Musharraf: Pakistan Exposed India's Military Weakness

[blain2]

Major A.H.Amin claims to have heard is 'thousands of times'

'....a myth was widely propagated in Pakistan that the Punjabi Muslims were the most martial race and the Pathan Muslims were the second most martial race. I may add that I heard this ridiculous and irrational myth thousands of times in the course of my 13 years service in Pakistan Army.'

The Pakistan Army From 1965 to 1971

Again, one officer's comment. A. H. Amin has a bone to grind as such I no longer take his comments as objective. Secondly, the so-called myth was propagated by the British and applied to Punjabi Musalman and Sikh, Pathan and a few more races (predominantly Hindu). There has never been any institutional basis for such theory (or myth as stated above). We recruit from certain areas, just the same as you, but others are welcome.

Has the "supposed" threat to India from Pakistan receded after the 1971 war? Well I no longer see a Pakistani threat emanating from the east anymore.

There was never a Pakistani threat from the East. Thus the Indian pre-emption was even more unfounded.

Has Kashmir been resolved? 1971 was not about Kashmir, remember? Although I must admit, Ms Gandhi made a blunder trusting some of his advisers and also Bhutto.

Had Kashmir not been an issue, India would not have intervened militarily in East Pakistan. The whole idea in the minds of the Indian planners was to cut Pakistan down to size to reduce the military threat and end the Kashmir problem for once and for all on their terms. This has certainly has not gone their way and most here would agree (on the other hand it has not gone our way either). None of the issues that were on the table on the morning of 15th August 1947 have been resolved between the two. So talking about resolution of anything is a joke.

 

[Dr sim]

Everytime PA and IA came close to each other, results were extraordinary for PA, and infact shocking for IA thus on many occasions out of the fear of loosing battle IAF has been called upon by IA to counter PA.

O really ,if that is the case then why did 70000 brave soldiers of PA surrendered to loosing IA in 1971.

 

[ramu]

Had Kashmir not been an issue, India would not have intervened militarily in East Pakistan. The whole idea in the minds of the Indian planners was to cut Pakistan down to size to reduce the military threat and end the Kashmir problem for once and for all on their terms. This has certainly has not gone their way and most here would agree (on the other hand it has not gone our way either). None of the issues that were on the table on the morning of 15th August 1947 have been resolved between the two. So talking about resolution of anything is a joke.

India was not resolving Kashmir in 1971. Read through history. Army General asked for permission to attack west Pakistan and take back the whole of Kashmir but it was Indira Gandhi who said no more.

 

[Dr sim]

Delusional? Really? Pakistan's IB existed in both wings. Your side crossed and violated the Eastern Wing's IB at will. Lets not be selective by crying about violation of yours when your side shamelessly had no qualms about violating ours just as badly.

I hate to say this but essentially this whole thread has been hijacked by either the Indians or the "anti-Mush" camp (I am not one to condone his mistakes but do realize that people are pulling all sorts on inane agendas into this threat as a motivation for what transpired).

I have yet to see an analysis of why Kargil operations were undertaken on this thread (please don't post long articles that are thrown at each other ad-nauseam). It had nothing to do with the idiotic notion that the Americans were behind it or that Musharraf wanted to upstage Nawaz Sharif and bring about martial law and that too at the behest of the Americans (spare them..at least some of the times).

Those looking to quote other Army personalities involved in this episode and who seemed to be upset at kargil need to realize that when operations don't go as planned, then everybody wants to be seen as the "nay sayer" and dissenter. There is hardly anyone who stands his ground and says the right thing when the house has fallen down. Our culture stinks at owning up and standing the ground. The same controversy about owning up is going on India with a chap being accused and then acquitted for getting surprised etc. Passing on the buck is a typical desi tactic.

I do not want to go into the details of why this was undertaken aside from the fact that that interdiction of Kargil/Drass was seen as a counterweight to ongoing and periodic interdiction of the Neelum Valley on our side. Things had been left on the table in the times of Gen Karamat but Musharraf decided to take the gamble and do something about it. The mission was always planned as a tactical one, in the context of what went on locally along the LoC and up north in Siachen. Mistakes were indeed made, but why is this operation any worse or shameful for people than the one we conducted on Siachen? Was Siachen not garrisoned because we wanted to block the Indian ingress and to interdict their garrisoning?
If someone tells me that Siachen is disputed, then what is LoC? Its definitely not IB as such there are differences and as opportunities come up, either side will try to take advantage and consolidate to gain an upper hand in the Kashmir region.

Any which way you look at it, both sides have lost more people and material on the heights of Siachen than two Kargils combined so all this talk of singling out Kargil as unnecessary loss of lives by fellow Pakistanis and that of back-stabbing (by the Indians) is not grounded in facts.

While I am saddened by the loss of life, I do not apologize for Kargil and don't think there is any need to. Both sides have a history of taking advantage because the Kashmir issue lingers. Our side tried to take the initiative when an opportunity came up. India has done the same at Siachen (lets not even bother with arguments about who went there first etc.) and certainly took the initiative in 1971. The Rann of Kutch affair was no different. Our side responded to the Indian ingress in the Rann area. So this is the military history of Pakistan and India. The other side certainly feels no shame over anything they have done militarily or clandestinely so why should Pakistan or Pakistanis?

If people want reason to prevail then lets agree that all wars are bad. Lets not have them anymore by resolving our problems peacefully. However who has done that? Unfortunately neither of the two parties involved here.

Kargil operation was undertaken as a retaliation to Operation Meghdoot carried out by Indian Army in Siachen.IA was successful in capturing some strategic heights which was enuf to cut off any PAK-CHINA cooperation in that area.

Pakistan tried to retaliate thru kargil by blocking our National Highway-1,the lifeline of IA in the valley. according to me Kargil operation was a failure coz India still holds own to those heights in siachen(despite some attempts by Pakistani Army to recapture it) but in kargil PA had to back out within a few months.

 

[blain2]

I just said the Tashkent agreement is a testimony of our upper hand in post 1965 war. Can you disagree to this ? And Pakistan had a set of objectives in 1965 other than proving they are a Martian race. Not a single objective was met. Do you consider this a stalemate?

What happened in Tashkent? Please remind me as I am very interested in understanding Pakistan's "Versailles" here. How did India gain an upper hand at Tashkent? As to our objectives, operation Gibraltar failed. However on the other hand, your objectives were also not met when you crossed over the IB to relieve pressure on your side.

No one can ignore 1971 as Pakistan was reduced to half its size. So let us understand 1971 better.

To what end for India? Let us understand that as well. Aside from chest thumping which your side engages in quite often, nothing has changed on the ground.

I am impressed. In-spite of having the finest, Pakistan is unable to do anything about Kashmir from the Indian position since 1948. What bogus theory are you talking about. Can you supplement it with some proof?

Thanks for the compliment. Given the fact that Pakistan is outnumbered 3 to 1, doing something about Kashmir is not going to be easy. However tactically speaking, moves will be made to strengthen the position in and around the LoC etc. Kashmir is not getting resolved and thus the instability will continue into the future.

India never tried to change the score. It was Pakistan that was desperate in 1965, the result was shown in 1971. It was Pakistan again that was desperate in 1999. Need I say more?

The score keeping started with Kashmir and will end on Kashmir. Kargil was not the first and I do not think will be the last either unfortunately.

If the unrest in Kashmir is Pakistan's victory, then I think we have to redefine the meaning of achievement. Let us rest assured that Kashmir is being connected to mainland with trains and roads. The connection with the hearts is what India believes is more important and that is happening with a political class that is representative of the local population. Please google and find out the voting percentage corroborated by international media in the last elections.

Not sure how you connected my post to claiming victory for Pakistan. My whole point is that Kargil is a continuation of the effort by both sides trying to gain advantage so the Kashmir issue can be settled on favourable terms. India will do what it must to consolidate her hold on Kashmir and that is fine, however its not totally in the hands of the GoI either. The current crises in the valley point to the fact that there is more to it than building roads and railway tracks in Kashmir. Pakistan in not stirring trouble for your side this time around. Its your side's obstinacy and belief that Kashmiris are egged on to believe they do not want to be part of your union. The reality is different. For as long as the three sides do not have convergence of ideas on this issue, Kargils will come up again.

Again I repeat, It was not we who tried to change the status quo. You did it and the results for your mis-adventure is staring you in the face. The support to breed Frankenstein for creating havoc in the valley has back fired with increasing incident of terror in Pakistan. The hand which was being fed is now being bitten and without second thought.

Ramu,

lets not be too simplistic about the situation on hand. If you did not change the status-quo then why was East Pakistan split because of your military intervention? Your side opted for aggression against Pakistan the same way we opted for it in 1971. So lets not deny the attempts to change status-quo. Every opportunity that comes your way, you will try to change the status-quo to your advantage. As far as the terror issue is concerned, its fed due to reasons and it was not Pakistan's doing alone that pulled together this militancy genie. And reasons are aplenty in this region. This genie asks for accountability and the ask is not of Pakistan only.

 

[blain2]

Kargil operation was undertaken as a retaliation to Operation Meghdoot carried out by Indian Army in Siachen.IA was successful in capturing some strategic heights which was enuf to cut off any PAK-CHINA cooperation in that area.

Pakistan tried to retaliate thru kargil by blocking our National Highway-1,the lifeline of IA in the valley. according to me Kargil operation was a failure coz India still holds own to those heights in siachen(despite some attempts by Pakistani Army to recapture it) but in kargil PA had to back out within a few months.

Kargil had nothing to do with an operation (Meghdoot) which was launched 17+ years before Kargil. Secondly, Nothing has been managed in Siachen that has disallowed Pakistan and China cooperation. This is a great PR spin that your side has put on the story...typical "massala". Its an intractable piece of land. Even if Pakistan was able to link it with China, there is nothing concrete that can be developed there. However since we feel its a part of Pakistan, we are there and contesting your claim.

As far as the heights are concerned, as has been mentioned many times over, aside from the larger complexes, we took over 120 or so posts. Many of them remain on the Pakistani side. Ever since the Kargil conflict, Neelum Valley has not been interdicted by the IA. So net gains and losses are relative.

 

[deckingraj]

Had Kashmir not been an issue, India would not have intervened militarily in East Pakistan. The whole idea in the minds of the Indian planners was to cut Pakistan down to size to reduce the military threat and end the Kashmir problem for once and for all on their terms. This has certainly has not gone their way and most here would agree (on the other hand it has not gone our way either). None of the issues that were on the table on the morning of 15th August 1947 have been resolved between the two. So talking about resolution of anything is a joke.

Blain Sir...don't you think you have twisted the logic to prove a point here???? At the end of 71 war we had over 75K POW....Bangladesh was declared a new independent state and you hardly had any gain on our western front.....So may i ask if the political establishment of India was after Kashmir then why did we not settle Kashmir as a part of returning those POW??? Do you think we are so naive that we fought a whole bloody war for Kashmir...won and still let go Kashmir????

Please understand the phyche here....We believe that status quo in Kashmir favors us....We believe we have the upper hand and that's why we are even ready to change LOC into IB...If you look at Shimla Agreement then you will see all we said is that both countries will respect LOC and will settle the dispute amicably....In short we do not have any interest whatsoever in P-O-K...and are more then happy to convert LOC into IB.....Simply indicates that GOI has no intentions of going after the land that is under your control....Bangladesh unrest was a golden opportunity to break Pakistan into two and finish the threat from east once and for all.....Nothing more or less then that....In fact as Ramu said that our military establishment was very keen on complete destruction of PA however unlike Pakistan establishment(likes of Musharraf and other generals) our establishment very well knew the diplomatic problems and repercussions had we continued the onslaught.....

 

[deckingraj]

Kargil had nothing to do with an operation (Meghdoot) which was launched 17+ years before Kargil.

I am sorry Sir but i disagree again...You know more then me but if you look at the plan(atleast on paper) the idea was to strangulate IA supply route to Siachen...Musharraf on record said that Had there been on Siachen there had been no Kargil....Secondly if we go by reports Kargil was planned way in advance and was rejected by your PM bhutto....The moment Musharraf got the chance he executed the plan....So saying that it has no connection with Siachen would be wrong....

Secondly, Nothing has been managed in Siachen that has disallowed Pakistan and China cooperation. This is a great PR spin that your side has put on the story...typical "massala". Its an intractable piece of land. Even if Pakistan was able to link it with China, there is nothing concrete that can be developed there. However since we feel its a part of Pakistan, we are there and contesting your claim.

You are right it is insignificant piece of Land...However if we look from China-Pak angle this piece of land is not that insignificant either...

As far as the heights are concerned, as has been mentioned many times over, aside from the larger complexes, we took over 120 or so posts. Many of them remain on the Pakistani side. Ever since the Kargil conflict, Neelum Valley has not been interdicted by the IA. So net gains and losses are relativ

Well i cannot go peak by peak but at end of day our National Highway 1 is safe and your lifeline(read water) still passes from our side....As long as we control the most important heights we are fine....B/W you know that before 71 it was you who controlled larger part of Kargil right????

 

[Meengla]

Some thought provoking comments by @Blain2. Indeed, some people are trying to join the Bash-Musharraf bandwagon in this topic. By the way, I tend to support PPP and not a fan of Musharraf.

The crux of the matter is, as @Blain2 points out, both sides are trying to take advantage of any 'weakness' the other side offers. Indians have been successful in diplomatically humiliating Pakistan. But with a stronger economy Pakistan probably would have used its nuclear-umbrella to the fullest.

I don't know how prepared or equipped Pakistan was in the spring of 1999 to use 'tactical-nukes' should India against any advancing Indian army across the IB. But I reckon Pakistan is much better prepared now. If the loonies of N.Korea can stave off an American attack despite obvious provocations then Pakistan has much more 'deterrence' against India. Perhaps or probably, the main reason India did not cross the IB in 1999 was because divisions of Indian troops would be annihilated once they came within a few miles of Pakistani borders. The same remains true today, if not more menacingly. Bottom line: This is not 1965 anymore.

About the loss of E. Pakistan. Well, if, despite all the resources and power after WW 2, the mighty Gen. McArthur had to retreat from Indo China then Pakistani army's defeat is not too surprising at all. Ponder the situation of PA in the E. Pakistan in December 1971 before doing any chest-thumping.

 

[Dr sim]

Kargil had nothing to do with an operation (Meghdoot) which was launched 17+ years before Kargil. Secondly, Nothing has been managed in Siachen that has disallowed Pakistan and China cooperation. This is a great PR spin that your side has put on the story...typical "massala". Its an intractable piece of land. Even if Pakistan was able to link it with China, there is nothing concrete that can be developed there. However since we feel its a part of Pakistan, we are there and contesting your claim.

As far as the heights are concerned, as has been mentioned many times over, aside from the larger complexes, we took over 120 or so posts. Many of them remain on the Pakistani side. Ever since the Kargil conflict, Neelum Valley has not been interdicted by the IA. So net gains and losses are relative.

 

[T-Faz]

Something to ponder:

July 4, 1999: During Regional Crisis, Clinton Threatens to Publicly Expose Pakistan

In early May 1999, the Pakistani army, at the instigation of Gen. Pervez Musharraf, seizes a strategic height called Kargil in the Indian province of Kashmir. This creates a grave crisis between Pakistan in India. By early July, the CIA picks up intelligence that Pakistan is preparing to launch nuclear missiles against India if necessary. Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif comes to the US on July 4 to meet with President Clinton about this. Clinton is livid and yells at Sharif for breaking promises, not only about Kashmir. Clinton said, “You’ve put me in the middle today, set the US up to fail, and I won’t let it happen. Pakistani is messing with nuclear war.” Sharif backs down and immediately withdraws his troops from Kargil, ending the crisis. But as a result, Sharif becomes deeply unpopular in Pakistan. A few months later he will be ousted in a coup by Musharraf (see October 12, 1999), the general who started the crisis in the first place. [COLL, 2004, PP. 476-478]

 

[deckingraj]

Some thought provoking comments by @Blain2. Indeed, some people are trying to join the Bash-Musharraf bandwagon in this topic. By the way, I tend to support PPP and not a fan of Musharraf.

I have nothing against Musharraf..He was your general and he did what he deemed fit....Unfortunately for Pak he initiated a blunder in the form of Kargil...Pakistan had to suffer a lot for his actions....Anyways let me dwell into your thoughts...

The crux of the matter is, as @Blain2 points out, both sides are trying to take advantage of any 'weakness' the other side offers. Indians have been successful in diplomatically humiliating Pakistan. But with a stronger economy Pakistan probably would have used its nuclear-umbrella to the fullest.

Not sure what you mean here....How is stronger economy going to help with nuclear umbrella??? The better your economy better is going to be your conventional strength...don't you think so???

I don't know how prepared or equipped Pakistan was in the spring of 1999 to use 'tactical-nukes' should India against any advancing Indian army across the IB. But I reckon Pakistan is much better prepared now. If the loonies of N.Korea can stave off an American attack despite obvious provocations then Pakistan has much more 'deterrence' against India. Perhaps or probably, the main reason India did not cross the IB in 1999 was because divisions of Indian troops would be annihilated once they came within a few miles of Pakistani borders. The same remains true today, if not more menacingly. Bottom line: This is not 1965 anymore.

Now this is beyond my understanding...On one side you say that Indian troops would have been annihilated and on other side you talk about nukes....Please decide if you were strong enough to annihilate Indian troops then why the hell would you resort to nukes??? In fact so loose talk on nukes is itself a parameter which simply tells about conventional parity....don't you think so???

About the loss of E. Pakistan. Well, if, despite all the resources and power after WW 2, the mighty Gen. McArthur had to retreat from Indo China then Pakistani army's defeat is not too surprising at all. Ponder the situation of PA in the E. Pakistan in December 1971 before doing any chest-thumping.

Now let's get out of denial mode....If the situation of PA was that bad in east then may i ask what happened in the west??? Its not India who came up with the slogan "Defence of East lies in Offence of West".....Also let's not forget we had China and later on US to worry about....It was a good fought war where India won and Pakistan lost....It is indeed a grand victory....A war was fought very bravely by people on both sides and the side with better plan and execution won....Nothing less and nothing more then that...I am sure you would agree that your generals did not enter the war with a view point of loosing....right???

We lost to China in 1962....Whatever be the reason we lost and that's the fact..period....Similarly you lost in 71 period....Indeed that victory has lots of reason for chest thumping because we defeated a very potent adversary....

 

[Meengla]

Deckinraj,
I don't know how you could have missed what I and others are saying: India did not cross the IB in 1999 because of the Pakistani nuclear umbrella. That was not the case in 1965 and hence the Indians crossed the IB after Operation Gibraltor began. Indians would STILL not cross the IB now. I have been following the rather jingoistic Bharat Rakshak forum and even there is a consensus that India cannot do that unless there is willingness to accept the huge cost.

About E. Pakistan, no it was no 'potent' enemy by December 1971. Yes, a military defeat in a 'classic' sense. Yes, a humiliation. But nothing grand or surprising about it given the military IMbalance in then E. Pakistan. You may continue to stroke your ego if it pleases you. I don't want to get side tracked about how most Pakistan feel about that loss: Humiliation was bad. But not many miss the eastern wing of Pakistan. Revenge is present in Pakistan. Sense of loss is not. And this is no 'sour grapes'.

 

[BATMAN]

Ponder the situation of PA in the E. Pakistan in December 1971 before doing any chest-thumping.

same selfish politicians.... willing to sell.... even their mother for money... and same international anti Pakistan group always happy to pay for those traitors.

India did not cross the IB in 1999 because of the Pakistani nuclear umbrella.

Pakistan had offered, india to sign NPT together... wonder why india refused?
Answer is the real reason for india not crossing the IB.

I hope people know the facts about india's dud nuclear test!

 

[BATMAN]

I have nothing against Musharraf..He was your general and he did what he deemed fit....Unfortunately for Pak he initiated a blunder in the form of Kargil...Pakistan had to suffer a lot for his actions..

Pakistan's prime minister had all the right to refuse... as in past BB refused same operation.
Please, eleborate what do you mean by his actions? are you refering to kargil war or his joining the WOT? or some thing else?