistan did to bring indians together. Other that that we are busy burning ourselves on reservation, riots and then came kargil and we all became indians. 

general indian attitude is:
10 people died in bomb blast - who cares These pakistani terrorists are not up to the mark.sikhs were better. miss those radios.

1000000000 died in tsunami- who cares.is it safe to have fish now? no fish for one week. 

pak attacks india in kargil - who cares. junk fellows dont they have snow in pakistan? will i get leave if they attack 

china says india stole their land....--- these chinese are real slow...now they are realising after so many years.....they thought they won the 62 war. but land is still with us. 



month end:
30% salary cut for war tax - ayyo we have war.

we all paid our taxes for the first and last time and became indians.


----------



## shravan

http://www.zeenews.com/news333670.html

That was the mistake we did.


----------



## chindit

ashokc there was no war tax - whachyootakinabout?


----------



## ashokc

i think it was called kargil surcharge. i am very bad in tax things. so may be wrong in calling it a tax.


----------



## chindit

ashokc said:


> i think it was called kargil surcharge. i am very bad in tax things. so may be wrong in calling it a tax.



I am sorry you are mistaken. there was no surcharge at any point of time. and nothing in the range of 30% or even 5%


----------



## ashokc

i
outlookmoney.com: No taxing problem

has the comparison when it was removed.


----------



## sarthak

Zob said:


> @ sarthak can you give me a link saying we had 2 weeks of fuel left & india was blocking our ports....



Sure dude.

This is an extract from a long article on kargil war from wikipedia
Kargil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

India discovers infiltration and mobilizes
Initially, these incursions were not detected for a number of reasons: Indian patrols were not sent into some of the areas infiltrated by the Pakistani forces and heavy artillery fire by Pakistan in some areas provided cover for the infiltrators. But by the second week of May, the ambushing of an Indian patrol team, acting on a tip-off by a local shepherd in the Batalik sector, led to the exposure of the infiltration. Initially with little knowledge of the nature or extent of the encroachment, the Indian troops in the area assumed that the infiltrators were jihadis and claimed that they would evict them within a few days. Subsequent discovery of infiltration elsewhere along the LoC, and the difference in tactics employed by the infiltrators, caused the Indian army to realize that the entire plan of attack was on a much bigger scale. The total area seized by the ingress is generally accepted to between 130 km² - 200 km²;[28][34] Musharraf however, stated that 500 square miles (1,300 km²) of Indian territory was occupied.[31]

The Government of India responded with Operation Vijay, a mobilisation of 200,000 Indian troops. However, because of the nature of the terrain, division and corps operations could not be mounted; the scale of the subsequent fighting was mostly at the regimental or battalion level. In effect, two divisions of the Indian Army,[35] numbering 20,000, plus several thousand from the Paramilitary forces of India and the air force were deployed in the conflict zone. The total number of Indian soldiers that were involved in the military operation on the Kargil-Drass sector was thus close to 30,000. The number of infiltrators, including those providing logistical backup, has been put at approximately 5,000 at the height of the conflict.[12][28][33] This figure includes troops from Pakistan-administered Kashmir that were involved in the war providing additional artillery support.

The Indian Air Force launched Operation Safed Sagar in support of the mobilization of Indian land forces, but its effectiveness during the war was limited by the high altitude, which in turn limited bomb loads and the number of airstrips that could be used.

*The Indian Navy also readied itself for an attempted blockade of Pakistani ports (primarily Karachi port)[36] to cut off supply routes.[37] Later, the then-Prime Minister of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif disclosed that Pakistan was left with just six days of fuel to sustain itself if a full-fledged war had broken out.[12]*

I can give you several other links if you dont beleive me . Its just that wikipedia is the most reliable .


----------



## chindit

Okay I understand the confusion. The Kargil Surcharge is a "tax on tax" its not a direct tax. Say if your income was 1,00,000 Rupees and your Income tax is calculated to be 30&#37; - i.e Rs30,000 is your income tax. Then the Kargil Surcharge of 10% to 15% is that on the tax amount (i.e Rs 3,000 to Rs 4,500) . In effect the surcharge is less than 5% of your total income. Essentially, while I may have been paying 30% of income tax before, with the surcharge on, I will be paying 33%

In 1999, if you were earning 1 lac per year, you were a top earner!


----------



## Zob

*I can give you several other links if you dont beleive me . Its just that wikipedia is the most reliable . *

yes please other links i am not a big wikipedia fan unlike most of my indian counterparts!! 

and as for a withdrawl well defeat on the battlefield never occured...according to ZEE NEWS,STAR NEWS,NDTV you won good for you whatever let's you sleep at night boys....

this video has not much to do with kargil but kind of shows the truth behind indian army false claims....


----------



## ashokc

Zob said:


> *I can give you several other links if you dont beleive me . Its just that wikipedia is the most reliable . *
> 
> yes please other links i am not a big wikipedia fan unlike most of my indian counterparts!!
> 
> and as for a withdrawl well defeat on the battlefield never occured...according to ZEE NEWS,STAR NEWS,NDTV you won good for you whatever let's you sleep at night boys....
> 
> this video has not much to do with kargil but kind of shows the truth behind indian army false claims....
> 
> fzolnqTdapk[/media] - Indian Army Chief refused to reply Pakistani Army Brigadier in New Delhi (face to face)


kerosine smell


----------



## Su 30mki

pakomar said:


> For both sarthak and Su 30mki
> Brave Pakistani men fought in kargil were trained in guerilla warfare. As you know that in guerilla warfare men are not supported by war machine like infantry in convectional warfare. In guerilla warfare only thing they have is time a lots and lots and lots of time, in kargil case these men were given the time needed to finished the job.
> 
> 
> Do n t give me the bullshit of nawaz sharif begging . Do n t forget it was Indians also pleading in front of international community.



Their is not doubt they fight bravely, Well if you know your entire Big artillery guns are pounding round the clock in support of them. 

What job they finished? What was their job ? To hold the ground but they start losing the ground with time. 

India never pledge, its international Comm asking India to forgive PAK, and see how Nawaz Run to America and PAK Gen run to China and while Indian Sitting at home.


----------



## Su 30mki

Zob said:


> @chindit
> 
> if india was defeating us in kargil why was it threatning to open another front....just crush us where you are "ALREADY WINNING" & the enemy is in retreat!! why open more fronts???
> 
> well convinently you quoted the part you wanted to and forgot to mention the part that PAF was never asked its opinon about the matter & read the last line PAF discontinued flights....PAF lacked BVRs...
> 
> i guess you are not much of an airforce man are you...?
> 
> in 1965 when we were capturing AKHNUR india to release the pressure attacked the international border at SIALKOT....
> 
> in 1971 we were losing in East PAKISTAN...we opened up the Western border.....
> 
> in 1999 india was actually engaging divisions against a few handful of soldiers and height was on our side...
> 
> 
> INDIA won the MEDIA war and since then INDIAN media never looked back...and just moved ahead leaps and bounds in media warfare and propaganda!! hands down media war INDIA is victorious compared to pakistan till today even in the 2008 stand off we were made the "AGRESSORS" in indian media & we were provoking!!



Yea but who knows the real number of those Handfull solders ??PAk gen not ready to tell anything about kargil to pak people.


----------



## Zob

after reading the last 3 posts i think there is no more point in discussing this further because nothing substantial is coming up....except just indian media claims....so whatever let's you sleep at night....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## irfan1173

Investigating Kargil

Investigating Kargil
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Taj M Khattak

'What have you done, my friend, Nawaz Sharif?' was how, as narrated in Bill Clinton's memoirs My Life, the Clinton-Nawaz discourse began soon after the photo-op at the steps of the White House on July 4, 1999. Nawaz Sharif had embarked on that fateful sojourn a little over ten years ago for a face-saving climb-down from Kargil. It triggered politico-military consequences for the country and within a span of another three months, Sharif was overthrown, and the country is still reeling from its effects. Musharraf's unceremonious exit after a rule of nearly nine years has made little or no difference at all.

During much of the eight week period preceding the July 4 meeting in Washington, we had looked helplessly at TV images of pinpoint artillery shoots and resultant instant pulverization of some of the nation's bravest sons on such mountainous salients in the war zone as Point 5140 (Dras), Point 5203 ( Batalik), Three Pimples (Dras) and Tiger Hill.

'Operation Badr', as it was called, was launched to coincide with thawing of snow and summer opening of India's National Highway 1A, which links Srinagar to Leh via Kargil. Regular army personnel of the Northern Light Infantry, supported by special forces, artillery, engineers and other combat support personnel, in the garb of mujahideen and under a well-executed cover plan, infiltrated through gaps into Indian territory to occupy mountain tops between the LoC and the highway at several points.

It is a historical fact that any surreptitious military operations, executed howsoever brilliantly and courageously, are unfortunately of no real consequences, unless backed by such other elements of national power as a robust foreign policy, vibrant economy, national consensus, a cause based on sound internationally acknowledged principles and above all a zeitgeist for what a country sets about to achieve.

As the then Indian Army Chief, General V P Malik observed: "Militarily this situation could not have been better for Pakistan after the incursions, since its troops were inside India and had occupied strategic heights along the highway. Had they stayed, they could have cut off the supply route to Leh along the 160 kilometres LoC, seriously affecting Indian's ability to move, re-deploy or augment troops from one sector to another. They were poised to launch operations in Turtuk close to southern Siachen glacier and re-draw the LoC in Dras-Kargil-Batalik-Turtuk sectors. Intensified, enlarged or prolonged fighting would have enabled them to draw the world's attention to Jammu and Kashmir and a war between two nuclear nations."

So far so good &#8211; but beyond that, it appears, it was all lost on our military and political leaders.

At the height of the crisis, Benazir Bhutto had disclosed in an interview to Third Eye Television that President Pervez Musharraf had brought the Kargil plan to her when she was prime minister (when he was director-general military operations) and that she had rejected it.

The Indian army too is by this bug; venturing into Siachen under a similar impulse, and to date India retains under its control an area of the glacier of some 900-1000 square miles. Pakistan launched quite a few efforts to push back the Indians from a nearly 43 miles icy front, the most significant one being in 1984 with a sizeable troop's concentration at Khapalu spearheaded by elite SSG elements, but this was repulsed by the Indians.

This failure too reportedly bears Musharraf's hallmark signatures as one of the masterminds and planners. The 'Banna Post' named after Naib Subedar Banna Singh (the only Param Veer Chakra recipient of the Kargil conflict), taken away from us in fierce hand-to-hand combat in broad daylight, continues to be an eyesore on an otherwise glistening and pristine glacier. The Pakistan Army has just celebrated 'Year of the Soldier'. No prizes for guessing who would win hands down any contest for the 'The Most Failed Soldier of the Decade', were there to be any nominations.

But herein lies the whole irony; the Indian army exploited a 'lack of clarity' in a border demarcation agreement and occupied stretches of glacier which were open to different interpretations. The Pakistan army was trying to change lines over which wars had been fought and which, over a period, had morphed from a ceasefire line post-1965 to line of control after Simla Agreement. This fundamental difference, if not clear to the small coterie of Kargil planners, would have been clearer, had there been a broader consultative decision-making process.

The Hamoodur Rahman Commission on the 1971 debacle had observed that the commander-in-chief of the Pakistan Navy learnt about the outbreak of war from the news bulletin on Radio Pakistan. Mainly as a result of this report, naval and air headquarters were shifted from Karachi and Peshawar to Islamabad at tremendous cost to the national exchequer. The National Defence College (NDC) was established at Rawalpindi to jointly train potential senior officers from the three services in the art of war. A Joint Services Headquarters was established to chalk out joint operational plans.

It was hoped that as a result of such measures, a generation of officers would foster closer tri-services understanding, and make joint operational planning more sensible. It is evident from the Kargil misadventure that this is not happening. The bonhomie and camaraderie garnered at the NDC, it seems, is only for extending mundane favors to fellow senior officers from time to time and never quite put to higher national purpose.

At best, Kargil was a tactical surprise -- beyond that it failed at the strategic level. After some hesitation and denials, we accepted the mortal remains of Captain Colonel Sher Khan and Havaldar Lalak Jan and honoured them with the highest gallantry awards, as praise for their courage by the enemy was becoming too embarrassing. There was of course no compunction or embarrassment in promoting/rewarding the four generals largely perceived to bear prime responsibility for the fiasco.

The Hamoodur Rehman commission report remained shrouded in mystery for over three decades, with people remaining unaware all this while as to why exactly we lost East Pakistan, till portions of it were beamed at us only recently from across the border forcing us to release it in its totality. On Kargil too, the people of Pakistan to this day are unaware as to what actually happened and why we drifted to the precipice of a potentially disastrous conflict.

What is known at best are nebulous and hazy facts between Musharraf's now famous 'everyone was onboard' quip to the BBC reporter, the phone call intercept between General Aziz and Musharraf and Nawaz Sharif's approval in principle at a moment when his concentration, to the nation's misfortune, was at the lowest ebb. This is clearly not enough.

The central issue is not whether Nawaz Sharif, the elected civilian prime minister had given an approval in principle and was onboard. It is also not whether another prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, had vetoed the Kargil plan when it was presented to her. Rather, it is the near absolute obsession, of our brethren in Khaki with the LoC, and their inability to resist temptation to do something or the other with it at considerable peril to the country. This obsession has not waned since Ayub's era, without realization that the opportunity to etch the Kashmir border permanently in stone through military campaigns was lost forever, when the Indian Army beat us to the Srinagar airport in 1948 Kashmir War by landing a company strength of troops there. Since then, it has always been only this Line or that; with the square miles area under control of the two adversaries in Azad & Indian Held Kashmir being, more or less a constant.

For as long the LoC remains an LoC, there will always be a danger for another adventure if and when we are through with yesterday's mujahideen turned today's terrorists in Swat, Waziristan and other areas in the north. Isn't it time there was an exhaustive enquiry into it and the right lessons learnt for all time to come. In comparison with re-opening Zulfiquar Bhutto's judicial murder case, which the government is thinking about, it might be easier to investigate Kargil where at least most of the principal witnesses are still around. The chances of that, however, happening in a country where a retired chief of the air staff, has to seek permission from the incumbent COAS just to appear before a National Assembly/Senate Committee, are slim -- unless we undergo a cathartic experience in one form or the other, there will be no relief from this lingering national pain.



The writer is a retired vice-admiral and former vice-chief of the Naval Staff, Pakistan Navy. Email: tajkhattak@gmail.com

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## sarthak

Zob said:


> *I can give you several other links if you dont beleive me . Its just that wikipedia is the most reliable . *
> 
> yes please other links i am not a big wikipedia fan unlike most of my indian counterparts!!
> 
> and as for a withdrawl well defeat on the battlefield never occured...according to ZEE NEWS,STAR NEWS,NDTV you won good for you whatever let's you sleep at night boys....
> 
> this video has not much to do with kargil but kind of shows the truth behind indian army false claims....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If proof is all you want , then here you go .another non indian website
> 
> 1999 Kargil Conflict
> 
> 
> *In a skilful use of naval power in the form of Operation Talwar, the Eastern Fleet joined the Western Naval Fleet and blocked the Arabian sea routes of Pakistan. Apart from a deterrent, the former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharief later disclosed that Pakistan was left with just six days of fuel (POL) to sustain itself if a full fledged war broke out. *


----------



## Zob

jacko until and unless the KASHMIR issue is solved the indians don't realize both sides will keep sacrificing their children!!!


----------



## MilesTogo

I think Kargil approach is better than Mumbai...


----------



## pakomar

MilesTogo said:


> I think Kargil approach is better than Mumbai...



here we go again
Pakistan have to do nothing with Mumbai attacks.

anyway what are the Achievements in mumbai attacks?


----------



## chindit

pakomar said:


> here we go again
> Pakistan have to do nothing with Mumbai attacks.
> 
> anyway what are the Achievements in mumbai attacks?



after your own country admitted that kasab is your citizen - you sitll have nothing to do with mumbai?


----------



## pakomar

chindit said:


> after your own country admitted that kasab is your citizen - you sitll have nothing to do with mumbai?



How dumb you can be.... by being Pakistani citizen dose n t mean Pakistan government is evolved.

*Anyway what are the tactical achievements that Pakistan had in mind(Mumbai attacks)? *We all know the Pakistani goal of kargil war.
Answer the highlighted question which was raised by your fallow country man.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MilesTogo

pakomar said:


> here we go again
> Pakistan have to do nothing with Mumbai attacks.
> 
> anyway what are the Achievements in mumbai attacks?



for one a satisfying feeling you get from destroying your enemy


----------



## ashokc

chindit. pak gov didn't have a clue of mumbai stuff like in kargil.
I dont think anybody outside army would have known.


----------



## sergente rehan

MilesTogo said:


> for one a satisfying feeling you get from destroying your enemy



Mumbai attack was just a firing in a hotel killing few people...where is the satisfaction in all this? what did Pakistan achieved? who gained the real benefits? i think only India gained the benefits and damaged Pakistan image.

If you talked about satisfaction then few jews dead isn't really my ambition in life.....rather if there were a serial of bomb blasts or maybe better if bombay was wiped out then you can talk about some satisfaction! lol 

believe me there is no satisfaction in all this....killing some civilians gained no satisfaction and i've some serious doubts on all this case!


----------



## MilesTogo

sergente rehan said:


> Mumbai attack was just a firing in a hotel killing few people...where is the satisfaction in all this? what did Pakistan achieved? who gained the real benefits? i think only India gained the benefits and damaged Pakistan image.
> 
> If you talked about satisfaction then few jews dead isn't really my ambition in life.....rather if there were a serial of bomb blasts or maybe better if bombay was wiped out then you can talk about some satisfaction! lol
> 
> believe me there is no satisfaction in all this....killing some civilians gained no satisfaction and i've some serious doubts on all this case!



Thanks for sharing your true feelings...you are brave and honest


----------



## sergente rehan

MilesTogo said:


> Thanks for sharing your true feelings...you are brave and honest



maybe somebody missunderstood my comment...i was trying to say that killing innocent civilians won't give me any satisfaction bcz it's against moral and ethical principles, it's barbaric and inhuman, even if they are jews (bcz this will make me simlar to them for what they are doing to the poor innocent palestinians), it dosen't mean that this gives you the right to kill them...unless the UN approve some sort of law; the liberty to kill the jews (just kidding)!! lol    

P.S. Sorry for the off topic post.


----------



## pakomar

MilesTogo said:


> for one a satisfying feeling you get from destroying your enemy



It is base less to say Mumbai attacks were made to have satisfying feeling.
Those attacks did n t favor Pakistan in any way. We were put under pressure by US after Mumbai attacks.
What were the basic goals in Mumbai attack that favor Pakistan tell me.??????

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## pakomar

ashokc said:


> chindit. pak gov didn't have a clue of mumbai stuff like in kargil.
> I dont think anybody outside army would have known.



Pakistan government found out later about kargil. Army did n t tell the government because to was a covert operation. 
In case of Mumbai attacks I bet even the Indian intelligent agency do n t knows.


----------



## sergente rehan

pakomar said:


> Pakistan government found out later about kargil. Army did n t tell the government because to was a covert operation.
> In case of Mumbai attacks I bet even the Indian intelligent agency do n t knows.



dude to me it's smell like the samjohta express case!


----------



## ashokc

pakomar said:


> Pakistan government found out later about kargil. Army did n t tell the government because to was a covert operation.
> In case of Mumbai attacks I bet even the Indian intelligent agency do n t knows.



pako-mar,

true we did n't have a clue either.
our intelligence agency . some sheperds did better job in kargil. actually they would have done better in mumbai if they listened to fishermen. my idea is that we can replace our entire intelligence division with some sheperds and fishermen. works out cheaper and effective.


----------



## MilesTogo

pakomar said:


> It is base less to say Mumbai attacks were made to have satisfying feeling.
> Those attacks did n t favor Pakistan in any way. We were put under pressure by US after Mumbai attacks.
> What were the basic goals in Mumbai attack that favor Pakistan tell me.??????



to kill kafirs and same is true for the countless terror attacks that has happened in past so many years...

and in matters of faith, reason doesn't work. by looking for how it benefited Pakistani Muslims, you are insulting the sacrfice of all the Jihadis who died figthing for the cause of Allah...


----------



## pakomar

MilesTogo said:


> to kill kafirs and same is true for the countless terror attacks that has happened in past so many years...
> 
> and in matters of faith, reason doesn't work. by looking for how it benefited Pakistani Muslims, you are insulting the sacrfice of all the Jihadis who died figthing for the cause of Allah...



Pakistan have clear basic military objective in mind in kargil war. 
So now you are saying that in Mumbai attack the basic objective to kill civilians. (How it help Pakistan in any way) gave my one benefit that help Pakistan in Mumbai attacks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## pakomar

ashokc said:


> pako-mar,
> 
> true we did n't have a clue either.
> our intelligence agency . some sheperds did better job in kargil. actually they would have done better in mumbai if they listened to fishermen. my idea is that we can replace our entire intelligence division with some sheperds and fishermen. works out cheaper and effective.



You got it.
Make your intelligent agency capable and then talk. If Indian intelligent agencies are so dumb then how can you Indians say that Pakistan is involved?

Next time right my name right


----------



## sarthak

Its a lie that pak govt knew nothing about the kargil war.

Nawaz sharif was just as responsible as musharraf. He was informed about the whole plan. A big liar. A pak airforce pilot recently revealed that.

Thank god he's no longer in power


----------



## ashokc

pakomar said:


> You got it.
> Make your intelligent agency capable and then talk. If Indian intelligent agencies are so dumb then how can you Indians say that Pakistan is involved?
> 
> Next time right my name right


make our intelligence agency capable and talk. Boss i am not the prime minister of india.  
it is like saying clear isi of terrorist and talk. cant be done sorry.


----------



## Zob

ohhhhh boy KARGIL & MUMBAI.... to diffrent things...

but from the indian point of view....infact the MEDIA DRILLING they get.... pakistanis did MUMBAI because we are bloody savages who like destroying MOTHER INDIA....and spilling the blood of the DHARTI MAA KAAA BATAAY 


poor innocent india is unlucky to have savages like us as neighbours that out number INDIA ....but worry not my friends INDIA HAS SUNNY DEOL....hahahahaha and to coutner sunny deol we have ZAID HAMID.....


NOW CAN WE PLEASE GET BACK TO THE TOPIC of kargil.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## duhastmish

Zob said:


> ohhhhh boy KARGIL & MUMBAI.... to diffrent things...
> 
> but from the indian point of view....infact the MEDIA DRILLING they get.... pakistanis did MUMBAI because we are bloody savages who like destroying MOTHER INDIA....and spilling the blood of the DHARTI MAA KAAA BATAAY
> 
> 
> poor innocent india is unlucky to have savages like us as neighbours that out number INDIA ....but worry not my friends INDIA HAS SUNNY DEOL....hahahahaha and to coutner sunny deol we have ZAID HAMID.....
> 
> 
> NOW CAN WE PLEASE GET BACK TO THE TOPIC of kargil.....



Lol sunny deol - lmao - i like his dialogues such as : 

kutte! mai teri maa ka doodth pe jaunga!
------------------------
zaid hamid is another brother of him lool - bloody same shyt diffrent names.
----------------------

we all know Kargil was a bloody horrible scene for both the country . just to get some so called pseudo upper hand both countries denied the number of actual causality. leaving their soldiers behind. how bloody pathetic is that !!

*It showed pakistan the misadventure can cause some significant lose and they paid for overestimating themselves.

it showed India how horrible our intelligence and unprepared our army was. we paid for underestimating pakistan. *


----------



## Rajkumar

duhastmish said:


> Lol sunny deol - lmao - i like his dialogues such as :
> *
> kutte! mai teri maa ka doodth pe jaunga!
> ------------------------*
> zaid hamid is another brother of him lool - bloody same shyt diffrent names.
> ----------------------
> 
> we all know Kargil was a bloody horrible scene for both the country . just to get some so called pseudo upper hand both countries denied the number of actual causality. leaving their soldiers behind. how bloody pathetic is that !!
> 
> *It showed pakistan the misadventure can cause some significant lose and they paid for overestimating themselves.
> 
> it showed India how horrible our intelligence and unprepared our army was. we paid for underestimating pakistan. *




care to tell which movie


----------



## duhastmish

ummmm or was it ?

main kutte ki ma ka doodh pr jaonga !!!

i mean they all make no sense t- isnt it ?


----------



## BSF

10 year of Kargil victory for India
A video 
A nice read



> On the night of July 3 and July 4, the Indian Army launched a three pronged attack on the peak. With 132 guns providing support fire, Param Veer Chakra awardee Yogender Singh Yadav - who then barely 19 - was the first to lead six men of the Ghatak Platoon to the top.
> 
> He fought about 70 Pakistani troops for over eight hours. Didn't giving up even after receiving 15 gun shot wounds and losing all his men.
> 
> "I knew I would not die without giving them a fight. I wanted to fight till the end," said Yadav.
> 
> The Tiger Hill battle alone claimed over 30 Indian soldiers. It won over 23 Gallantary Awards including the Param Veer Chakra for its heroes.


----------



## pakomar

ashokc said:


> make our intelligence agency capable and talk. Boss i am not the prime minister of india.
> it is like saying clear isi of terrorist and talk. cant be done sorry.



ISI is not a terrorist organization but an intelligent agency .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## pakomar

BSF said:


> 10 year of Kargil victory for India
> A video
> A nice read



How can India clams military victory when Pakistani troop withdraw. Pakistani withdrawal is possible because of crying in front of international commute.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zob

@BSF well media propaganda done by the indians ofcourse you will depict yourself as the heroes buddy....BUT SHERKHAN & LALAK JAN....were appreciated by your military.... 

like i said you won the media propaganda!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zob

*main kutte ki ma ka doodh pr jaonga !!!*


----------



## Nihat

> How can India clams military victory when Pakistani troop withdraw. Pakistani withdrawal is possible because of crying in front of international commute.



Diplomatic preasure aside , another teeny-tiny reason for Pakistani troop withdrawal maybe that had they not stepped back they would have been flushed out in due time . 

After losing Tiger hill to IA , it was only ever a matter of time.


----------



## sergente rehan

sarthak said:


> Its a lie that pak govt knew nothing about the kargil war.
> 
> Nawaz sharif was just as responsible as musharraf. He was informed about the whole plan. A big liar. A pak airforce pilot recently revealed that.
> 
> Thank god he's no longer in power



Hey James Bond how did you get all these classified informations? did Nawaz Sharif or Mr. Musharraf revealed you all this stuff? anyway if you give us some links to the news maybe all that you claimed get some credibility...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sergente rehan

Nihat said:


> Diplomatic preasure aside , another teeny-tiny reason for Pakistani troop withdrawal maybe that had they not stepped back they would have been flushed out in due time .
> 
> After losing Tiger hill to IA , it was only ever a matter of time.



on which base you claim all this? first of all are you a military expert? Everything is possible during a war scenario....


----------



## pakomar

Nihat said:


> Diplomatic preasure aside , another teeny-tiny reason for Pakistani troop withdrawal maybe that had they not stepped back they would have been flushed out in due time .
> 
> After losing Tiger hill to IA , it was only ever a matter of time.



In Pakistan case time was the problem we were not given time.

Brave Pakistani men fought in kargil were trained in guerilla warfare.In guerilla warfare only thing they have is time a lots and lots and lots of time, in kargil case these men were given the time needed to finished the job.


----------



## Zob

i don't understand we have the height advantage and you claim your bofors were killing us....secondly we had gruellia type platoons on top of the hills...that are hard to target and destroy....just for your information the biggest damage was dome by the IAF and that too thanx to israel for giving the targetting pods on time...

before you open your mouth to say stuff that you saw in the movies like BORDER please come up with an argument....i can't make an argument for you...


----------



## Shiji

Lalak Jan "The Hero Of The NLI"


> Tiger Hill had been occupied by 11 men of 12 NLI (Northern Light Infantry) unit of the Pakistan Army. One of these men was Subedar Sikander, the person who was responsible, with 10 other men, to hold back India's offensive long enough to force the Division at Siachen to retreat. His 2IC (Second in Command) was Havaldar Major Lalak "Blizzard" Jan (Blizzard = Dohat in local language).
> Lalak Jan was one of the best in the NLI as far as mountain navigation was concerned, in addition to being one of the best, if not the best, rifleman.
> The 10 men of 12 NLI were told by Subedar Sikander to change their positions while firing back at the attacking Indian forces. As the men followed the orders, the managed to bluff the Indians into believing that the size of the force was much more than 11.
> On 1st of July, 1999, the 18 Grenadiers Battalion (India) launched a fierce attack on Tiger Hill by virtue of artillary shelling of the occupied bunkers. Subedar Sikandar placed his men in such positions that they managed to repulse the attack without any loss of life on their own part. It is not known how many men were lost by the 18 Grenadiers Battalion.
> On the morning of 2nd July 1999, amidst the mist, the 18 Grenadiers launched another attack on Tiger Hills. Subedar Sikandar ordered his men to retreat to a secret bunker. Once the men were safe, he ordered Lalak Jan to descend Tiger Hill, and amidst the Indian Artillery shelling plant the landmines in the area in front of the Indians. The impossibility of the task was realized by all, but the Subedar insisted that the army has sent them down to fight, and that they would have to complete this task if they were to make a dent in the Indian offensive. Planting the landmines was the only way for them to damage the Indian armor and artillery, as none of the 11 men of 12 NLI had any heavy weaponry. The Subedar insisted that the mist would help Lalak Jan as well, and the Indians would not be expecting it either.
> Accepting the daunting task, Lalak Jan descended Tiger Hills amidst the mist. The remaining men gave him as fierce a cover as possible to distract the Indians. Lalak Jan used his natural mountaineering ability to the fullest in the snow clad area and planted the landmines in such a manner that the Indians would encounter them in case they tried to move forward towards the hill.
> Lalak Jan returned, having successfully planted the mines as ordered.
> The trap was now set. All that the men required to do now was to lure the Indians into it. Subedar Sikandar told his men to gradually reduce the firing to a standstill.
> About two hours after firing ceased from the Pakistan side, the Indians thought that they had managed to clear the area of the insurgents. Hence they began to move forward. The landmines reeked havoc with their initial forward movements. The Indians suffered heavy casualties, however, as they have not publicized this incident, the exact amount of damage is not known. The damage was in any case, severe enough that 18 Grenadiers did not attack Tiger Hills for at least 3 to 4 more days, until they were supported by another Indian Unit, 8 Sikh.
> On 6th July, both 18 Grenadiers and 8 Sikh attacked Tiger Hills in the fiercest of Tiger Hill battles or the Kargil Operation. This time Chemical weapons were also used. Some of the Indian soldiers launched an attack from the steeper side of the hill. The NLI was not expecting an attack from this side. The NLI fought this battle at a heavy cost. 7 of the 11 men were killed, including Subedar Sikander. The Indians had managed to destroy a number of the Tiger Hill bunkers by either a hand to hand fight or by dropping a grenade into it.
> Only Lalak Jan and 3 other men remained. The onslaught of the Indians was continuing and they were rapidly advancing towards capturing the hill. Lalak Jan, who was now the senior most person around, placed his men in strategic positions, at least two to three per person, and told them to fire without staying in one position. These four men, pitted against an enemy much superior in number and weaponry, managed to repulse the Indian onslaught by sheer courage and determination.
> On 7th July 1999, 18 Grenadiers and 8 Sikh launched yet another offensive. This was a successful attack. 2 of Lalak Jan's men were killed. Lalak Jan and his only other remaining comrade in arms, Bakhmal Jan were both seriously injured. Not giving up, Lalak Jan got hold of an LMG and while Bakhmal Jan provided him with the ammunition, the two men kept trying to repulse the Indian attack. Lalak jan's left arm had been rendered useless as he had received a bullet in it. Bakhmal Jan, unable to sustain his injuries, died while supplying the ammunition to Lalak Jan.
> From there on, in one of the most stunning demonstrations of determination, Lalak Jan held up the two units of the Indian Army for four complete hours. The Indian offensive finally slowed down and they descended Tiger Hills. The reason for this is not known, perhaps they thought that they could shell the bunker in which Lalak Jan was positioned.
> After the Indian offensive had subsided, reinforcements (5 to 6 men) were sent to Tiger Hill under Captain Amer. When he saw the condition of Lalak Jan he told him to go back to the base camp as his arm was in no condition to be used. Lalak Jan told the captain that he did not want to die on a hospital bed, but would rather die in the battlefield. He told his Captain that he should not worry about the arm.
> While this was going on at the hill, the Indians started shelling from a secret bunker in an adjacent hill. By that time the command of the handful of troops at Tiger Hill had been taken up by Captain Amer. He realized that the fire was coming from a secret bunker and also directed fire towards it, but the effort was in vain. The exact reason for the failure of this fire by the Pakistanis is not known. It could have been because of one of three reasons 1) The secret bunker was very well designed and protected by the Indians 2) the fire was not directed properly or 3) the bunker was not in the range of the light weaponry possessed by the Pakistanis atop Tiger Hill.
> There was only one way left to counter the secret Indian bunker; it had to be blown up from a closer range.
> When the injured Lalak Jan volunteered for the mission, his plea was immediately rejected by the captain, who was of the opinion that he would do it himself. However, Lalak Jan persuaded him, giving him his previous landmine installation experience coupled with his mountaineering skills as the explanation.
> The Captain agreed.
> Lalak Jan put a bag of explosives on his back, and while shouldering an AK-47 descended Tiger Hills for the second time amidst heavy Indian shelling. Managing to avoid being seen by the Indian forces, and utilising his knowledge of the hills to take cover, he located the secret bunker and threw the explosives inside the bunker.
> The bunker, which was also an ammunition dump, blew up in what was probably the biggest blast of the entire Kargil Operation. Lalak Jan managed to take cover, but the Indian Army lost 19 to 20 men inside and nearby the bunker. The other Indian soldiers saw Lalk Jan and opened fire on him. Surrounded from all sides by Indian fire, Lalak Jan tried to resist and returned fire.
> This effort was in vain, and Lalak Jan was killed when a number of bullets burst through his chest.
> Contrary to what most writers have said on the topic in Pakistan, it is my own knowledge that the Indians did manage to capture Tiger Hills in the next attack. The loss of Tiger Hills was perhaps the biggest setback in the entire Kargil Operation, as after that other victories came for the Indians and they managed to get hold of perhaps the strategically most important peak from whether they could keep an eye on most of the offensives in the region.
> On 15th of September 1999, the commanding officer of 12 NLI sent 2 commando forces to Tiger Hills to recover the body of Lalak Jan. The two forces were called 'Ababeel' and 'Uqaab'. Ababeel provided the fire cover while Uqaab went into the destroyed enemy bunker to retrieve the body of Lalak Jan.
> When his body was found, Lalak Jan had his AK-47 clinched to his chest. The Government of Pakistan awarded him Nishan-e-Haider, the country's highest award for extraordinary gallantry.


*Only 11 Men were able to hold the IA, so much that they resorted to use the Airforce. And Pakistani men were NOT left behind *

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## qsaark

Shiji said:


> Lalak Jan "The Hero Of The NLI"
> 
> *Only 11 Men were able to hold the IA, so much that they resorted to use the Airforce. And Pakistani men were NOT left behind *


They (Pakistanis) had the advantage of being on the height. It has little to do with personal courage and more with the terrain. Soldiers on both the side fought gallantly and will always be remembered for their professionalism and sacrifices.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## pakomar

Battle resemble of kargil with ww2 battle of Mont casino.
Germans got the height advantages. First Allied force want to capture Mont casino by foot when they failed then they carpet boomed the Mont casino and still they can n t capture Mont casino. *Germans killed 90000 of fifth army alone and total casualties of allied were 100000. At the end German Para troopers were order to withdraw. *
Even the allied forces agreed that the German Para trooper were never beaten.

details
Battle of Monte Cassino - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ironman

Shiji said:


> Lalak Jan "The Hero Of The NLI"
> 
> *Only 11 Men were able to hold the IA, so much that they resorted to use the Airforce. And Pakistani men were NOT left behind *



Are you blind?? or purposefully left the note by the author?? anyway I am posting the note .

*by Nasir M. Khan*

Note: The following account is a well researched work by the author. It is not endorsed by the Governments of either India or Pakistan. Pakistan government denies that it had any involvement in the Kargil Operation, whereas the Indian government denies that any heroic battle took place at Tiger Hill. The reader is to read this article as the work of an individual and not an official citation. The reader also has the right NOT to believe this article. However, the article has been put up primarily becuase in the political game between Pakistan and India, a man who was the epitome of bravery is not getting due respect. The locations in this article are those which are claimed as true by India only.


----------



## chindit

Due respect to that men of valor website - the articles have been debunked - or rather rightly classified - as "history fiction" - i.e taking real events and then weaving a story about it. For example Captain Karnal Sher Khan Shaheed, Nishan-e-Haider 

This page has several lines of first person dialogue



> "Counter Attack", replied Sher
> 
> The stunned man gazed at Sher. Counter Attack under the circumstances was suicidal. The Indians had an advantage in every thinkable manner. They had also been fortifying their defense ever since they had taken the Western Spur.
> 
> "Counter Attack?", the man asked Sher again.
> 
> "Yes counter attack. The Indians attacked my post at night, with heavy artillery and air support. I will attack them in broad daylight with the men that I have left."
> 
> ..............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anticipating a company sized attack, the CO was stunned to see one man, reciting the Kalima aloud, charging towards the center of the camp.
> 
> "Come out cowards!" Captain Sher shouted having reached the center, "I will show you how to fight a battle".
> 
> Angered by the dare inside their own camp, two Sikh soldiers tried to attack Sher. Their attack was of no avail; the captain, who had started firing in their direction the moment they tried to move, killed both.
> 
> It was apparent that this was not an attack by a complete company, but by only one man. "You are surrounded from all sides " the CO shouted to Sher, "There are no men with you. You cannot possibly kill us all. There does not have to be any unnecessary bloodshed. Lay down your weapon and Surrender".
> 
> Sher fired in the direction of the Commanding Officer's voice. "I would rather die than to surrender to you" he said. While trying to continue firing, Sher realized that the ammunition in his machine gun had finished.
> 
> Seeing that he no longer had any ammunition, the Indian soldiers, including their CO, came out in the open and showed Sher that he was indeed surrounded from all sides. They started moving closer and closer to him, tightening their circle around him.
> 
> "Look around yourself" he said to Sher, "There is nothing more that you can do".



Seriously - there is no record from the indian side or the pakistan side that this dialogue-baazi took place.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## fatman17

*India agreed to discuss Kashmir only due to Kargil: Musharraf*

Terming Kargil as a "big success", former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has said India agreed to discuss Kashmir only because of that war in 1999. "Yes, indeed, it was a big success because it had (an) impact even on the attitudes of the Indian side. How did we start discussing the Kashmir dispute? How was it that the Indians agreed that we will discuss Kashmir and there must be a negotiated settlement? Before this there was no such thing at all," Musharraf said in an interview to Karan Thapar in his Devil's Advocate programme. 

Making a strong defence of the controversial Kargil Operation, he said before that "Kashmir couldn't be spoken. Kashmir must not be mentioned even in United Nation's speeches by our leaders. This was the Indian side. (So) how did the Indians come on the negotiating table on Kashmir?" On asked whether he would repeat the Kargil Operation, knowing that it ended up raising question marks about him personally, Musharraf replied: "I don't want to comment". He also accepted that forces from the Pakistani Army's Rawalpindi Corps and Force Command Northern Areas were involved in the Kargil Operation &#8211; contradictory to the country's earlier claim that Kargil was conducted by alleged freedom fighters and the army was not involved.

As written in his book "In the Line of Fire", he said, they were "second line forces" but accepted they were commanded by the army's Rawalpindi Corps and FCNA. "What I have written is final. I am not going to get into the details at all," Musharraf said. Claiming the Kargil Operation ended with Pakistani forces in a "very favourable" position, he said "Because if you are talking about India-Pakistan, Indians had moved all their forces against Kargil and there was (as a result) weakness elsewhere. "So we knew what the Indian forces are capable (of) and what we are capable (of)...the situation was very favourable in Kargil, in Kashmir and on the entire border. We were capable of responding to any Indian action," he said. 

Asked why he left the decision to Nawaz Sharif and didn't argue against a ceasefire, he said, "One, there was a ground military position, the other is that there was a lot happening internationally. Internationally there was the United States element putting a lot of pressure on the government to stop or whatever. "And then there was the (domestic) political pressure. Whether the political situation was good enough to sustain that pressure. I, therefore, decided to only talk of the military (situation)," he said. 

The former president said even though his decision to dismiss the Chief Justice was absolutely constitutional and legal, the handling of the situation was "shabby". "I don't blame myself because I don't get into the nitty gritty of which Deputy Superintendent of Police was rude to him, some cars were taken (away) or something of that sort. Now I am not passing such orders at all," Musharraf said.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## chindit

> Musharraf replied: "I don't want to comment".



Means - he wont do it. a confident person will not hesitate to say he will do it all over again.


----------



## EyelessInGaza

pakomar said:


> Battle resemble of kargil with ww2 battle of Mont casino.
> Germans got the height advantages. First Allied force want to capture Mont casino by foot when they failed then they carpet boomed the Mont casino and still they can n t capture Mont casino. *Germans killed 90000 of fifth army alone and total casualties of allied were 100000. At the end German Para troopers were order to withdraw. *
> Even the allied forces agreed that the German Para trooper were never beaten.
> 
> details
> Battle of Monte Cassino - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Wiki says that Fifth Army had 90,000 _casualties_; which is not the same as _killed_. Big difference. Based on what I have read of that campaign, one tenth to one fifth is probably the right number of dead.

I was just reading a great book on the WWII Italian campaign, The Day Of Battle by Rick Atkinson (excellent writer BTW) where he speaks of, among other things, Cassino.

The Germans were in pretty bad shape themselves; when they were ordered to withdraw they were close to being decimated, out of support and supplies.

Interesting that the Allies bombed the heck out of Cassino, only to have the move backfire.


----------



## pakomar

EyelessInGaza said:


> Wiki says that Fifth Army had 90,000 _casualties_; which is not the same as _killed_. Big difference. Based on what I have read of that campaign, one tenth to one fifth is probably the right number of dead.
> 
> I was just reading a great book on the WWII Italian campaign, The Day Of Battle by Rick Atkinson (excellent writer BTW) where he speaks of, among other things, Cassino.
> 
> The Germans were in pretty bad shape themselves; when they were ordered to withdraw they were close to being decimated, out of support and supplies.
> 
> Interesting that the Allies bombed the heck out of Cassino, only to have the move backfire.


My point was that height is the advantage and Pakistan was in advantage military vise but due to Indian propaganda in front of intentional commute that the only reason Pakistan withdraws.

What you point for tell me all this.


----------



## Kasrkin

chindit said:


> Means - he wont do it. a confident person will not hesitate to say he will do it all over again.



Perhaps you misunderstood. If he said that he would do it again, given the fact that he still has potential political ambitions, it wouldve caused a huge controversy. The situation between Pakistan and India is not the same as it was before Kargil. He has been, however, asked repeatedly if he regretted the operation, and he has been very clear: not at all.


----------



## EyelessInGaza

pakomar said:


> My point was that height is the advantage and Pakistan was in advantage military vise but due to Indian propaganda in front of intentional commute that the only reason Pakistan withdraws.



If you think so, fair enough. I agree that heights are a military advantage and Pakistan was at an advantage. But from there our opinions diverge. 



pakomar said:


> What you point for tell me all this.



To make sure that the facts are correct (if I think so). This is an interesting argument.


----------



## typewriter

It doesn't matter who won the brownie points in killing the other's troops by fighting valiantly. The end result is that Kargil was retaken by India partly through military muscle and partly through diplomatic and political pressure. In that effect it was a victory for India & the retreat for Pakistan is considered as a failure of her goals.

The war has taught us that a mere military move, no matter how brilliantly planned and executed, has no place in today's world without proper political support.

btw, I would like to say that many of the Pakistani soldiers fought bravely much like the Indians, but unfortunately had little to show for in the end. Kargil firmly lies on the Indian side, 10 years on.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SQ8

typewriter said:


> It doesn't matter who won the brownie points in killing the other's troops by fighting valiantly. The end result is that Kargil was retaken by India partly through military muscle and partly through diplomatic and political pressure. In that effect it was a victory for India & the retreat for Pakistan is considered as a failure of her goals.
> 
> The war has taught us that a mere military move, no matter how brilliantly planned and executed, has no place in today's world without proper political support.
> 
> btw, I would like to say that many of the Pakistani soldiers fought bravely much like the Indians, but unfortunately had little to show for in the end. Kargil firmly lies on the Indian side, 10 years on.



And that gentlemen is the reality. A waste of manpower due to the usual ambitious and delusional general.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

Infact.. 
There is no better example in the entire world than the Pakistan Army for the following saying:
"*Nowhere else have I seen such lions led by such lambs.* "


----------



## Rajkumar

can somebody enlighten me 
1. what were the objectives of kargil, i mean land? publicize the kashmir issue? or ?

2. what were the assumption made by Pakistan about kargil.
did they think India will not react?
us will support the quickly ?
chance of plebiscite in Kashmir will increase?


----------



## typewriter

Rajkumar said:


> can somebody enlighten me
> 1. what were the objectives of kargil, i mean land? publicize the kashmir issue? or ?
> 
> 2. what were the assumption made by Pakistan about kargil.
> did they think India will not react?
> us will support the quickly ?
> chance of plebiscite in Kashmir will increase?



1. It is hard to say exactly what the stated objectives were, since a public (an unbiased one specifically) has not come from Pakistan. However, it is assumed that the idea was to rekindle the armed struggle and by taking the vantage area of Kargil heights, almost cut indian troops in siachen, thereby perhaps use it as a possible bargaining chip to restore parity in the area.

2. Naive assumptions made by Pak planners were that India would either react much like iin '65 op. gibraltar starting a full scale war, perhaps gambling that they could win the war with USA support and China's as well. The other assumption would have been to take it to UN and state the conditions by highlighting Kargil. Exactly what they thought is a mystery since the objectives of the war itself is confusing.

If you ask me I don't know why they started the kargil infiltration in the first place without a plan. I assume they didn't even have a plan B. They must have been smug with their A plan they could have patted themselves on the bag and started the conflict.


----------



## Joe Shearer

xeric said:


> <snip>
> 
> Thankyou very much sir.
> 
> But on a second thought, thanks but no thanks.
> 
> 
> Is it necessary that such things be reciprocated? Is there a rule or law about this?
> 
> BTW, it might we true that we wanted to do the same thing but we couldnt find a gallant from the other side.



Dear Sir,

I am writing this more in sorrow than in anger, especially as you were among those kind enough to be welcoming me on this forum. 

Your post cited above was very disappointing; I never thought to see such sentiments expressed by a serving officer, which I believe you are. Never before, in dozens of interactions with military men from both Pakistan and India, have I heard this sentiment expressed, that there is no 'law' regarding the honour and respect that fighting men have for each other. 

You are perfectly correct of course, there is no law, this will not stand in court. I was not aware that the lawyers guided our conduct, or rather the conduct of some of us, in these matters; I stand corrected. However, I believe that I can speak for my compatriots who are still in service in Indian military units when I say that Indian officers and men will continue to respect and acknowledge acts of bravery and courage, even when the brave and courageous are their opponents. This has been our standard, and has led in the past to numerous citations of Pakistani soldiers and officers, leading to their decorationi, and it continues to be so.

It is my earnest and sincere hope that this will always be so.

May I take this opportunity of acknowledging the outstanding courage shown by Capt. Kernal Sher Khan? This thread is after all about his courage and gallantry, and not the intrusion of legal sophistry into matters of honour.

With respectful regards,

'Joe S.'


----------



## Joe Shearer

May I note in public my sincere thanks for the detailed information made available by Kasrkin? 'The truth will make us free'.

Thank you, Sir.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rajkumar

typewriter said:


> 1. It is hard to say exactly what the stated objectives were, since a public (an unbiased one specifically) has not come from Pakistan. However, it is assumed that the idea was to rekindle the armed struggle and by taking the vantage area of Kargil heights, almost cut indian troops in siachen, thereby perhaps use it as a possible bargaining chip to restore parity in the area.
> 
> 2. Naive assumptions made by Pak planners were that India would either react much like iin '65 op. gibraltar starting a full scale war, perhaps gambling that they could win the war with USA support and China's as well. The other assumption would have been to take it to UN and state the conditions by highlighting Kargil. Exactly what they thought is a mystery since the objectives of the war itself is confusing.
> 
> If you ask me I don't know why they started the kargil infiltration in the first place without a plan. I assume they didn't even have a plan B. They must have been smug with their A plan they could have patted themselves on the bag and started the conflict.



i agree with most but i think they presumed too much without back up plan?wrong speculations led them no where.


----------



## Khajur

typewriter said:


> 1. It is hard to say exactly what the stated objectives were, since a public (an unbiased one specifically) has not come from Pakistan. However, it is assumed that the idea was to rekindle the armed struggle and by taking the vantage area of Kargil heights, almost cut indian troops in siachen, thereby perhaps use it as a possible bargaining chip to restore parity in the area.
> 
> 2. Naive assumptions made by Pak planners were that India would either react much like iin '65 op. gibraltar starting a full scale war, perhaps gambling that they could win the war with USA support and China's as well. The other assumption would have been to take it to UN and state the conditions by highlighting Kargil. Exactly what they thought is a mystery since the objectives of the war itself is confusing.
> 
> If you ask me I don't know why they started the kargil infiltration in the first place without a plan. I assume they didn't even have a plan B. They must have been smug with their A plan they could have patted themselves on the bag and started the conflict.



I think they made their move with certain assumptions on which they too were confused but hoped things'll go their way anyhow, forcing india to go backfoot on kashmir and pakistan would make the next confident step depending on a favourable outcome.

Gen musharraf made the mistake of taking a war game plan which always ends with major military victory if played inside war rooms of GHQ berift of X factors that usually come in to play once a war ensues and showed it daylight of the real battle field which resulted in so many dead bodies.

*Anyway Kargil was clear victory for Gen musharraf personally and he was self promoted to post the of president of pakistan and ruled it for nearly nine yrs with an iron fist.He couldnt have asked for any better outcome of kargil conflict,could he??*

I'm sure Gen musharraf considers anyone who think kargil was a military blunder as pure imbeciles as deep inside his heart he knows Kargil turned very nicely for him...it gave him a place in history which many retired generals would only dream about.


----------



## Xeric

Joe Shearer said:


> Dear Sir,
> 
> I am writing this more in sorrow than in anger, especially as you were among those kind enough to be welcoming me on this forum.
> 
> Your post cited above was very disappointing; I never thought to see such sentiments expressed by a serving officer, which I believe you are. Never before, in dozens of interactions with military men from both Pakistan and India, have I heard this sentiment expressed, that there is no 'law' regarding the honour and respect that fighting men have for each other.
> 
> You are perfectly correct of course, there is no law, this will not stand in court. I was not aware that the lawyers guided our conduct, or rather the conduct of some of us, in these matters; I stand corrected. However, I believe that I can speak for my compatriots who are still in service in Indian military units when I say that Indian officers and men will continue to respect and acknowledge acts of bravery and courage, even when the brave and courageous are their opponents. This has been our standard, and has led in the past to numerous citations of Pakistani soldiers and officers, leading to their decorationi, and it continues to be so.
> 
> It is my earnest and sincere hope that this will always be so.
> 
> May I take this opportunity of acknowledging the outstanding courage shown by Capt. Kernal Sher Khan? This thread is after all about his courage and gallantry, and not the intrusion of legal sophistry into matters of honour.
> 
> With respectful regards,
> 
> 'Joe S.'



Ok.

Let's not get carried away bu emotions.

An indian member on this forum contacted me via PM over the Siachen issue and if you can find who he was he might tell you what i have written in reply about the indian soldiers. Being a soldier i respect enemy the most, provided the respect is reciprocated. i would take into account the Saichen case study while saying this that, Pakistan and india are facing similar hardships at Siachen are fighting there with determination, zeal and motivation. But if someone is going to talk stupid, he would be replied in the same coins. An example can be: (quote from an indian site about Siachen said by a senior indian officer) _"We have the heights," said Brig. P. C. Katoch, who runs the operation. In contrast with the superior vista those heights afford, he said, the Pakistani soldier sees nothing: "He hears a helicopter and shoots. He hears artillery and shoots. It's stupid. He doesn't know where he's shooting."_

Now if this is the understanding that a senior army officer has of mountain warfare and he ridicules the other side just because he hold 2 may be 3 more higher grounds then who is to be blamed if someone shows him the right path? (sorry for bringing in Siachen here again but that was just an example)

As for your concern regarding honoring your soldiers, a true soldier always honors the other soldier. Provided he proves himself to be a soldier and not a politician. i can quote you another example here, during '65 war a tank unit of ours was advancing when it cleared up a position held by the indians, the indians lost the battle and were mostly dead or were leaving the area, but there was on indian soldier who was a Machine Gunner and was still sitting in his worn out half filled trench and firing at the approaching tanks. While the tank advance stopped to re-organize, a Lieutenant of our saw that soldier from his tank, no one but one indian soldier with an MG stood in their way. The advance then resumed and the brave soldier ketp standing at his position and never fled, he kept on firing but in vain as he was firing on tanks, and ultimately he was ran over by the tanks. Guess what his body was returned back to india by the CO of that tank regiment and the GoI was told about his bravery in full, and the brave soul was awarded with some military award which i dont remember exactly now.

But if someone would accuse us of torturing your soldier the response that you have quoted above would be repeated frequently. i dont accept blames, sorry for that!!

And please if you find yourself so compelled to reply me please open a new thread or PM me without ruining the current thread.


----------



## Renegade

xeric said:


> Tortured!?
> i mean we were at war, we were not fighting in Kashmir or Siachen where stalemate exits and you can raid posts, take POWs and then torture them as you have lots of time at your disposal. Kargil was fluid battle, people were killed and they got killed, why would we waste time in torturing an indian?



So you mean to say - *FAST PACED WAR = NO TORTURE*. Bravo!!!




xeric said:


> BTW, this is the property shown by the indians quite a few times now, remember back in the 90s when one of our Rangers Jawan was abducted right on the border and tortured like hell? i can quote you another example but i dont know how mauch it is known in the public so to be safe i'll omit it.



*Again only allegations & accusations but no proof*. While i don't absolutely negate the possibility of something like this happening, the lack of any proof to substantiate these allegations, make them highly unbelievable. 




xeric said:


> Thankyou very much sir.
> 
> But on a second thought, thanks but no thanks.



Oh i see, this seems to have bruised your ego. But then there is no need to get it in the middle here. 

What the IA did was to simply recommend someone for a an award, which in their opinion he richly deserved. Lets leave it at that shall we. 




xeric said:


> Is it necessary that such things be reciprocated? Is there a rule or law about this?



No necessary at all. Its not the question of reciprocation or doing someone a favor, it about professionalism. The same professionalism amongst the worlds armies that lead to the rise of the Geneva conventions. What the IA did in recommending Col.Sher Khan was professional work, they did not bother to wait if the PA reciprocated. 



xeric said:


> BTW, it might we true that we wanted to do the same thing but we couldnt find a gallant from the other side.



Oh seriously!! 



xeric said:


> Duh..!?
> When did this happened?
> 
> If it would have happened the morale of the Army in general and NLI Regiment in particular have gone down the drain, but you dont see that happening actually, do you?



Yes the morale of the soldiers from the NLI did indeed go down the drain, it was one of the reasons that they where made a regular regiment of the PA.



xeric said:


> BTW, i guess you missed all the programs, functions and ceremonies that were held to honor the martyrs.



Let me remind you that, all these functions & ceremonies where held much after the end of the Kargil war, by this time the participation of the NLI was nothing but an open secret with only the PA denying that. These ceremonies where held only after pressure mounted on the GoP in general and the PA in specific over the raw deal given to the soldiers from the NLI. 




xeric said:


> i am not aware of any torture that took place on our side, but what i know is that dead bodies of indian troops have been laying in open for days and days and they rot as no one from both the side was able to get to them, as they were laying in the No Man's Land and the repeated attacks by the IA made it impossible to pick up the dead bodies, moreover, no one from your side also never tried to reach them and they were left to rot!! i know people who say that they have to change the position of their Posts as there was such smell in the air that one could not have possibly lived because the bodies ******* in open and no one approach them due to fire!! *Your video link doeant work, sorry to say this but may be he was one of them.*



Just cheeked, the video link is working just fine.

http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/58607/cj-takes-on-india-pak-govts-over-torture-of-kargil-hero.html


----------



## Renegade

Kasrkin said:


> Why not? The accuracy of one claim does not inevitably mean credibility of another. If I were to say that Indian people are brave people, but they&#8217;re savages, would that make me a balanced or credible person? Ofcourse not. What if I asked you to accept that they&#8217;re savages or that they&#8217;re not brave? Well, that&#8217;s what you&#8217;re doing. Why the hell should I accept they're either unbrave or dishonorable? There is no credibility to your beliefs in this regard.



Playing around with words now are we.



Kasrkin said:


> xeric, don't address his false claims of 'torture', etc. They've been addressed in the thread I linked. If he wishes he can continue the debate from there, if he has any credible substance that is. We will not allow this thread about Kernal Sher Khan to host insinuations against the Pakistan Army.



Your post no 190 in the link provided, states a so called news article from India Today, but you have very conveniently chosen not to mention the date of the edition or any other details about that particular issue. 

1. *Please provide the date of issue of the particular edition* so that the veracity of your claims can be verified.

2. Unless such details are provided, your claims cant be taken seriously.


----------



## Kasrkin

Here you go Renegade:

*&#8216;Kargil War: Battlefront&#8217;, Harinder Baweja, India Today, 12 July 1999.*

I await your acknowledgment.

Now its my turn to ask for some verification.



> Yes the morale of the soldiers from the NLI did indeed go down the drain, it was one of the reasons that they where made a regular regiment of the PA.





> These ceremonies where held only after pressure mounted on the GoP in general and the PA in specific over the raw deal given to the soldiers from the NLI.



I suggest you relate some sources for these dramatic and aggressive claims. Pakistani sources would be preferable, but neutral sources would do as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Renegade

Kasrkin said:


> Here you go Renegade:
> 
> *Kargil War: Battlefront, Harinder Baweja, India Today, 12 July 1999.*
> 
> I await your acknowledgment.
> 
> Now its my turn to ask for some verification.
> 
> I suggest you relate some sources for these dramatic and aggressive claims. Pakistani sources would be preferable, but neutral sources would do as well.




Thanks for the information, give me a little time to verify it. That point apart, what about the point raised by me about the torture of Lt.Sourabh Kalia and his men by soldiers of the PA. You and Xeric seem to have very conveniently ignored that point and choosing to divert attention away from it. 

*I have provided a video link that clearly talks about the torture of Lt.Saurabh Kalia. What is your reaction to that!!!! * The proof about it clearly present at the moment, why shy away from discussing it.

CJ takes on India, Pak govts over torture of Kargil hero: IBNLive.com > Videos


As i see it in the broad outline of what we are discussing here are three specific points:


1. *The torture of Lt.Sourabh Kalia & five other Indian soldiers by the PA during kargil.*

2. *My claims of mistreatment of the NLI personnel during Kargil i.e
their bodies being quietly delivered to their homes and they
being buried with out any military honors and recognition.*

3. *The alleged torture of a PA regular by the IA during kargil. As 
alleged by you. (I am still in the process of verifying that). *


why don't we debate the points in this order -as proof for the first allegation is readily available. And it is only fair, that i provide proof for the points that i have raised and i will do so. What say??


----------



## fatman17

*Kargil: defeat after victory* 

Kargil may have been a military victory 10 years ago, but as Musharraf&#8217;s admission shows, it wasn&#8217;t a diplomatic one. And India may be set to repeat this.

A decade ago, when Indian forces launched a counteroffensive against Pakistani infiltrators around Kargil in Jammu and Kashmir, India was fuming at its western neighbour. Eight months have passed since Pakistani militants perpetrated an assault in Mumbai, and India is still fuming. And it still remains unable to decide the terms on which it interacts with Pakistan.

By the time the army declared victory in Kargil on 26 July 1999&#8212;now celebrated as Vijay Diwas (Victory Day)&#8212;India was infused with new patriotism and armed with a strong hand in diplomacy. But all this seemed to diffuse over the following months and years; India was never able to hold Pakistan accountable. Sound familiar?

Kargil may have been a military victory for us, but it wasn&#8217;t converted into a diplomatic one. In a TV interview this weekend, former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf went as far as to call Kargil a success&#8212;for Pakistan. He said: &#8220;How did we start discussing the Kashmir dispute? How was it that the Indians came, that we will discuss Kashmir and there must be a negotiated settlement? Before this, there was no such thing at all. Kashmir couldn&#8217;t be spoken (of).&#8221;

Musharraf also admits that the regular Pakistani army was involved in Kargil: But that doesn&#8217;t come as a surprise to anyone in India. What is surprising, though, is the clarity with which Musharraf&#8212;and, it&#8217;s safe to say, the entire military-jihadi complex in Pakistan&#8212;views bilateral relations unfolding since Kargil. &#8220;I think the Indian leadership then perceived that Pakistan is beyond coercion,&#8221; he said, forcing New Delhi to start dialogue with Islamabad. The same US pressure that led to Pakistan&#8217;s tactical defeat in Kargil actually proved to be Pakistan&#8217;s strategic victory by later bringing India to the negotiating table.
That cycle in India&#8217;s history may just be repeating itself all over again. What should have been a decisive diplomatic victory for India after 26/11 has renewed pressure from the US&#8212;particularly the Obama White House&#8212;on Kashmir. And if our government is now claiming that bilateral agreements are mere diplomatic papers without much strategic import, as it did last week regarding the accord signed with Pakistan in Egypt, then it&#8217;s Pakistan that should have been celebrating vijay diwas this weekend.

Does India&#8217;s military victory in Kargil mean anything?

@livemint.com


----------



## tharkee

fatman17 said:


> *Kargil: defeat after victory*
> 
> Kargil may have been a military victory 10 years ago, but as Musharrafs admission shows, it wasnt a diplomatic one. And India may be set to repeat this.
> 
> A decade ago, when Indian forces launched a counteroffensive against Pakistani infiltrators around Kargil in Jammu and Kashmir, India was fuming at its western neighbour. Eight months have passed since Pakistani militants perpetrated an assault in Mumbai, and India is still fuming. And it still remains unable to decide the terms on which it interacts with Pakistan.
> 
> By the time the army declared victory in Kargil on 26 July 1999now celebrated as Vijay Diwas (Victory Day)India was infused with new patriotism and armed with a strong hand in diplomacy. But all this seemed to diffuse over the following months and years; India was never able to hold Pakistan accountable. Sound familiar?
> 
> Kargil may have been a military victory for us, but it wasnt converted into a diplomatic one. In a TV interview this weekend, former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf went as far as to call Kargil a successfor Pakistan. He said: How did we start discussing the Kashmir dispute? How was it that the Indians came, that we will discuss Kashmir and there must be a negotiated settlement? Before this, there was no such thing at all. Kashmir couldnt be spoken (of).
> 
> Musharraf also admits that the regular Pakistani army was involved in Kargil: But that doesnt come as a surprise to anyone in India. What is surprising, though, is the clarity with which Musharrafand, its safe to say, the entire military-jihadi complex in Pakistanviews bilateral relations unfolding since Kargil. I think the Indian leadership then perceived that Pakistan is beyond coercion, he said, forcing New Delhi to start dialogue with Islamabad. The same US pressure that led to Pakistans tactical defeat in Kargil actually proved to be Pakistans strategic victory by later bringing India to the negotiating table.
> That cycle in Indias history may just be repeating itself all over again. What should have been a decisive diplomatic victory for India after 26/11 has renewed pressure from the USparticularly the Obama White Houseon Kashmir. And if our government is now claiming that bilateral agreements are mere diplomatic papers without much strategic import, as it did last week regarding the accord signed with Pakistan in Egypt, then its Pakistan that should have been celebrating vijay diwas this weekend.
> 
> Does Indias military victory in Kargil mean anything?
> 
> @livemint.com




So is it suggesting that Pakistan either uses terrorism or backstabbing as a tool to initiate dialog?


----------



## Zob

*So is it suggesting that Pakistan either uses terrorism or backstabbing as a tool to initiate dialog? *

BACKSTABBING???? hey LOC is disputed territory where anyone who can take a few inches is allowed to do so....we LEARNT this from you in 1984 when you "backstabbed" in SIACHEN.... and please lets not bring 1971 into this....


----------



## Zob

@renegade


ok please spare me the crap we realsed KASHMIR SINGH in return we got mutilated bodies of KHALID MEHMOOD & MOHAMMED AKRAM....

so these claims of US torturing your prisoners are mere indian propaganda!!


http://****.in/wtf/2008/03/10/dead-khalid-mehmood-a-gift-in-return-of-kashmir-singh/


----------



## tharkee

Zob said:


> *So is it suggesting that Pakistan either uses terrorism or backstabbing as a tool to initiate dialog? *
> 
> BACKSTABBING???? hey LOC is disputed territory where anyone who can take a few inches is allowed to do so....we LEARNT this from you in 1984 when you "backstabbed" in SIACHEN.... and please lets not bring 1971 into this....



Why whine about Siachen then...that was fair game as well...we got your ***** whipped in Kargil.

Please read through sharifs drama that he put up before Kargil...THAT is Backstabbing.


----------



## Zob

typewriter said:


> 1. It is hard to say exactly what the stated objectives were, since a public (an unbiased one specifically) has not come from Pakistan. However, it is assumed that the idea was to rekindle the armed struggle and by taking the vantage area of Kargil heights, almost cut indian troops in siachen, thereby perhaps use it as a possible bargaining chip to restore parity in the area.
> 
> 2. Naive assumptions made by Pak planners were that India would either react much like iin '65 op. gibraltar starting a full scale war, perhaps gambling that they could win the war with USA support and China's as well. The other assumption would have been to take it to UN and state the conditions by highlighting Kargil. Exactly what they thought is a mystery since the objectives of the war itself is confusing.
> 
> If you ask me I don't know why they started the kargil infiltration in the first place without a plan. I assume they didn't even have a plan B. They must have been smug with their A plan they could have patted themselves on the bag and started the conflict.



well this is your OWN take on the issue my friend....so think what you want....


----------



## Zob

tharkee said:


> Why whine about Siachen then...that was fair game as well...we got your ***** whipped in Kargil.
> 
> Please read through sharifs drama that he put up before Kargil...THAT is Backstabbing.



who is whinning about SIACHEN?? what drama please elaborate!!!! and drama well like i said i don't want to get into drama that unfolded in 1971!!! "THE INDIAN MORAL HIGH GROUND" whatever that means!!! 

let's stick to kargil buddy....


----------



## tharkee

Zob said:


> who is whinning about SIACHEN?? what drama please elaborate!!!! and drama well like i said i don't want to get into drama that unfolded in 1971!!! "THE INDIAN MORAL HIGH GROUND" whatever that means!!!
> 
> let's stick to kargil buddy....



http://www.defence.pk/forums/land-forces/9167-siachen-glacier-fighting-roof-world.html

plz go through the above thread and you'll find our pakistani friends crying themselves hoarse about the siache episode...maybe you could convince them it was fair game.

And then kargil is a non issue in every sense, your army ran away when challenged....wheres the controversy in it...huh!


----------



## Zob

@tharkee


see the problem is this attitude!!!! 

*our army ran away when challenged....wheres the controversy in it...huh! *


see this is why we can't have a debate because you use words that show your childish mentality!!! 

i know we have whiners on both sides!! i say its simple siachen & kargil both are fair play....BUT if we go down and want to get our hands dirty in crap & want to talk about back stabbing and what not...then my friend SIACHEN HAPPENED way before kargil....so i guess the first mover has the advantage of being a back stabber!!! 

now as for RUNNING AWAY!!! well i guess you don't know much about mountain warfare do you!!! have a look at the video and you might get an idea i think you are smart enough to find the rest of the parts on youtube!!







we withdrew because of an inept leader who freaked out under pressure from the USA!!


its simple my firend you admit Siachen is wrong and i will admit KARGIL was a wrong operation however if you say siachen is right then i guess kargil operation is also correct in every aspect....


----------



## tharkee

Zob said:


> @tharkee
> 
> 
> see the problem is this attitude!!!!
> 
> *our army ran away when challenged....wheres the controversy in it...huh! *
> 
> 
> see this is why we can't have a debate because you use words that show your childish mentality!!!
> 
> i know we have whiners on both sides!! i say its simple siachen & kargil both are fair play....BUT if we go down and want to get our hands dirty in crap & want to talk about back stabbing and what not...then my friend SIACHEN HAPPENED way before kargil....so i guess the first mover has the advantage of being a back stabber!!!
> 
> now as for RUNNING AWAY!!! well i guess you don't know much about mountain warfare do you!!! have a look at the video and you might get an idea i think you are smart enough to find the rest of the parts on youtube!!
> 
> ODgqxmKwHTw[/media] - THE LOST EVIDENCE (THE BATTLE OF MONTE CASSINO 1/5)
> 
> 
> we withdrew because of an inept leader who freaked out under pressure from the USA!!
> 
> 
> its simple my firend you admit Siachen is wrong and i will admit KARGIL was a wrong operation however if you say siachen is right then i guess kargil operation is also correct in every aspect....



Ok I agree with you kargil and siachen are fair play. This point raised by some members that siachen was back stabbing doesnt hold water.

I did go through some threads and saw some members trying to portray Siachen as a violation, there'll always be whiners on both sides.


----------



## Zob

exactly so siachen and kargil are fair play because it is LOC and whoever whenever can seize an initiative should and would!! so any agression along the LoC is fair play is all i say...i hope you agree.....

if you do then we can move on to the next question and talk.....


----------



## tharkee

Zob said:


> exactly so siachen and kargil are fair play because it is LOC and whoever whenever can seize an initiative should and would!! so any agression along the LoC is fair play is all i say...i hope you agree.....
> 
> if you do then we can move on to the next question and talk.....



Yeah it is fair play...unless you promise one thing at the highest level and carry out the opposite.


----------



## Zob

ok so you admit its fair play so operation Gibraltar in 1965 was fair and 1971 was indian backstabbing!! and we promise nothing....because LoC is disputed and anyone who can take it should take it...however, siachen should be dimilitarized & both sides should sign a document stating that status quo as it existed before 1984(Siachen) should be followed & operations such as Kargil can be conducted unless and until LoC dispute is solved...


----------



## maverick2009

Kargil showed weaknesses for both nations. 

For india being so naieve leaving its bunkers unoccupied during winter. The secret service no awareness of Mushraffs Plans. Indias where fooled by sweet talking about opening up borders the indian Gov,t/Miliary where damn fools and grossly incompetent. 

For Pakistan a total lack of comprehension/ reading that India would simply sit back and do nothing. They underestimated India,s Resolves to win back Kargil. 

The other main point was the shock that Various elements of your Air force or Navy where not involved in planning and not even aware. So where basically un prepared for a Full War escalation. 

The other Question did you withdraw because of 

USA pressure OR India,s threat to escalate war and Cross the LOC. ?? 

i THINK IT WAS BOTH you where worried about USA diplomatic support for india and the poor shape of both PAF & NAVY...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## spsk

Zob said:


> ok so you admit its fair play so operation Gibraltar in 1965 was fair and 1971 was indian backstabbing!! and we promise nothing....because LoC is disputed and anyone who can take it should take it...however, siachen should be dimilitarized & both sides should sign a document stating that status quo as it existed before 1984(Siachen) should be followed & operations such as Kargil can be conducted unless and until LoC dispute is solved...



Kid, LOC is not disputed. LOC is settled long before 40 years back, Who told who ever wants to take it can take it hehehe, Come on man,Stop joking.... You are saying as if soldiers can walk in with a Pakistani flag and claim its their territory. Hmm I would say Kargil is just an example how Pakistan can be trusted.


----------



## Renegade

@ Kasrkin 

Dude its been a week already and you still haven't replied to my post (No.331), in this thread. Awaiting your answer.


----------



## pakomar

psugumar said:


> Kid, LOC is not disputed. LOC is settled long before 40 years back, Who told who ever wants to take it can take it hehehe, Come on man,Stop joking.... You are saying as if soldiers can walk in with a Pakistani flag and claim its their territory. Hmm I would say Kargil is just an example how Pakistan can be trusted.



LOC is not a recognize border line. It is not a recognize border because Pakistan do not expect the India occupied Kashmir and India do not expect Pakistan azad Kashmir.
But affords are being made to make it a recognizable border line.


----------



## Kasrkin

> I have provided a video link that clearly talks about the torture of Lt.Saurabh Kalia. What is your reaction to that!!!! The proof about it clearly present at the moment, why shy away from discussing it.



The matter of alleged torture of Indian prisoners has already been addressed in great detail in this very thread. You haven't provided anything that matches the credibility of what I've provided through Indian and neutral sources. Its a report from an Indian Channel, I haven't even bothered watching it, and I won't. As a rule, when it comes to debating facts you cannot use partial sources i.e. your media to 'prove' anything, especially not something I've already refuted through non-partial references. If I had used a PTV bulletin to 'prove' that Pakistani soldiers were mutilated, you could've dismissed it, just like other Indians will no doubt dismiss reports of IAF intrusions that were splattered all over our media. But I, in fact, have used an _Indian_ narrative to show that Indian soldiers were involved in un-ethical conduct. That's something you still haven't been able to comment on, which is no surprise. But this childishly confrontational attitude of yours is not like-able, don't delude yourself into thinking that you're capable of embarrassing me through these Indian reports, because thats not the spirit or purpose of this forum. We can have factual and mutually beneficial debates where views are presented and debated, but this is not a point scoring contest where you feel the need to 'get one over me', because thats certainly not what I've been doing here.



> My claims of mistreatment of the NLI personnel during Kargil i.e their bodies being quietly delivered to their homes and they
> being buried with out any military honors and recognition.



You have no moral or factual authority to make these claims. They represent a particularly vulgar form of propaganda effort by the Indian side that is not grounded in fact. Repeating such here will only get you in trouble, as Agnostic Muslim has already made clear in the previous discourse on the thread.

I hope that clarifies the situation. I'll be happy to address anything if you've got any concrete material to back up your beliefs or to disregard mine. Until then, I suggest you pursue a more constructive discussion.


----------



## shravan

Kasrkin said:


> I hope that clarifies the situation. I'll be happy to address anything if you've got any concrete material to back up your beliefs or to disregard mine.



Karsin,

Pakistani Government even hesitated to accept the remains of Captain Colonel Sher Khan and Havaldar Lalak Jan.

So I think what Renegade is saying must be true.


----------



## Kasrkin

Shravan, I'll just repeat what I said, you're welcome to 'think' whatever you want. But I'm only going to address that which is more than hearsay, something which can be substantiated. I've made _all_ my views more than clear if you go a few pages back. Thanks.


----------



## shravan

Kasrkin said:


> Shravan, I'll just repeat what I said, you're welcome to 'think' whatever you want. But I'm only going to address that which is more than hearsay, something which can be substantiated. I've made _all_ my views more than clear if you go a few pages back. Thanks.



Investigating Kargil

At best, Kargil was a tactical surprise -- beyond that it failed at the strategic level. After *some hesitation and denials*, we accepted the mortal remains of Captain Colonel Sher Khan and Havaldar Lalak Jan and honoured them with the highest gallantry awards, as praise for their courage by the enemy was becoming too embarrassing. There was of course no compunction or embarrassment in promoting/rewarding the four generals largely perceived to bear prime responsibility for the fiasco. 

The writer is a retired vice-admiral and former vice-chief of the Naval Staff, Pakistan Navy. Email: tajkhattak@gmail.com
---

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kasrkin

Good of you to post from a Pakistani source shravan, but that is nothing I didn't already know. Furthermore it is no where near the contention of "_mistreatment of the NLI personnel during Kargil i.e their bodies being quietly delivered to their homes and they being buried with out any military honors and recognition_" being made here. You can't take one thing from a source and ignore another from the very same source. The admiral made clear that they were honored by the _highest gallantry wards_ which in itself precludes the possibility of 'no military honors and recognition'. The whole of the NLI was integrated into the regular army solely in honor and recognition for their participation in Kargil, the supposition that this, and more, was all done due to Indian pressure or due to the impact of Indian psych-ops on troop morale is dubious at best. Therefore, it is not for Indians to decide what was honor enough and what wasn't, it is very unseemly, not to mention distasteful, to make sweeping, unsubstantiated accusations, particularly when India's own treatment of those of the NLI soldiers was less than honorable. We're all very aware of the facts and the ground realities at the time, however, we will not give room for imaginative and objectionable assumptions.

I hope we understand each other Shravan.


----------



## arihant

pakomar said:


> LOC is not a recognize border line. It is not a recognize border because Pakistan do not expect the India occupied Kashmir and India do not expect Pakistan azad Kashmir.
> But affords are being made to make it a recognizable border line.



Sorry but your sentence is misleading. India even recognize the part of Baltistan, Gilgit and the left Azad Kashmir as India's Jammu & Kashmir.

Yes, LOC is not a international border but its just _de facto_ - actual ground controlled border. Most likely no one will like to go back from their current control, hence probably LOC will be made international border if talks resume and final decision is made.


----------



## shravan

Kasrkin said:


> I hope we understand each other Shravan.



Yup. 

Even if i wanted to reply, i could not write ( play with words.. ) like you ...


----------



## Renegade

Kasrkin said:


> The matter of alleged torture of Indian prisoners has already been addressed in great detail in this very thread. You haven't provided anything that matches the credibility of what I've provided through Indian and neutral sources. Its a report from an Indian Channel, I haven't even bothered watching it, and I won't. As a rule, when it comes to debating facts you cannot use partial sources i.e. your media to 'prove' anything, especially not something I've already refuted through non-partial references. If I had used a PTV bulletin to 'prove' that Pakistani soldiers were mutilated, you could've dismissed it, just like other Indians will no doubt dismiss reports of IAF intrusions that were splattered all over our media. But I, in fact, have used an _Indian_ narrative to show that Indian soldiers were involved in un-ethical conduct. That's something you still haven't been able to comment on, which is no surprise. But this childishly confrontational attitude of yours is not like-able, don't delude yourself into thinking that you're capable of embarrassing me through these Indian reports, because thats not the spirit or purpose of this forum. We can have factual and mutually beneficial debates where views are presented and debated, but this is not a point scoring contest where you feel the need to 'get one over me', because thats certainly not what I've been doing here.



Neither i intend this debate to be a point scoring contest. Having said that, you doubt about the neutrality of the news video is understood - but if you go through the video you will clearly see what i am talking about. In the video the family of Lt.Sourabh Kalia who received his body allege torture, claims which the GoI backs and had even raised the issue with GoP. Lt.Kalia's brother clearly describes the state of the body as it was received - mentioning that it clearly bore marks of torture and that the body was so bad disfigured that he decided that his mother should not see the body. Only his family speaks in the video and there are no people from the government or the IA who make such accusations. On the contrary the family of Lt. Kalia clearly accuse the GoI of not doing enough to bring the perpetrators to justice. Here is the mother & brother of a soldier describing her grief over her sons torture, you surely cant accuse her of using her sons death for propaganda. 

Watch the video and then make up your mind weather it is propaganda or the truth, just absolutely rubbishing something even before seeing and experiencing it serves no purpose. 





Kasrkin said:


> You have no moral or factual authority to make these claims. They represent a particularly vulgar form of propaganda effort by the Indian side that is not grounded in fact. Repeating such here will only get you in trouble, as Agnostic Muslim has already made clear in the previous discourse on the thread.
> 
> I hope that clarifies the situation. I'll be happy to address anything if you've got any concrete material to back up your beliefs or to disregard mine. Until then, I suggest you pursue a more constructive discussion.



As i outlined earlier this debate is centered on three points and i intend to give proof for ever accusation i make. But before we proceed further with the other two points - i have provided good material (proof for me) about the first point. *Why shy away from debating that??*


----------



## Renegade

Kasrkin said:


> Good of you to post from a Pakistani source shravan, but that is nothing I didn't already know. *Furthermore it is no where near the contention of "mistreatment of the NLI personnel during Kargil i.e their bodies being quietly delivered to their homes and they being buried with out any military honors and recognition"* being made here. You can't take one thing from a source and ignore another from the very same source. The admiral made clear that they were honored by the _highest gallantry wards_ which in itself precludes the possibility of 'no military honors and recognition'. The whole of the NLI was integrated into the regular army solely in honor and recognition for their participation in Kargil, the supposition that this, and more, was all done due to Indian pressure or due to the impact of Indian psych-ops on troop morale is dubious at best. Therefore, it is not for Indians to decide what was honor enough and what wasn't, it is very unseemly, not to mention distasteful, to make sweeping, unsubstantiated accusations, particularly when India's own treatment of those of the NLI soldiers was less than honorable. We're all very aware of the facts and the ground realities at the time, however, we will not give room for imaginative and objectionable assumptions.
> 
> I hope we understand each other Shravan.



I have proof for what i have said and i will present it. Just waiting for your reply on the Lt.Kalia issue first.


----------



## Comet

A Lost Opportunity.....sigh!


----------



## DbnReaper

Did Kargil truly serve any military or political purpose for Pakistan? What was the intent of the Pakistan army in sending in a few of their army personnel dressed as terrorists into Indian territory? They obviously did not expect to win over territory with those handful of men. In my research I have yet to find any logical reason given or suggested by any Pakistani or Indian official on the reasons for the infiltration of Kargil.


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Kargil ...... 

Here is what happened , winter ended, so soliders from both side were suppose to come back , one party came in earlier then other , and since there are no official marking on the place, 

They could have mistakenly set an outpost I mean we are talking about a rocky region 


Now as usual , the India media started to mirch masala the news  some fake news were reported in local media , which turned out to be 100&#37; lies later 

I mean realistically , do you really think Pakistani forces would have left the out post by war ? They already had the place secured.

They just debated the issue , and just decided to back to origional location big deal ...

then BOLLYWOOD and went crazy

I think the biggest problem in India is their HYPER Media ...

Realistically if Pakistan wanted to suprise India , they would have just nuked them up , in all major cities , and then do a second strike before indians reacted that did not happened 

Just a major confusion 

I think Mushy explained that to every one when he tried to bring ppl close , then the stupid mumbai thing happened ....I mean 

 I am bored of this rivalry we need something new

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## arihant

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> Kargil ......
> They could have mistakenly set an outpost I mean we are talking about a rocky region



So silly mistake.


> I mean realistically , do you really think Pakistani forces would have left the out post by war ? They already had the place secured.



Offcourse, Under world pressure.



> They just debated the issue , and just decided to back to origional location big deal ...



After running towards USA.



> Realistically if Pakistan wanted to suprise India , they would have just nuked them up , in all major cities , and then do a second strike before indians reacted that did not happened



As your profiles shows Pak Flag in both home and host country, you would not have been there after nuking one part of India.




> Just a major confusion



First research then attack. 




> I am bored of this rivalry we need something new



Stop terrorism.

Anyway, you are new born. Looks too much history unknown to you. Hopefully, this new internet connection will help you in releasing the truth facts.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DbnReaper

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> Kargil ......
> 
> Here is what happened , winter ended, so soliders from both side were suppose to come back , one party came in earlier then other , and since there are no official marking on the place,
> 
> They could have mistakenly set an outpost I mean we are talking about a rocky region
> 
> 
> Now as usual , the India media started to mirch masala the news  some fake news were reported in local media , which turned out to be 100% lies later
> 
> I mean realistically , do you really think Pakistani forces would have left the out post by war ? They already had the place secured.
> 
> They just debated the issue , and just decided to back to origional location big deal ...
> 
> then BOLLYWOOD and went crazy
> 
> I think the biggest problem in India is their HYPER Media ...
> 
> Realistically if Pakistan wanted to suprise India , they would have just nuked them up , in all major cities , and then do a second strike before indians reacted that did not happened
> 
> Just a major confusion
> 
> I think Mushy explained that to every one when he tried to bring ppl close , then the stupid mumbai thing happened ....I mean
> 
> *I am bored of this rivalry we need something new*



Perhaps India , Pakistan, China and Bangladesh could find a new enemy to create new hate slogans and terms against the new enemy? Russia or Japan maybe a good place to start looking


----------



## sarthak

DbnReaper said:


> Did Kargil truly serve any military or political purpose for Pakistan? What was the intent of the Pakistan army in sending in a few of their army personnel dressed as terrorists into Indian territory? They obviously did not expect to win over territory with those handful of men. In my research I have yet to find any logical reason given or suggested by any Pakistani or Indian official on the reasons for the infiltration of Kargil.



It isn't that simple. Yes , the pakistani men were few. But you must remember that because of the geography , they were still in an advantageous position. They were occupying bunkers located on top peaks and all they had to do was shoot down at indian soldiers who tried to climb up. It was an extremely difficult operation for india and pakistan never expected that it would be successful .


----------



## Hayreddin

You were not successful , Pakistan ARMY retreated due to the orders of traitor NAWAZ SHAREEF (ex prime minister )


----------



## jagjitnatt

ahmed said:


> You were not successful , Pakistan ARMY retreated due to the orders of traitor NAWAZ SHAREEF (ex prime minister )



after having all of its NLI dead in the grave.
Seriously, India had regained all the strategic points till the time Pak retreated. Some of the soldiers and militants refused to retreat who were taken care of by the military in the last few days of the war.

Kargil was a HUGE mistake by the Pakistani Army. Should have never been attempted.


----------



## PlanetWarrior

ahmed said:


> You were not successful , Pakistan ARMY retreated due to the orders of traitor NAWAZ SHAREEF (ex prime minister )



Your ex PM was the Commander in Chief of your army. If he gave the order to surrender or withdraw then the military had to follow the order. Now all that matters is that your PM ordered your army to withdraw. That is how history will judge this affair. Trying to self placate yourself by discussing the number of caskets which the Indian military ordered around this time or the fact that your held a piece of Indian territory for a short while is pointless. At the end of it all your army withdrew and the Indian army re-occupied those areas. German soldiers fought bravely and well during WW2. History however has forgotten that. All that is reported nowadays is that Germany lost the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ice_man

*SARTHAK*
It isn't that simple. Yes , the pakistani men were few. But you must remember that because of the geography , they were still in an advantageous position. They were occupying bunkers located on top peaks and all they had to do was shoot down at indian soldiers who tried to climb up.


*PLANET WARRIOR *
Your ex PM was the Commander in Chief of your army. If he gave the order to surrender or withdraw then the military had to follow the order. Now all that matters is that your PM ordered your army to withdraw. That is how history will judge this affair. Trying to self placate yourself by discussing the number of caskets which the Indian military ordered around this time or the fact that your held a piece of Indian territory for a short while is pointless. At the end of it all your army withdrew and the Indian army re-occupied those areas. German soldiers fought bravely and well during WW2. History however has forgotten that. All that is reported nowadays is that Germany lost the war.

i guess these two posts by these two gentlemen sums up the whole conflict!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DeathGod

I have only one thing to say guys:

Every War is a Debacle , whether its a victory or a loss. 

However there will never be an end of war. Maybe there wont be any war in the terms of humans going out and killing each other but war and competition are intrinsic and also a few of the pillars on which our progress is based. Maybe we can put an end to conventional wars and engage ourselves in a war where one wins when utopia is acheived. That way we will make maximum progress with minimum loss.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MilesTogo

ahmed said:


> You were not successful , Pakistan ARMY retreated due to the orders of traitor NAWAZ SHAREEF (ex prime minister )



let's hang that traitor first...


----------



## Storm Force

The ObJective Kargil was to capture the strategic locations. Overlooking karakom highway a ross roads between china & pakistan. 

Pakistan captured these posts because the foolish complacent indians left for 3 months during the winter breaks. 

The indians now had to fight from below and it cost hundreds lives.. A STRATEGIC BLUNDER to trust a neighbour who was talking peace at the same time. 

From pakistan s point under huge pressure from usa they retreated. 

Hundreds of Pakistani soldiers died in particular from air strikes by IAF mirage fighters.. 

THE PAF never came to their aid simply not involved in the planning and very much aware of IAF BVR edge with the mig29/mirage2000 FIGHTERS.. 

pakistanis objective to capture KARGIL in the end a FAILURE. 

India captured SAICHEN GLACIER in the same way in the 1989 war. India stil holds both SAICHEN & KARGIL


----------



## sab

Growler said:


> " A contract was concluded in August 1999 with Buitron and Baize, USA for 500 aluminium caskets and 3,000 body bags at a total cost of US $ 1.5 million equivalent to Rs 6.55 crore." Strategic Affairs - Special Report
> so their you go.. 3500 vs 357


Do you want to mean all soldiers died same day and after counting the deadbodies IA ordered for bodybags?Just explain whether the deadbodies of soldiers were left to rot till the body bags arrived? Joker of the thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RobbieS

Storm Force said:


> Pakistan captured these posts because the foolish complacent indians left for 3 months during the winter breaks.



Agree with the rest of your post but not the above part. It was a common and mutually agreed to practice by both sides to vacate positions at these heights. At above - 19,000 ft lets see how many of your country's brave and smart stay in -30C?


----------



## notsuperstitious

sab said:


> Do you want to mean all soldiers died same day and after counting the deadbodies IA ordered for bodybags?Just explain whether the deadbodies of soldiers were left to rot till the body bags arrived? Joker of the thread.



Sab, insinuation and conspiracy theories are resort of those who have failed to publish a list of their casualties and failed to collect their own bodies.

Don't pay attention.


----------



## ice_man

Storm Force said:


> *A STRATEGIC BLUNDER to trust a neighbour who was talking peace at the same time. *
> 
> 
> * India captured SAICHEN GLACIER in the same way in the 1989 war. India stil holds both SAICHEN & *KARGIL



these two lines say it for themselves INDIANS SHOULDN'T BE CRYING WOLF!!!! so kargil was no back stabbing! infact these tactics PAKISTAN LEARNT FROM ITS ENEMY!


----------



## DeathGod

ice_man said:


> these two lines say it for themselves INDIANS SHOULDN'T BE CRYING WOLF!!!! so kargil was no back stabbing! infact these tactics PAKISTAN LEARNT FROM ITS ENEMY!



Well maybe Pakistan shouldn't be a crying wolf. Siachen was a sort of DMZ. None of the nations had outposts or any military set up there which wasnt the case with Kargil. I hope its not that hard for you to understand . Pakistan voilated the LOC in Kargil while in Siachen there was any.Also India was on peace table with Pakistan and Kashmir was definitely a issue ( which wasnt the case when Siachen occured). This also lends weight to the fact that Pakistan back stabbed India.

As far as Kargil being a debacle or a lost oppurtunity is concerned then the material and non material losses stand a testimony to a judgement which tilts in favour of it being a debacle.Pakistan lost a large number of troops and a lot in its international standing. Since Kargil things havent been the same for PA and Pakistan in general who is now facing an internal war. However its pleasing to see that Pakistan is coping well with terrorists ( thank goodness there hasnt been any major terrorist attack in past month). Hope Pakistan can recover well and be on a speedy road to recovery but first and foremost she needs to get rid of fundamentalist elements of the society,they are definitely TNT.

Also it wasnt a good experience for IA as well , though an eye opening one. The then PM had a lot of guts to retailiate and for that he needs to be admired.


----------



## ice_man

DeathGod said:


> Well maybe Pakistan shouldn't be a crying wolf. Siachen was a sort of DMZ. None of the nations had outposts or any military set up there which wasnt the case with Kargil. I hope its not that hard for you to understand . Pakistan voilated the LOC in Kargil while in Siachen there was any.Also India was on peace table with Pakistan and Kashmir was definitely a issue ( which wasnt the case when Siachen occured). This also lends weight to the fact that Pakistan back stabbed India.
> 
> As far as Kargil being a debacle or a lost oppurtunity is concerned then the material and non material losses stand a testimony to a judgement which tilts in favour of it being a debacle.Pakistan lost a large number of troops and a lot in its international standing. Since Kargil things havent been the same for PA and Pakistan in general who is now facing an internal war. However its pleasing to see that Pakistan is coping well with terrorists ( thank goodness there hasnt been any major terrorist attack in past month). Hope Pakistan can recover well and be on a speedy road to recovery but first and foremost she needs to get rid of fundamentalist elements of the society,they are definitely TNT.
> 
> Also it wasnt a good experience for IA as well , though an eye opening one. The then PM had a lot of guts to retailiate and for that he needs to be admired.



wooohooo!!! 

firstly LOC means LINE OF CONTROL! india has been arguing the case to make it an INTERNATIONAL BORDER!!! so us walking into kargil or you walking into SIACHEN are both in theory correct!! because whoever holds onto their ground it is theirs! 

as for back stabbing!.....hmmmm where do you want me to start! lets go back to 1971 when india entered PAKISTAN's CIVIL WAR! 

or back to partition when it entered jungadh or when it entered hyderabad! (notice pakistanis entering kashmir happened AFTER these events)!! 


as for us losing face & image....if you go by just opinon which you are ofcourse THINGS HAVE NEVER BEEN BETTER FOR PAKISTAN ARMY!!! we got the sanctions removed & US military hardware started pouring in!! so so much for NDTV reports of pakistan army lost face & standing! 

as for internal war well we are FIGHTING FOR THE SAFEGUARING of the WORLD! OF OUR WAY OF LIFE!! 

so YOU be GRATEFUL!!! because after all the talibans were MADE by the US trained by the US! today when no one can put the serpant back in the cage pakistan is the one stepping up and doing it for the WORLD!!! 


good day boy stop watching indian tv & watch international sources!


----------



## DeathGod

ice_man said:


> 1. good day boy stop watching indian tv & watch international sources!
> 
> 2. firstly LOC means LINE OF CONTROL! india has been arguing the case to make it an INTERNATIONAL BORDER!!! so us walking into kargil or you walking into SIACHEN are both in theory correct!! because whoever holds onto their ground it is theirs!
> 
> 3. as for back stabbing!.....hmmmm where do you want me to start! lets go back to 1971 when india entered PAKISTAN's CIVIL WAR!
> 
> or back to partition when it entered jungadh or when it entered hyderabad! (notice pakistanis entering kashmir happened AFTER these events)!!
> 
> 
> 4. as for us losing face & image....if you go by just opinon which you are ofcourse THINGS HAVE NEVER BEEN BETTER FOR PAKISTAN ARMY!!! we got the sanctions removed & US military hardware started pouring in!! so so much for NDTV reports of pakistan army lost face & standing!
> 
> 5. as for internal war well we are FIGHTING FOR THE SAFEGUARING of the WORLD! OF OUR WAY OF LIFE!!
> so YOU be GRATEFUL!!! because after all the
> 
> 6.talibans were MADE by the US trained by the US! today when no one can put the serpant back in the cage pakistan is the one stepping up and doing it for the WORLD!!!



1. I have two points to make here: 
a. How on this earth do you think that I am using Indian TV channels as my sources? FYI I dont have a TV to watch all those. 
b. Indian media is any case is more mature and neutral as compared to Pakistan barring a few news channel.

2. Yes it is LOC and should be respected. Ever heard a story of India voilating the LOC during Kargil conflict? There are rules and they need to be followed. Dont follow them and dig your own graves ala Kargil.

3. Live in the present will be my only appeal. Btw Pakistan attacked India so many times . If India would have had the same revenge mentality as you are showing then India would have been planning to attack Pakistan.On the contrary India has been bled so many times by terrorists which have been supported by your state but still maintained its composure.

4. Provide me a timeline as to when the bans started lifting. IMO they were after 9/11 and not after Kargil. And that Pakistan lost a lot of face in International circles is beyond doubt. U.S critisized Pakistan for doing what you did in Kargil when India was talking about peace.

5. No sir , dont ever think that you are doing world any favors. Pakistan would have died a slow death if you wouldn't have controlled these elements in your society. Saving the world is to some extent what U.S does by sending its troops half way across globe . You guys are merely protecting whats yours. 

6. I would have liked S-2 to explain it to you but it wasnt U.S but Pakistan that gave rise to Taliban to acheive so called strategic depth in Afghanistan.

Btw this post is offtopic and so was yours. So lets stick to the topic and if you have anything to talk about Kargil being a debacle or lost oppurtunity then say so.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.R.

ice_man said:


> wooohooo!!!
> 
> firstly LOC means LINE OF CONTROL! india has been arguing the case to make it an INTERNATIONAL BORDER!!! so us walking into kargil or you walking into SIACHEN are both in theory correct!! because whoever holds onto their ground it is theirs!
> 
> as for back stabbing!.....hmmmm where do you want me to start! *lets go back to 1971 when india entered PAKISTAN's CIVIL WAR!
> *
> or back to partition when it entered jungadh or when it entered hyderabad! (notice pakistanis entering kashmir happened AFTER these events)!!
> 
> 
> as for us losing face & image....if you go by just opinon which you are ofcourse THINGS HAVE NEVER BEEN BETTER FOR PAKISTAN ARMY!!! we got the sanctions removed & US military hardware started pouring in!! so so much for NDTV reports of pakistan army lost face & standing!
> 
> as for internal war well we are FIGHTING FOR THE SAFEGUARING of the WORLD! OF OUR WAY OF LIFE!!
> 
> so YOU be GRATEFUL!!! because after all the talibans were MADE by the US trained by the US! today when no one can put the serpant back in the cage pakistan is the one stepping up and doing it for the WORLD!!!
> 
> 
> good day boy stop watching indian tv & watch international sources!



India never initiated war against Pakistan... It was the stupidity of pakistani leaders that in despite of on going civil war they dared to attack India. consider following passage from wikipedia...

On the evening of 3 December Sunday, at about 5:40 PM,[19] the Pakistani air force launched a pre-emptive strike on eleven airfields in north-western India, including Agra which was 300 miles (480 km) from the border.* During this attack the Taj Mahal was camouflaged with a forest of twigs and leaves and draped with burlap because its marble glowed like a white beacon in the moonlight*.[20]

This preemptive strike known as Operation Chengiz Khan, was inspired by the success of Israeli Operation Focus in the Arab-Israeli Six Day War. But, unlike the Israeli attack on Arab airbases in 1967 which involved a large number of Israeli planes, Pakistan flew no more than 50 planes to India and failed inflict the intended damage.[21] As a result, Indian runways were cratered and rendered non-functional for several hours after the attack.[22]

In an address to the nation on radio that same evening, *Prime Minister Gandhi held the air strikes as a declaration of war against India*[23][24] and the Indian Air Force responded with initial air strikes that very night that were expanded to massive retaliatory airstrikes the next morning.[25]

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ice_man

DeathGod said:


> 1. I have two points to make here:
> a. How on this earth do you think that I am using Indian TV channels as my sources? FYI I dont have a TV to watch all those.
> b. Indian media is any case is more mature and neutral as compared to Pakistan barring a few news channel.
> 
> 2. Yes it is LOC and should be respected. Ever heard a story of India voilating the LOC during Kargil conflict? There are rules and they need to be followed. Dont follow them and dig your own graves ala Kargil.
> 
> 3. Live in the present will be my only appeal. Btw Pakistan attacked India so many times . If India would have had the same revenge mentality as you are showing then India would have been planning to attack Pakistan.On the contrary India has been bled so many times by terrorists which have been supported by your state but still maintained its composure.
> 
> 4. Provide me a timeline as to when the bans started lifting. IMO they were after 9/11 and not after Kargil. And that Pakistan lost a lot of face in International circles is beyond doubt. U.S critisized Pakistan for doing what you did in Kargil when India was talking about peace.
> 
> 5. No sir , dont ever think that you are doing world any favors. Pakistan would have died a slow death if you wouldn't have controlled these elements in your society. Saving the world is to some extent what U.S does by sending its troops half way across globe . You guys are merely protecting whats yours.
> 
> 6. I would have liked S-2 to explain it to you but it wasnt U.S but Pakistan that gave rise to Taliban to acheive so called strategic depth in Afghanistan.
> 
> Btw this post is offtopic and so was yours. So lets stick to the topic and if you have anything to talk about Kargil being a debacle or lost oppurtunity then say so.




1) YOU don't have TV but again without any source you claim INDIAN MEDIA IS MORE MATURE???? what source makes you say that? 

2) as for LOC violation my friend india did cross the LOC hence both your fighters were shot down!!! so don't give me LoC must be respected BS! 

3) pakistan attacked india so many times? well like i said we learnt from you my friend!! read my post i have given you examples from junagadh to siachen!! as for terrorists bleeding you its your own government policies! 

4) Well like i said 9/11 was after kargil so don't give me this bs that pakistan lost face! pakistan lost nothing sanctions got lifted period! 

5)  US saves the world???? & if pakistan doesn't fight this war trust me your style of life won't be safe!!! we are cleaning out the dirty laundry! for everyone! 

6) America in the World: Hillary Clinton says inconsistent American foreign policy is partly to blame for rise of Taliban in Pakistan

don't give me this crap that pakistan were responsible for the rise of al qaeda! 

Now we can go back to the topic!!!!


----------



## DeathGod

ice_man said:


> 1) YOU don't have TV but again without any source you claim INDIAN MEDIA IS MORE MATURE???? what source makes you say that?



*Note to self*: Dont debate with people who cant even fathom the different ways information about TV can be accumulated . Well lets go one better here. Dont debate with people who wont provide any evidence to support a view which is against the usual norm and just harp about the past.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ice_man

DeathGod said:


> *Note to self*: Dont debate with people who cant even fathom the different ways information about TV can be accumulated . Well lets go one better here. Dont debate with people who wont provide any evidence to support a view which is against the usual norm and just harp about the past.




 so this is your comeback GAJHNI boy!! 

well YOU guys are claiming that indian MEDIA is more "MATURE" be it print or whatever! YOU should be the ones providing proof! besides before you make mental notes to yourself GAJNI boy please read what you wrote "barring a few news channels" 

but go ahead make notes to yourself if that is all you got for a comeback for your absurd claims that you cannot backup with any sort of evidence


----------



## DeathGod

ice_man said:


> so this is your comeback GAJHNI boy!!
> 
> well YOU guys are claiming that indian MEDIA is more "MATURE" be it print or whatever! YOU should be the ones providing proof! besides before you make mental notes to yourself GAJNI boy please read what you wrote "barring a few news channels"
> 
> but go ahead make notes to yourself if that is all you got for a comeback for your absurd claims that you cannot backup with any sort of evidence



I didnt want to respond to your post but I guess my heart rather than my mind is at work.Here is my reply:

Dude you are disgusting and the cheap jokes you are cracking show me where you come from. You are not trying to belittle me by labelling me as a Ghajini boy but you are making fun of all the people who are unfortunate to suffer from Anterograde amnesia. I feel sick thinking about the kind of person you are and hence this is my last reply to your pointless posts. 

Btw you are no less arrogant then ice man in Top Gun but the sad part is that your arrogance is the only quality that you can show. Maybe you are lucky not to be deprieved by God of your physical and mental self else you wouldn't have cracked such a cheap joke. One TIGHT Slap at such attitude.


----------



## tridev

ice_man said:


> so this is your comeback GAJHNI boy!!
> 
> well YOU guys are claiming that indian MEDIA is more "MATURE" be it print or whatever! YOU should be the ones providing proof! besides before you make mental notes to yourself GAJNI boy please read what you wrote "barring a few news channels"
> 
> but go ahead make notes to yourself if that is all you got for a comeback for your absurd claims that you cannot backup with any sort of evidence



Bhaiya......we have the money, muscle and men.....we also have Siachin, Sachin and kashmir. Do what you have to or believe....balls to you...we don't give a damn.....just like you don't.......Like Israel we will do what we want......we don't give a damn about your opinion.....we are at a stronger position in every manner.....money, muscle and men.....so balls to you

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lorriefauver

This is the first article Ive read since finding this siteand what an article!!! Im hooked. Thanks Adnan for the great stuff


----------



## Yusuf

Kargil a debacle or an op lost?
It was a BS plan as far as i can think. There was no opportunity in the kind of campaign to get anything out of it. It was called as a mujahideen campaign by the Pakistanis. So obviously it could not have got any world support for it if at all.

If the Pakistanis really wanted to do something the it should have mounted a full scale war if the objective was to sit on the areas it occupied till the west stepped in. The plan of Kargil was doomed from the start.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

No point to discuss the past - it was a minor scrimage , and we just brought our soliders back after joint discussions in US etc end of story ...







We shock hands ... end of story 

Time to move on some rouge (AGENTS) destroyed a solid peace effort , and that is reality so we should focus on that

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abhiras

Zob said:


> @BSF well media propaganda done by the indians ofcourse you will depict yourself as the heroes buddy....BUT SHERKHAN & LALAK JAN....were appreciated by your military....
> 
> like i said you won the media propaganda!!



'we won' means 'you lose'


----------



## Hayreddin

yes you people won every "WAR" against PAKISTAN only in your bollywood movies and in your dreams .So go back and watch again and again bollywood movies based on war against PAKISTAN .
as far as your bullshit ARMY is concerned ,they always showed *** against KASHMIRI MILITANTS .
What did your army do in last two decades in kashmir ,did they succeeded ?????????.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,oooooo HELL NO,,,,,,,,,,,,

What did PAKISTAN ARMY do againt TEHREEK E TALIBAN terrorists in last three years,,,,,,simply google it and you will find the results ,,,,,,,,Are they getting success ??????,,,,,,,,,,,,,oooooooo HELL YES.


*simple comparison but clear results *


----------



## Abhiras

ahmed said:


> yes you people won every "WAR" against PAKISTAN only in your bollywood movies and in your dreams .So go back and watch again and again bollywood movies based on war against PAKISTAN .
> as far as your bullshit ARMY is concerned ,they always showed *** against KASHMIRI MILITANTS .
> What did your army do in last two decades in kashmir ,did they succeeded ?????????.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,oooooo HELL NO,,,,,,,,,,,,
> 
> What did PAKISTAN ARMY do againt TEHREEK E TALIBAN terrorists in last three years,,,,,,simply google it and you will find the results ,,,,,,,,Are they getting success ??????,,,,,,,,,,,,,oooooooo HELL YES.
> 
> 
> *simple comparison but clear results *



Pakistan is providing behind the scene support to these terrorists


----------



## Bang Galore

ice_man said:


> wooohooo!!!
> 
> firstly LOC means LINE OF CONTROL! india has been arguing the case to make it an INTERNATIONAL BORDER!!! so us walking into kargil or you walking into SIACHEN are both in theory correct!! because whoever holds onto their ground it is theirs!



Not accurate. *Siachin is not on the LoC. Its on the LoAC (Line of actual control)* where the ceasefire line has never been demarcated as opposed to the LoC which is documented in the Shimla Agreement. If you see any map referring to the LoC, you will actually see the line tapering off as it comes towards Siachin. This may seem a minor technical matter to you but it has a major bearing on the legal front.


----------



## Indrajith

On the day of Vijay Divas of Kargil, my question is who acheived what in kargil

Gen. Mushraf whould have been acquitted and punished for his misadventure that killed lot of people

No body acheived nothing , but lot of people lost their loved ones

Let every body understand that generals, politicians and religious leaders sit in their comfortable chairs and flare up the emotions and kill innocents


----------



## madooxno9

LOL as i remember those were not Pakistan regular soldiers ...they were terrorist or freedom fighters as you say .... so killing Terrorist is no crime .

As someone has said they had tendency to withdraw and come back again ...so killing while they are running ... is better option then to take their bullets on back while they return to inflict more damage .


----------



## karan.1970

Indrajith said:


> On the day of Vijay Divas of Kargil, my question is who acheived what in kargil
> 
> Gen. Mushraf whould have been acquitted and punished for his misadventure that killed lot of people
> 
> No body acheived nothing , but lot of people lost their loved ones
> 
> Let every body understand that generals, politicians and religious leaders sit in their comfortable chairs and flare up the emotions and kill innocents


 
I remember reading a post on this forum that linked Musharraf's Kargil adventure to his defeat in Siachen. A lesser known fact is that he was the SSG Brigadiar Gen assigned the task of taking back the area India had captured in Operation Meghdoot, but failed to do so. 

He was basically trying to do to India, what India did to Pakistan in Siachen


----------



## fast and furious

ahmed said:


> yes you people won every "WAR" against PAKISTAN only in your bollywood movies and in your dreams .So go back and watch again and again bollywood movies based on war against PAKISTAN .
> as far as your bullshit ARMY is concerned ,they always showed *** against KASHMIRI MILITANTS .
> What did your army do in last two decades in kashmir ,did they succeeded ?????????.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,oooooo HELL NO,,,,,,,,,,,,
> 
> What did PAKISTAN ARMY do againt TEHREEK E TALIBAN terrorists in last three years,,,,,,simply google it and you will find the results ,,,,,,,,Are they getting success ??????,,,,,,,,,,,,,oooooooo HELL YES.
> 
> 
> *simple comparison but clear results *




Simple Comparision eh.
Go ahead compare the Death toll in Pakistan and Death toll in Kashmir in last three years.

Some definition you have of Success for the PA.


Also,yes we have won all the wars with you.Kashmir,that you claim and fought for, remains with us after all these wars.
Indian territory has not changed post independence.You cant say that for Pakistan.
Its amazing The super Duper PA has won 1965 war but nothing to show for it.
But when they do admit the lose since they cant hide, its always due to some traitor.

1971-Backstabbing by India.Toh bhaiyya mere, panga kyon liya with pre-emptive strikes.
1984-Backstabbing by IA.
1999-Nawaz Sharif.Though you tried the same 'Backstabbing' but cudnt do that either.

Atleast now face the reality.


----------



## sohailbarki

I found some videos on youtube, i thought they are worth sharing. Its for the indian members who say that they won kargil war, this is a proof from within your country


----------



## Shadow_Hunter

sohailbarki said:


> I found some videos on youtube, i thought they are worth sharing. Its for the indian members who say that they won kargil war, this is a proof from within your country



you are allowed to satisfy yourself in whatever way you find appropriate......


----------



## sohailbarki

Shadow_Hunter said:


> you are allowed to satisfy yourself in whatever way you find appropriate......


I am not saying anything out of my stomach. This is what your high ranking officials or in-charge ppl at that time are saying.

Also i am not saying that we won this war totally, we lost this war politically and morally not militarily.


----------



## Varad

sohailbarki said:


> I am not saying anything out of my stomach. This is what your high ranking officials or in-charge ppl at that time are saying.
> 
> Also i am not saying that we won this war totally, we lost this war politically and morally not militarily.



Dear friend even we have videos from your country not only on Kargil but for much bigger wars like 1965 or 1948 Kashmir war.
Its upto you who you want to listen to, your ego or your generals.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------

