Pak may never try another Kargil, but it could get worse

[Secur]

140 peak hath se nikalne ke baad, "dubte ko point 5353 ka sahara."

" Every inch of territory is in our control " Fernandes

Ask him to add " except 5 peaks " from that theory

 

[KRAIT]

" Every inch of territory is in our control " Fernandes

Ask him to add " except 5 peaks " from that theory

Okay...except 5 peaks....happy....anything more to suggest......like Pakistani summer camp at Tiger hill for tourists......

BTW Kargil is over, you are now "SECUR"e.

 

[Secur]

The truth lies elsewhere, not within Secur's comments. In the northern sector, the forces consisted of the Tribals, stiffened by the Gilgit Scouts and by state forces from Chitral. The Mehtar of Chitral had acceded to Pakistan.

By October/November 1948, the tide had turned. The Indian 77 Para Brigade forced the Zoji La pass, using tanks, and advanced towards Kargil, still under the control of the Gilgit Scouts. Meanwhile, Indian troops had reinforced the besieged garrison at Leh, and broke out towards Kargil. The 77 Para Brigade and this column linked up in late November. Kargil was relieved. The Gilgit Scouts retreated towards Skardu.

If there is any question regarding Nehru's reference to the UN, it can be clarified that the reference was under the section seeking sanctions against aggression, but was taken up under a non-binding clause and section of the charter which sought to restore peace.

The truth lies elsewhere - Just check the map of that region again and then tell me how far is Skardu from the LOC ... I think that will suffice for you Do you know when Haji Pir pass was captured ? Just a day before the ceasefire went into effect ... Tells you what ? PA was still progressing despite all the disobedience of the British generals and initial blunders of the tribals ...

Regarding Nehru , he saw that IA could never clear up intruders nor halt their advance when the PA joined in after the tribals so he had only one option left - run to UN and seek ceasefire ... Pakistan never ever slightly hinted at stopping war ... Ask yourself why ?

 

[Mercenary]

Aila...dhamki...

You are right buddy, upto some extent. It was brilliant plan but they didn't think India will go to such intensity.But you guys helped us in making us more vigilant even when peace time is going us. Now India is more vigilant when Pakistan talks of peace.

You never know....

In hindsight, I think Kargil was a mistake for Pakistan.

Either we should have gone all out like India did in Siachen or should not have gone at all.

We fought Kargil with both hands tied in our backs so the outcome was expected.

But just like Yom Kippur was the final nail in the coffin of the Arab Dream of destroying Israel militarily, so was Kargil for Pakistan in terms of liberating Kashmir militarily.

Pakistan should now focus on developing Pakistan instead of dreaming of sending a conquering Army to liberate Kashmir from India.

 

[Joe Shearer]

http://www.defence.pk/forums/genera...ndhati-roy-speech-university-westminster.html


http://www.defence.pk/forums/kashmi...oy-calls-end-indian-occupation-kashmir-3.html

PIL filed against Arundhati Roy for Kashmir remarks - The Times of India

Yes, she said all this, but who said anything more than that she shouldn't be saying all this, or should be prosecuted, or should be boycotted? Where was the picturesque language?

 

[Secur]

BTW Kargil is over, you are now "SECUR"e.

Oh , I am ... It just happens that some other people feel exactly the other way - by writing time to time articles about a thing of the past

 

[KRAIT]

In hindsight, I think Kargil was a mistake for Pakistan.

Either we should have gone all out like India did in Siachen or should not have gone at all.

We fought Kargil with both hands tied in our backs so the outcome was expected.

But just like Yom Kippur was the final nail in the coffin of the Arab Dream of destroying Israel militarily, so was Kargil for Pakistan in terms of liberating Kashmir militarily.

Pakistan should now focus on developing Pakistan instead of dreaming of sending a conquering Army to liberate Kashmir from India.

Finally some MERCY from Mercenary.

Iaagree, only by developing and getting more say in world stage can bring Kashmir on table. Atleast Kashmir should be put behind in agenda.

Oh , I am ... It just happens that some other people feel exactly the other way - by writing time to time articles about a thing of the past

Let them have the fun.... You don't have exclusive right to do so.

Kargil has been discussed multiple time, but again when there is no topic to discuss, it comes back again.

We ares uch a "vella" people.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Kargil was a hastily planned operation to take revenge for India had done Siachin when it took the top of the glacier.

Pakistan wanted to do something similar in Kargil and take over the heights overlooking the highway.

Pakistan's failure was it didn't plan things logistically. It didn't dig tunnels to lead them to those heights and nor did it give the troops there adequate cover from artillery, and air strikes.

Pakistan could have won should it had used its full might to cover the troops there.

But we shocked India and I am sure we will continue to do so in the future.

True enough, but hastily planned? It was first presented to Zia.

The trouble is that you haven't realized that it would benefit your country more to make up to India rather than shock it. By acting smart, you have built up yet another constituency to advise care and circumspection while dealing with Pakistan, and looks on any approach by Pakistan as suspicious.

In hindsight, I think Kargil was a mistake for Pakistan.

Either we should have gone all out like India did in Siachen or should not have gone at all.

We fought Kargil with both hands tied in our backs so the outcome was expected.

But just like Yom Kippur was the final nail in the coffin of the Arab Dream of destroying Israel militarily, so was Kargil for Pakistan in terms of liberating Kashmir militarily.

Pakistan should now focus on developing Pakistan instead of dreaming of sending a conquering Army to liberate Kashmir from India.

Better late than never.

 

[Mercenary]

Finally some MERCY from Mercenary.

Iaagree, only by developing and getting more say in world stage can bring Kashmir on table. Atleast Kashmir should be put behind in agenda.

India is so far ahead of Pakistan in terms of importance in the world stage that the world will never understand Pakistan's viewpoint of Kashmir of how it was cheated out of a territory which was rightfully Pakistan's.

True enough, but hastily planned? It was first presented to Zia.

The trouble is that you haven't realized that it would benefit your country more to make up to India rather than shock it. By acting smart, you have built up yet another constituency to advise care and circumspection while dealing with Pakistan, and looks on any approach by Pakistan as suspicious.

The initial gist of the plan to occupy heights overlooking India and use it as a bargaining chip was presented in the 1980s to Zia.

But when the actual plan was implemented, it kept evolving as the situation arose.

 

[Joe Shearer]

The truth lies elsewhere - Just check the map of that region again and then tell me how far is Skardu from the LOC ... I think that will suffice for you Do you know when Haji Pir pass was captured ? Just a day before the ceasefire went into effect ... Tells you what ? PA was still progressing despite all the disobedience of the British generals and initial blunders of the tribals ...

These explanations can only console a die-hard propagandist insistent on declaring a Pakistani victory, in the teeth of the evidence.

Kargil was captured in late November, Indian troops halted to replenish fuel supplies before continuing on to Skardu and the rest of Gilgit and Baltistan, the cease-fire was announced in mid-December and implemented from the 31st.

Haji Pir Pass also was recaptured one day before the ceasefire, although fighting had stopped. It is quite true that Indian troops should not have relaxed their guard. However, what makes comical reading is your insistence that Pakistani troops were advancing' after having been pushed out steadily from the valley and its outskirts. If you bother to glance through the list of places re-captured, it was a steady progress by Indian troops, and steady retreat by Pakistani forces, with only a single counter-attack on the last day before the ceasefire.

Regarding Nehru , he saw that IA could never clear up intruders nor halt their advance when the PA joined in after the tribals so he had only one option left - run to UN and seek ceasefire ... Pakistan never ever slightly hinted at stopping war ... Ask yourself why ? :aznas:

Really?

Nehru's action in reporting an act of aggression was a theoretician's action, and he consulted nobody before doing what he did. This was in no way different from his misinterpretation of Chinese intentions in 1962, and had nothing to do with the situation in the ground.

What advances was he planning to halt when Pakistani forces had retreated steadily for months, from the previous November? Except the capture of Skardu and the last moment re-capture of the Haji Pir Pass, was there a single Pakistani victory between November 1947 and November 1948?

Were the Pakistani forces advancing in reverse gear?

 

[Joe Shearer]

India is so far ahead of Pakistan in terms of importance in the world stage that the world will never understand Pakistan's viewpoint of Kashmir of how it was cheated out of a territory which was rightfully Pakistan's.

You are aware of the basis of partition? That it affected British India, and not the princely states? That the princes were free to make their own decisions? That Kashmir entered into a stand-still agreement with both Dominions? That Pakistan knowingly violated it and sent in tribals, aided by the Gilgit Scouts and Chitral State forces to take over by force, when not a single soldier was in Kashmir? That the National Conference under Sheikh Abdullah fully backed the Maharaja's accession to India, and that common Kashmiris fought against the invaders?

Do you still maintain your argument that Pakistan was cheated out of a territory that was rightfully Pakitan's?

The initial gist of the plan to occupy heights overlooking India and use it as a bargaining chip was presented in the 1980s to Zia.

But when the actual plan was implemented, it kept evolving as the situation arose.

Would it be unfair to say that it was a very unwise plan?

 

[Mercenary]

You are aware of the basis of partition? That it affected British India, and not the princely states? That the princes were free to make their own decisions? That Kashmir entered into a stand-still agreement with both Dominions? That Pakistan knowingly violated it and sent in tribals, aided by the Gilgit Scouts and Chitral State forces to take over by force, when not a single soldier was in Kashmir? That the National Conference under Sheikh Abdullah fully backed the Maharaja's accession to India, and that common Kashmiris fought against the invaders?

Do you still maintain your argument that Pakistan was cheated out of a territory that was rightfully Pakitan's?




Would it be unfair to say that it was a very unwise plan?

Yes, because an un-elected person cannot represent the will of the people of Kashmir.

Just like Kashmir, Hyderabad was also a princely state which had a Muslim ruler but Hindu population. He decided to join Pakistan but India send its troops into Hyderabad and annexed it.

Operation Polo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So Pakistan didn't do anything which India hasn't done. The only reason we send tribals in there is because our British Military Commander refused to send Pakistani troops to take over Kashmir as India was moving troops into it. So we had no choice but to use tribals.

If we hadn't acted, all of Kashmir would be under Indian control. Atleast with Tribals we managed to take 1/3 of Kashmir.

 

[Vinod2070]

Yes, because an un-elected person cannot represent the will of the people of Kashmir.

Just like Kashmir, Hyderabad was also a princely state which had a Muslim ruler but Hindu population. He decided to join Pakistan but India send its troops into Hyderabad and annexed it.

Operation Polo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So Pakistan didn't do anything which India hasn't done. The only reason we send tribals in there is because our British Military Commander refused to send Pakistani troops to take over Kashmir as India was moving troops into it. So we had no choice but to use tribals.

If we hadn't acted, all of Kashmir would be under Indian control. Atleast with Tribals we managed to take 1/3 of Kashmir.

Yes, it played the same game. Trying to get Hyderabad, Junagarh, Rampur, Jodhpur and other Hindu majority states (some with >90% Hindus) with Muslim rulers (or even Hindu rulers!).

It just failed to get them and even Kashmir. Kashmir could have been Pakistani if Mr. Jinnah had not tried to get the other Hindu majority states (as per the supposed offer from Mountbatten).

Mr. Jinnah played his hand and the results were not so pleasant from your perspective.

Now just move on.

Jo beet gayi, woh baat gayi. No point in crying over split milk. Nobody is interested.

 

[Joe Shearer]

It is bewildering what a lot of myth and urban legend has grown up around these events, and how unwilling young people - of all nationalities - remain about doing their homework.

I find that these themes recur in cycles. Once one batch is presented the evidence, and gets an involuntary opportunity to mull over it, and stops presenting their original distorted views, another bunch enters the forum and puts forward the same views. I feel like Sisyphus sometimes.

Yes, because an un-elected person cannot represent the will of the people of Kashmir.

Wrong on two counts. First, he was a sovereign prince, and the state was literally his possession. He was given exactly the same status as 561 others, no more, no less. Why do you find the example of Kashmir worth fighting about, and not that of all the others?

You are also wrong about the will of the people of Kashmir. The organization that had complete domination over the hearts and minds of the people of Kashmir was the National Conference. Shortly before independence, a minority faction based in Muzaffarnagar broke away and returned to its old name, and proclaimed that it favoured merger with Pakistan. The original National Conference continued to function in Srinagar and enjoyed the overwhelming support of the people of the vale. Led by the National Conference, the people of the vale resisted the invaders as much as they could, and fully supported Indian operations. Sheikh Abdullah himself has testified to the events of those times, and the reaction of the Kashmiri masses to the sickening loot, rape and murder committed by the invaders.

Just like Kashmir, Hyderabad was also a princely state which had a Muslim ruler but Hindu population. He decided to join Pakistan but India send its troops into Hyderabad and annexed it

Operation Polo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is why I wish young people, even young people of mature years, would read up on the background.

Hyderabad had never acceded to Pakistan. It had entered into a standstill agreement just like several other states. It was then that communal riots broke out. Razakars under a fanatic leader ran riot and killed scores from the other community. Even the Prime Minister, the Nawab of Chhatri, resigned, unable to cope with the attacks on him. And he was a Muslim!

It was only then, with the situation rapidly going out of control, that India intervened.

And Hyderabad still had not acceded to Pakistan.

 

[INDIC]

Yes, because an un-elected person cannot represent the will of the people of Kashmir.

Just like Kashmir, Hyderabad was also a princely state which had a Muslim ruler but Hindu population. He decided to join Pakistan but India send its troops into Hyderabad and annexed it.

Operation Polo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So Pakistan didn't do anything which India hasn't done. The only reason we send tribals in there is because our British Military Commander refused to send Pakistani troops to take over Kashmir as India was moving troops into it. So we had no choice but to use tribals.

If we hadn't acted, all of Kashmir would be under Indian control. Atleast with Tribals we managed to take 1/3 of Kashmir.

Pakistan was created for Muslims, why was it interested in Hindu majority area of Hyderabad.