BATMAN
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2007
- Messages
- 29,895
- Reaction score
- -28
- Country
- Location
Almost all were on board about Kargil operation
Any thing not understood from the article?
Kargil operation was an outcome of the strong, innermost desire of majority of the armed forces’ seniors to counterbalance Indian army’s illegal occupation of Siachen and it was not unknown to the commanders and other armed forces’ seniors in the 2nd-in-command and 3rd-in-command tiers, The News has learnt from reliable sources, one of them being a former officer of a very senior position, commanding an important formation in the region concerned.
The main source of information has requested anonymity for the reasons of security (as per his perception) and in view of the sensitivity of the issue. The News has more than reliable information available, through direct contact and through other channels, that this source happened to be one of the master planners and implementers of the Kargil operation and was based in the area.
According to the main source, the question does not arise that an operation of such a scale involving constant reconnaissance and surveillance, massive logistics, transportation and deployment would have gone unnoticed among the senior ranks that form the core of the decision-making body within the armed forces. This core body includes corps commanders, head of ISI, MI and other ranks next in command including the head of analysis wing of ISI, a post that was held by Lt Gen (R) Shahid Aziz who is now demonstrating total ignorance and innocence about the operation. Even other seniors of the same top category, from the top brass, were in the know of these things, plans. Some might have been unaware of the details as to the timing of the operation in the minutest detail but that they didn’t have even a bit of idea about the operation, is unthinkable, says the main source and other sources acquainted with the functioning of armed forces’ and intelligence networks’ systems.
The sources say that there was nothing unusual about the Kargil operation which means there is usually nothing wrong with such strategies if they remain within the military tactical domain, particularly when two countries’ armies remain in a state of tension-ridden alertness against any possible clash or conflict, the like of which was witnessed a few days back on the LoC (Line of Control) where the soldier’s beheading episode (tragedy) became a very hot topic in Indian media in particular. When the situation is such, armies being positioned in such a state of unusual preparedness, strategic plans continue to be evolved to gain an edge or a strategic advantage against the adversaries, even during peace time. It is a routine practice building crisis scenarios, analysing them in depth and then finding solutions.
Explaining the dynamics of war, the sources disclosed that even wars don’t break out so abruptly most of the times, except on few occasions when suddenly emerging irritants trigger war.
According to sources, the illegal occupation of the highest battlefield of the world, Siachen, by Indian forces was the primary cause prompting the Pakistani armed forces to chalk out a strategy to gain a strategic advantage against Indian forces that can be termed in the special jargon as tit-for-tat. The predetermined constant factor was, however, remaining within the confines of tactical moves so that the matter doesn’t escalate beyond a certain limit to turn unmanageable.
That never meant occupation in the strictest sense of the term or in the international laws’ perspective, explained the sources, although India had violated the global norms and laws of territorial sovereignty by sending its troops to Siachen and by occupying it.
When asked to elaborate, the sources explained that, acting somewhat in the manner the Indian forces had conducted their matters prior to Siachen’s occupation, the Pakistani forces and surveillance setups carried out recce for quite some time to find out that more than two dozen peaks on the other side had continued to remain vacant. In a tit-for-tat move, plans were made to occupy the peaks that also provided Pakistani forces a tactical, strategic edge over Indian forces, being located at an advantageous height. Once occupied, there was no legal, military or international mechanism available to India to lodge a complaint or to force Pakistan to withdraw. The tragedy of Pakistan soldiers that followed, owes to different factors, that of political nature involving follies of the political bigwigs. The sources added that it was technically impracticable for India to prove that those peaks were its bona fide territory or were in its lawful occupation.
Among others, the sources were also asked the question as to how could the armed forces act in isolation from the world opinion and simultaneously without being in consonance with the government or the prime minister of the day and without the knowledge — if not endorsement — of other key stakeholders like the officers of the rank of corps commanders and ISI commanders.
When this information, of which one or two pieces were already known, was put to intelligentsia including those having deep insight into defence matters, they opined that either the then COAS General Pervez Musharraf was too clever and shrewd for his senior colleagues in the forces or the latter were mountains of complacency, never bothered about their surroundings or things brewing up right in their flanks, although they were officially duty-bound to be vigilant and well-informed. It was — and still is — the requirement of the military profession. And as for the innocence of the then civilian regime headed by a sharp-witted and versatile prime minister, it was unparalleled. Even a small departmental store is exempt from this much innocence.
Things happening (or even those brewing up) are in the knowledge of the people working there, at least to those who are key position-holders. In the armed forces, at the corps commanders’ level, the senses and reflexes rather get honed up to such an extent that your sensing-and-smelling instinct goes yet sharper.
These analysts and the sources even opine that it should be made mandatory not to induct so much naive and self-complacent people in sensitive positions on which hinges the fate, solidarity or dignity of a country.
About the anonymity factor, the intelligentsia, however, opined that it would have been yet more conscientious on the part of the main source had he allowed his name to be publicised.
But anonymity is an accepted norm in media reporting insofar as the source concerned is totally relative and relevant to the situation.
These analysts also opine that people in other parts of the world might be laughing at our top brass’ innocence and self-complacency and more so on the eruptions of so many ‘Inkishifaat’ (disclosures at self-exoneration).
And before the talk concluded, the sources also suggested going further deep into the cases of court-martial instituted against Indian commanders and other officers. They were reportedly court-martialled for negligence of the worst order that resulted in the occupation of strategically advantageous peaks, by Pakistani forces.
Disclaimer: This story has nothing to do with General (r) Pervez Musharraf directly. The venue and timing of meeting with the main source can be disclosed if and when necessary/unavoidable.
Any thing not understood from the article?
