Kargil: A Debacle or A Lost Opportunity?

[Myth_buster_1]

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]

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]

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?

 

[vish]

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.

 

[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

 

[vish]

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.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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

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]

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.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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]

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