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

[karan.1970]

Less than 350 my son, and we do hold liberated land.

The Hindu : Over 4,000 soldiers killed in Kargil: Sharif

 

[Rafi]

The Hindu : Over 4,000 soldiers killed in Kargil: Sharif

My son, ISPR - says it's less than 350 - NS does not have credibility here.

 

[Ticker]

Excuse me, but that was not how partition went.

Four provinces of British India were handed over to Pakistan on the west, one province on the east. As there were substantial minority elements, certain parts of the provinces of Punjab and Bengal were partitioned out, and stayed with the rest of British India.

British India itself was not divided according to communal population. The Muslim parts of UP, Bombay, CP, Bihar and Madras did not go to Pakistan, just to run through the top examples. The new state only consisted of these five provinces, with certain exclusions.

Princely India became free and independent on August 15, 1947. Neither India nor Pakistan had a right to take over any of the princely states on the grounds of communal composition. There was no binding on the princes to take their population's composition into account. Pakistan had no prescriptive right to Kashmir, because Kashmir was not part of British India but an independent state under British suzerainty, which ceased to exist on August 15.

Apart from all that, you consistently overlook the fact that the people of Kashmir rejected Pakistan. The National Conference was the legitimate representative of the Kashmiri people, and the Muslim League was NOT supported in Jammu and Kashmir. Jinnah himself had a very poor impression of the League representative in the Vale, and used abusive language about him.

Even on the grounds of popular will, the popular will was with India, quite apart from the Maharaja's desire.

There was no legitimacy for Pakistan in Kashmir, apart from the support of the feudal Mehtar of Chitral, the mutineers of the Gilgit Scouts and their British officers, and the pillaging tribals. This incidentally is the same mix that rules Pakistan even today, feudals, soldiers beyond the control of the state and tribal looters and robbers striking patriotic poses to justify their barbaric conduct.



First, they did not follow their ruler; they followed their political leader. The evidence you want is in the history of the state from 1932 onward, in the history of the struggle for greater popular power against the ruler, a struggle supported by the Congress. As a result, the Muslim League did not have a foothold in Kashmir.

One of the conditions made for accepting the Maharaja's accession to India was that Sheikh Abdullah and the Conference should be brought to power, and the hand-picked unrepresentative government of the Maharaja discarded.

It is remarkable that people comment glibly about Kashmir, but are not aware of these basic facts.



Completely wrong. Check your facts.

The Nizam never agreed to join Pakistan. At the time of Operation Polo, there was still a stand-still agreement in place with Pakistan.



Sadly,the facts are not in your favour.

Joe Shearer,

Your depiction of events have holes as big as Universe's Black Holes. Selective highlighting of events to prove the point is inappropriate unless you want to start a trolling campaign. There is a lot more to Kashmir problem than outlining of some one sided points of view. These are differences spread over good part of the century between the two countries. And you can not convince me or any other Pakistani by this one sided point of view.

 

[notorious_eagle]

The Nizam never agreed to join Pakistan. At the time of Operation Polo, there was still a stand-still agreement in place with Pakistan.

Sir

Nizam did not agree to join either India or Pakistan. If it was up to him he would have wanted Hyderabad to remain a sovereign state. But you cannot deny the fact that the Nizam had a soft corner for Pakistan, after all he bankrolled the Pakistani government at the time of Pakistan's inception. At no point did the Indian forces had the permission to enter and take Hyderabad forcefully, it was against the mandate. Thus, India was in clear violation of the law at the time.

The same argument can be used for Junagadh. Nawab Khanji chose to accede to Pakistan but India forcefully captured the state with use of military force. This again was in violation of the law at the time. My question is why is Pakistan being singled out for sending the lashkars to capture Kashmir when India used force to annex Junagadh and Hyderabad. I am clearly seeing a pattern of hypocrisy here Sir. India violated UN's resolution which called for a plebiscite in Kashmir. If my memory serves me right, Nehru also promised to hold a plebiscite in the disputed Kashmir.

The Nizam never agreed to join Pakistan. At the time of Operation Polo, there was still a stand-still agreement in place with Pakistan.

Sir

Nizam did not agree to join either India or Pakistan. If it was up to him he would have wanted Hyderabad to remain a sovereign state. But you cannot deny the fact that the Nizam had a soft corner for Pakistan, after all he bankrolled the Pakistani government at the time of Pakistan's inception. At no point did the Indian forces had the permission to enter and take Hyderabad forcefully, it was against the mandate. Thus, India was in clear violation of the law at the time.

The same argument can be used for Junagadh. Nawab Khanji chose to accede to Pakistan but India forcefully captured the state with use of military force. This again was in violation of the law at the time. My question is why is Pakistan being singled out for sending the lashkars to capture Kashmir when India used force to annex Junagadh and Hyderabad. I am clearly seeing a pattern of hypocrisy here Sir. India violated UN's resolution which called for a plebiscite in Kashmir. If my memory serves me right, Nehru also promised to hold a plebiscite in the disputed Kashmir.

 

[karan.1970]

My son, ISPR - says it's less than 350 - NS does not have credibility here.

ISPR did not admit there were military men involved for 11 year.. So they have less than zero credibility on this.. And apart from army fanboys on this forum, the world normally takes the word of an active mainstrea politician and democratic leader (NS) over that of a proclaimed fugitive and a murderer (Musharraf)

 

[Ticker]

The Hindu : Over 4,000 soldiers killed in Kargil: Sharif

It is complete BS. And NS knows it himself as well as those with him.

 

[notorious_eagle]

The Hindu : Over 4,000 soldiers killed in Kargil: Sharif

Karan

Ignore this claim. Its not correct, Shariff is taking out a vendetta against the Army. The number is no where near as high as the one NS is claiming, its much lower than that.

 

[Rafi]

ISPR did not admit there were military men involved for 11 year.. So they have less than zero credibility on this.. And apart from army fanboys on this forum, the world normally takes the word of an active mainstrea politician and democratic leader (NS) over that of a proclaimed fugitive and a murderer (Musharraf)

My son, ISPR did not have to publish the Martyrs names after 11 years, they could have chosen to remain ambiguous, and Mushy is long gone, Kiyani had no need to keep to his figures. So less than 350 is right.

 

[VCheng]

Karan

Ignore this claim. Its not correct, Shariff is taking out a vendetta against the Army. The number is no where near as high as the one NS is claiming, its much lower than that.

What do you reckon to be the "real" casualty figures on both sides?

 

[karan.1970]

My son, ISPR did not have to publish the Martyrs names after 11 years, they could have chosen to remain ambiguous, and Mushy is long gone, Kiyani had no need to keep to his figures. So less than 350 is right.

Oh yes they did.. That has been the bane of Pakistan from day 1.. Pakist army needs to show they are a successful martial race else the whole facade of PA's military excellence comes crashing down. I dont know how old are you, but in 1971, even till the day of actual surrender of the Pakistani forces in Bangladesh, the ISPR equivalant was publicising Pakistan winning the war in East Pakistan.

Karan

Ignore this claim. Its not correct, Shariff is taking out a vendetta against the Army. The number is no where near as high as the one NS is claiming, its much lower than that.

You may be right about 4000, but the casualties were in thousands not hundreds.. Multiple folks in IA involved in actual ground operations have shared the fact that close to 1200+ soldiers's bodies never even made it back to Pakistan and are still buried in India

 

[INDIC]

My son, ISPR - says it's less than 350 - NS does not have credibility here.

They also said initially they are Mujahiddin not Pakistani soldiers. Why to trust the data given by your military. Nawaz Sharif said 4000, Musharraf said 453 and now ISPR saying 350, what next Pal

 

[Ticker]

Oh yes they did.. That has been the bane of Pakistan from day 1.. Pakist army needs to show they are a successful martial race else the whole facade of PA's military excellence comes crashing down. I dont know how old are you, but in 1971, even till the day of actual surrender of the Pakistani forces in Bangladesh, the ISPR equivalant was publicising Pakistan winning the war in East Pakistan.



You may be right about 4000, but the casualties were in thousands not hundreds.. Multiple folks in IA involved in actual ground operations have shared the fact that close to 1200+ soldiers's bodies never even made it back to Pakistan and are still buried in India

ha ha ...... Do I have to remind you Indians about how the Chinese kicked your hide in 1962 and how did your soldiers ran behind, lifting their dhoties and allowing the Chinese to have a clear picture of Indian soldiers' behinds. They probably went back because they were horrified with the muck they saw and wanted nothing to do with it.

 

[notorious_eagle]

What do you reckon to be the "real" casualty figures on both sides?

I don't know the exact figures on the Indian side, only know whatever figures have been published. But as far as PA is concerned, the number is no where near as high as 4000 and not as low as 350. Sorry can't share the exact numbers with you but can give you a rough estimate. Its a bit lower if you reach the middle percentile of the numbers presented.

What do you reckon to be the "real" casualty figures on both sides?

I don't know the exact figures on the Indian side, only know whatever figures have been published. But as far as PA is concerned, the number is no where near as high as 4000 and not as low as 350. Sorry can't share the exact numbers with you but can give you a rough estimate. Its a bit lower if you reach the middle percentile of the numbers presented.

 

[RazPaK]

Oh yes they did.. That has been the bane of Pakistan from day 1.. Pakist army needs to show they are a successful martial race else the whole facade of PA's military excellence comes crashing down. I dont know how old are you, but in 1971, even till the day of actual surrender of the Pakistani forces in Bangladesh, the ISPR equivalant was publicising Pakistan winning the war in East Pakistan.



You may be right about 4000, but the casualties were in thousands not hundreds.. Multiple folks in IA involved in actual ground operations have shared the fact that close to 1200+ soldiers's bodies never even made it back to Pakistan and are still buried in India

Are you sure those 1200+ soldiers weren't Kashmiris killed in fake encounters or perhaps fairy tales?

A Fake War in the Himalayas?

by Ranjit Devraj
NEW DELHI (IPS) - This week's stunning confessions by two Indian soldiers that they helped stage fake encounters with Pakistani troops on Siachen, often called the world's highest, coldest and costliest battlefield, has renewed calls for demilitarizing the Himalayan glacier.

On Monday, rifleman Shyam Bahadur Thapa told a military court that he not only demolished a fake "enemy-held" objective with a rocket launcher in August 2003 but also acted the part of a Pakistani soldier killed in the action as video cameras whirred away.

Thapa said he did this at the behest of a company commander, Maj. Surinder Singh. "He asked me to remove my jacket and cap and lie there (near the demolished objective)."

Thapa is one of four soldiers who have testified before a court of inquiry to say that they had been forced by their officers, including a colonel and two majors, to participate in fake military encounters on Siachen in August and September 2003.

"Obviously this scandal involves the top brass, perhaps even generals – there is no use victimizing middle-ranking officers and ordinary soldiers," a well-known writer on military affairs, N. Kunju, told IPS in an interview.

Kunju, a former army man himself, is among analysts who believe that the whole Siachen conflict, now running into its 20th year, is actually a huge fraud being played on the Indian people by successive governments and one mirrored by the generals in military-dominated Pakistan.

India spends a million U.S. dollars a day air-maintaining troops on Siachen, a desolate glacier in disputed Kashmir that falls on the tri-junction between India, Pakistan and China and overlooks the Karakorum highway.

The origins of the conflict lie in the drawing up of the Line of Control or ceasefire line in 1949, following a brief but inconclusive war between India and Pakistan over what was until then the independent princely state of Jammu and Kashmir.

The South Asian neighbors have effectively carved up Kashmir, the focus of much of their decades-long animosity. Pakistan controls the Northern Areas and what it calls "Azad (free) Kashmir" and India retains the remaining two-thirds of the territory, which include Jammu, Ladakh and the Srinagar valley.

In 1949, no one thought of Siachen because of its sheer remoteness and inaccessibility. But in a pre-emptive move in 1984, the Indian army airlifted troops onto the glacier in a bid to gain the commanding heights it affords at around 22,000 feet.

There is reason to believe that Pakistan's 1999 action crossing the Line of Control and seizure of the heights of Kargil, further down on the Line of Control in Kashmir, was carried out in retaliation for Siachen, which it values for the strategic link to Islamabad's "all-weather" ally, China.

According to Brahma Chellaney, professor of security studies at the Centre for Policy Research, a well-known think tank, the Indian army's withdrawal from Siachen could "facilitate Pakistani troops joining up with Chinese troops at the Karakorum Pass."

Such a situation is not unthinkable since China occupies the Aksai Chin region of Kashmir and also holds territory ceded to it by Pakistan.

A joint study carried out by the Pakistani scholar Samina Ahmed and Varun Sahni, who teaches international relations at the Jawaharalal Nehru University in New Delhi, acknowledges that control over Siachen would "support India's defense of Ladakh, Jammu and Kashmir against Pakistani and/or Chinese threats."

According to Ahmed and Sahni, Pakistan's objective is to "drive the cost of occupation high enough to force India to make concessions in any future settlement on Siachen."

The soldiers' confessions this week will only worsen public perceptions of what the real costs are of maintaining Siachen, not only to the exchequer but also in human terms, said Kunju.

Indeed, the potential for the whole conflict over Kashmir to siphon away money and resources that could have better gone into development, besides causing avoidable human tragedies, is currently under discussion in India's Parliament under a new Congress Party-led government.

The Congress Party, while it was in the opposition, was always been critical of the way India's relations with Pakistan were handled by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government.

The BJP-led government lost the April and May elections after six years of rule, a period that saw peace overtures alternating with the undeclared conflict in Kargil in 1999 with Pakistan, and the costly mobilization of close to a million troops for a full-scale war in 2002.

Soon after the Kargil war, George Fernandes, who held the defense portfolio in the BJP government, was indicted by the Controller of Audits and Accounts for the importation of aluminum caskets at $2,500 apiece to carry back the bodies of dead soldiers.

http://www.antiwar.com/ips/devraj.php?articleid=2790

 

[INDIC]

And why are you so interested in Muslim majority area of Kashmir?

India is for all, till now 14% of India's population is Muslims, Kashmiris are just 6 millions of them, just 3-4% of all Indian Muslims.