Kargil: A Debacle or A Lost Opportunity?

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.