third eye
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 18,519
- Reaction score
- 13
- Country
- Location
Facts remain:
1. In 1947-48 Pakistan captured all of the Gilgit Baltistan and 1/3rd of Kashmir, getting access to China and blocking India's access to Middle East, Central Asia and Russian. India still keeps half a million of its security forces in Kashmir, a very heavy toll on India's coffers.
2. In 1965, India attacked Pakistan first on Lahore front - Operation Gibraltar was not beyond an international border, it was only across the cease-fire line - and again it was India which ran to UN first to beg for a cease-fire.
3. BD was something that was bound to happen due to geographic barriers, but against the dreams and wishes of Greater India BD could not be coerced to annex itself to India.
4. Siachen was a strategic mistake, Indian have not been able to get anything out of it, instead, they have to spend a lot more than Pakistan just to maintain their positions there.
5. Pakisan gave a big surprise to India in Kargil and is still in control of Tiger Hill (Point 5353), and that means the strategic Srinagar-Leh Highway is in the direct line of fire of Pakistani artillery. The alternative route is open hardly two months of the year.
If all this makes you happy , be my guest.
I am glad you used the word ' captured' in para 1 above implying thereby that it was not meant to go to Pak.
As regards Gibraltar, this is the silly presumption that Pak has had for decades and has brought so much grief to that nation. J&K is India , an attack on that state amounts to an attack on India which then reserves the right to strike back at a time & place of its choosing - thats what India did & shall continue to do.
Siachen was not a mistake at all, it was a master stroke which shafted Pak . It does not matter who spends more, posters like you can take solace out of it though. The fact is that someone who has more can spend more. The dividends are enormous. If it was a mistake as suggested than why is pak not keen to sign on the dotted line to certify actual ground locations so that both armies can withdraw ? The fact that Pak is not keen indicates something.
BD : India never wanted to or even now wants to hold an inch of what is not its own. Back in 71, India could have easily sorted out contentious issues like the enclaves on the IB to its advantage - it did not.
Kargil :Once again the sheer stupidity of Pak planning & thought process was exposed . In the Shimla agreement both nations agreed to certify the sanctity of the LC as signed & known then. No alterations were to be made. Pak tried & once again foolishly felt that the war would be localised to J&K. As regards the alternate route - please recheck your facts.