Kargil war date:event sheet

[Hamza913]

India Hold Land it took

And I already told you, that was just recapturing land taken by Pakistan in the first Kashmir war. We're just going in circles now.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

And I already told you, that was just recapturing land taken by Pakistan in the first Kashmir war. We're just going in circles now.

Welcome to dealing with india FAKE NEWS that never ends:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-50749764

 

[IMARV]

Welcome to dealing with india FAKE NEWS that never ends:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-50749764

Dear sir, just to help me with my general knowledge, when is Kargil fateh day celebrated in Pakistan? As far as I know, there is a tradition of celebrating even a stalemate (1965) or drowning of a Mig 21, capturing most important peak in Kargill must definitely be celebrated.

 

[Krptonite]

So when indians claim they shot down an F-16 and killed exactly 350 terrorists in Balakot they were telling the truth? We are to believe that?

When the likes of Bruce Reidel claimed that Iraq had WMDs that destroy Europe in 30 mins, are we to believe that too? That lie cost the lives of over 1 million innocent Iraqis between 2003 - 2014.

Why are you so hell bent on believing lies?

Which source would you believe then?

Every thread you post the same couple of paragraphs and demand sources and then promptly decree the one's provided to be false/biased/unreliable/opinionated.

You compare every topic under the sun with the 27th feb incident using the same argument ad hominem. We get it, you don't believe sources critical to Pakistan, after that what's left then?

Aren't you tired of repeating the same thing again and again without even moving the discussion forward. It would've been understandable if you really were after furthering your knowledge on the topic but from the looks of it anything critical about India is readily accepted but not the other way around. Why the discrepancy?

Please conduct a thought experiment, if all the critical pieces you readily believe about India were to be subjected to the same rigourous elimination criteria you propagate, how many would survive?

This is not to shirk from our share of faults, we have plenty and I'm sure you can provide irrefutable and solid sources to back your claims, but surely you must realise this cuts both ways, you cannot cherry pick the facts that you prefer and denounce the rest.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Which source would you believe then?

Every thread you post the same couple of paragraphs and demand sources and then promptly decree the one's provided to be false/biased/unreliable/opinionated.

You compare every topic under the sun with the 27th feb incident using the same argument ad hominem.

We get it, you don't believe sources critical to Pakistan, after that what's left then?

Aren't you tired of repeating the same thing again and again without even moving forward. It would've been understandable if you really were after furthering your knowledge on the topic.

Please conduct a thought experiment, if all the critical pieces you readily believe about India were to be subjected to the same rigourous elimination criteria you propagate, how many would survive?

This is not to shirk from our share of faults, we have plenty and I'm sure you can provide irrefutable and solid sources to back your claims, but surely you must realise this cuts both ways, you cannot cherry pick the facts that you prefer and denounce the rest.

We are not the biggest purveyors of propaganda and FAKE news in the world. indians are. Therefore you can NEVER believe ANYTHING an indian ever says:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-50749764

 

[Krptonite]

We are not the biggest purveyors of propaganda and FAKE news in the world. indians are. Therefore you can NEVER believe ANYTHING an indian ever says:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-50749764

That's redirecting the question then isn't it? When discussing GoPs faults declare the poster biased/malicious then direct towards GoIs incompetence.

Our faults do not provide refuge to yours, please understand that. If you're asking for proofs and that is indeed the correct approach then do so with the objective of finding the truth not because it's unpalatable and you wish to shore up on those that you do find palatable.

Please understand, criticism, even from a perceived enemy, must be beholden to critical thinking, not emotions. I'd suggest you go through all the kargil related threads archived here on pdf. Members far more knowledgeable than us have discussed this topic to death, your own generals have gone on record declaring it to be a massive blunder.

Your repetitive and quite frankly childish posts do not move the discussion forward, they aim to score brownie points.

 

[BATMAN]

Read this book,it has the most detailed account of what happened and will clear all your confusions.
View attachment 619959

There's no book more authentic on Kargil accounts, besides the memoir of Pervez Musharraf. 'in the line of fire'

 

[Krptonite]

There's no book more authentic on Kargil accounts, besides the memoir of Pervez Musharraf. 'in the line of fire'

It is indeed very detailed and informative but the major contention is that it's written by the person instigating the Kargil episode. His point of view if you get what I mean.

The possibility that certain events were written to favour the author's narrative exists.

 

[BATMAN]

It is indeed very detailed and informative but the major contention is that it's written by the person instigating the Kargil episode. His point of view if you get what I mean.

The possibility that certain events were written to favour the author's narrative exists.

How Nasim Zehra or any other could be trusted more?

 

[Krptonite]

How Nasim Zehra or any other could be trusted more?

It's not that it's untrusted, but it cannot be considered alone in its entirety, a better approach would be to take multiple sources, note down the converging and diverging points and whittle down the diverging one's with occam's razor.

 

[Jungibaaz]

I agree. I should have been more nuanced in my writing. I did not mean to imply that the assumptions I mentioned were sigularly or even primarily responsible for either triggering the war. I appreciate the different, complex nuances and chain of events that can be triggers for war.

I only meant that once the military decided that it wanted to achieve its goals by war, then the way that war was designed and set up was based on certain assumptions. Chief among these, I believe, was the perceived psychology of Indians, particularly for '65 and '99.

That is what I find interesting. I can understand that the military had an assumption for '65 but I am intrigued by how that assumption continued to '99 despite having very regular skirmishes at the border and the results of two full wars ('65 & '71) in between. Which is why I mentioned that the military's feedback loop on assumptions of 'enemy behaviour' seemed to be particularly tenuous till '99. Though in my understanding, within the military there seems to have been a re-assessment of perceived Indian/Hindu behaviour after the '99.

This reassessment/feedback loop, however, has not percolated to the population at large which IMO displays similar understanding of Indian behaviour that the PA believed in '65. I am curious as to why there is relative stagnancy in thought evolution of the population at large, even with enough skirmishes to realistically gauge what 'the other side' is willing to do.

I reiterate that this stands true for Indians as well though the feedback loop is relatively better for the population though there is a problem that I'll mention in the next paragraph.

I understand that you are talking about groupthink in Pakistani military and institutions as a factor and how in a more democratic environment different institutions play to balance each other out. However, this does not seem to hold well as, even for India, since the new Govt. was formed, the feedback loop for the population seems to be fraying and there seems to be lesser critical thinking than before.

Lastly, please feel free to add as much of your thoughts as possible. These are valuable insights and deserve to be read than the inane Hindu-Muslim threads in other areas of the forum.

I think we're in broad agreement on the more nuanced approach, but I personally assign far less relevance to the outcomes themselves from these perceptions which we're discussing. I think perhaps you might be inadvertently assigning too much blame on these perception of enemies and their expected reactions, in place of otherwise inexplicable behavior which you are right to point out. In simple words, you're asking why would Musharraf think this way of India's response, why had lessons not been learnt from previous conflicts, and therefore part of the equation as you rightly point out is sense of dominance of will over the enemy, I see it that too but I think that plays a very small part of the thought-process, there are other better explanations.

I also picked up something in this conversation, that if we allow some introspection, adds an important element. I believe you are perhaps inserting this superiority hypothesis, where other relevant explanations might actually fit better if we were aware of them. I already discussed the leadership issues that led to these decisions. On the question of why lessons hadn't been learnt by 99, I would argue that on top of what was discussed before, Musharraf also believed that an escalated war between two fully-fledged nuclear powers would not happen.

In both cases my explanation and your observations are pointing to Musharraf's faulty expectations and wrongly calling India's bluff, I assign the blame far more to leadership failure and incorrect assessment of the geopolitical and strategic situations. I think in your initial thoughts you perhaps did not know of the exact reasons why these faulty assumptions were made by our side, and are therefore inadvertently reading too much into the one thing which you have no doubt picked up from learning about Pakistanis, which are the aforementioned assumptions of superiority in will over the enemy. This is the thing which I picked up after some introspection, sometimes when we are unaware of the full picture our minds take what we know, and what also fits logically, and adds it to the picture to fill the gaps that we otherwise can't explain. Thus while I understand your points and don't dismiss them at all, they certainly have gravity, perhaps you and I are differently identifying their significance. To speak more simply but with more clarity, I might be saying that your hypothesis explains 5% of the observed outcomes, whereas you might be thinking it's 20%. But we broadly agree that it's a factor, it's there, and our lists of variables and observations are also the same.

 

[Adam_Khan]

How Nasim Zehra or any other could be trusted more?

I would rather want to read a book that gives a neutral analysis rather than explaining a one sided view. Just because Nasim Zehra cannot be trusted the same way Musharraf cannot be trusted either as he happens to be the architect of Kargil war.

 

[BATMAN]

I would rather want to read a book that gives a neutral analysis rather than explaining a one sided view. Just because Nasim Zehra cannot be trusted the same way Musharraf cannot be trusted either as he happens to be the architect of Kargil war.

How can you say Musharraf can't be trusted?

 

[Jungibaaz]

How can you say Musharraf can't be trusted?

He absolutely cannot be trusted.

His version of events always paints himself as a blameless architect of a flawless plan. In truth, it was a big misadventure, poorly throughout and half-baked. Others in the army leadership were furious at him and his gang of four when they found out that he conducted this operation in secret, he only revealed the full truth to them and the government when the situation on the LoC began getting out of hand.

For years afterwards, plenty of senior army leaders grumbled quietly about the disaster that Kargil was, Musharraf would have been court martialed for it, but he saved himself with a coup. He removed all threats to his person, that was mostly what the coup was about, and he removed anyone that might subsequently hold him accountable for Kargil or his coup, which includes PCO. And then he influenced the views of ordinary Pakistanis with propaganda about Kargil, as if we won the conflict, or came off better somehow, while wrongly passing the blame on everyone else for any mishaps. Mishaps which he paradoxically and implicitly conceded, while saying that we didn't lose the conflict. His rhetoric including blaming America, Nawaz Sharif and his civilian leadership, and most amazingly of all, he also blamed India, as if it was somehow ungentlemanly of the enemy to escalate and take actions that he hadn't planned for or anticipated.

 

[BATMAN]

He absolutely cannot be trusted.

His version of events always paints himself as a blameless architect of a flawless plan. In truth, it was a big misadventure, poorly throughout and half-baked. Others in the army leadership were furious at him and his gang of four when they found out that he conducted this operation in secret, he only revealed the full truth to them and the government when the situation on the LoC began getting out of hand.

For years afterwards, plenty of senior army leaders grumbled quietly about the disaster that Kargil was, Musharraf would have been court martialed for it, but he saved himself with a coup. He removed all threats to his person, that was mostly what the coup was about, and he removed anyone that might subsequently hold him accountable for Kargil or his coup, which includes PCO. And then he influenced the views of ordinary Pakistanis with propaganda about Kargil, as if we won the conflict, or came off better somehow, while wrongly passing the blame on everyone else for any mishaps. Mishaps which he paradoxically and implicitly conceded, while saying that we didn't lose the conflict. His rhetoric including blaming America, Nawaz Sharif and his civilian leadership, and most amazingly of all, he also blamed India, as if it was somehow ungentlemanly of the enemy to escalate and take actions that he hadn't planned for or anticipated.

What's your opinion on pussy tale of Imran Khan and his subordinates, which was engraved on 27th February 2019?

Musharraf could have been court martial for Kargil than you could be awarded Indian medal.

All what you wrote is your opinion and personal bias.

May you point at what was wrong technically?

Indians went running to Bill Clinton when they had zero diplomatic relations was an evidence, how India was suffering. without Indian army requesting their PM for rescue this would have never happened.