India ran to uncle sam to force Pakistan to retreat!

[Great Janjua]

Point 5353 Dominates all these smaller peaks you mentioned the only sector you guys have domination is Siachen and some peaks near Azad Kashmir apart from that we dominate you along Gilgit baltistan up until Siachen and we made sure that in any future war we shall cause havoc on your supply lines

There we go with that 5353 stuff agian, which has already been debated to death on this forum

1. Even if Pakistan captured 5353, assuming it was on the Indian side, India occupied points 5310, 5240, adn others on the Pakistani side. Why couldn't Pakistan capture those peaks back, despite supposedly having the most strategic peaks?

2. All peaks involved were vacated by both India and Pakistan in 2003, so any strategic advantages gained by either side were neutralized. The fact is, India's supply lines to Siachen have remained unhindered, which means Pakistan's goal behind initiating Kargil remains unfulfilled.

 

[Minho]

Point 5353 Dominates all these smaller peaks you mentioned the only sector you guys have domination is Siachen and some peaks near Azad Kashmir apart from that we dominate you along Gilgit baltistan up until Siachen and we made sure that in any future war we shall cause havoc on your supply lines

So why didn't you try to block supply lines to Siachen? Because that was the whole point of the conflict for which 700 Pakistani soldiers + irregulars died

 

[Great Janjua]

So why didn't you try to block supply lines to Siachen? Because that was the whole point of the conflict for which 700 Pakistani soldiers + irregulars died

Kargil was a nightmare for the Indian armed forces you guys suffered more casualties than us whilst fighting a paramilitary force off 2000 men you had 30000 troops and fighter jets you should have taken the peaks in a week instead it took you 3 months and massive amount off casualties you guys started gaining territory back thanks to your airforce which still managed to lose 2 fighter jets and 2 helicopters against manpads even then you only managed to take back tiger hill and the surrounding smaller peaks we still control the dominating peaks and yes how can we forget you had bring all the Bollywood stars to help bolster your soldiers morale who were getting ripped apart by mg3 machine guns

 

[delta2]

I am a firm believer that the Kargil fiasco cost us an unbelievable diplomatic price. Before this conflict Pakistan had an MORAL upper hand on the Kashmir issue . India took the advantage of being an aggrieved nation whos sovereignty had been violated by the so called Pakistani aggression.

I am sorry but that is just untrue nonsense. There is no such thing as a moral upper hand when it comes to nation states. What matters are interests and how they are secured. The weak are always humiliated in this world.

In my humble opinion Kargil was a masterstroke by Pakistan. It shook the Indians to their foundations and exposed them as the weaklings they have always been. It proved that they were unable to expel Pakistan on their own even by a few hundred meters. It exposed India as a weak state that always has to rely on a super power to feel any confidence at all. In the past it was the USSR and for a short present it is/was the USA.

The only mistake Pakistan made was to have a corrupt cockroach like Nawaz Sharif in a position of power that everyone in the Pakistani deep state knew was compromised. Still, all was not lost since Pakistan retained control of the most important peaks in that region. Another bonus and unexpected result was that Pakistan learned to handle and survive through the extreme, full fledged pedal to the metal all spectrum diplomatic and political pressure from the USA when President Clinton was at the helm of an unmatched superpower. While India required the absolute support of such a nature from both the USA and Russia to balance a small skirmish against Pakistan.

 

[FOOLS_NIGHTMARE]

In my humble opinion Kargil was a masterstroke by Pakistan.

General Aziz was second in command to Musharaf,this is what he had to say.

 

[Mav3rick]

Its just not realistically possible for such a huge population to be united under one government. Hindus would still have been majority meaning governance and policies would be unfavorable to Muslims.

That's just an assumption based on the near past in which both Hindus and Muslims were played against each other by outsiders. Factually, a ratio of 7:1.2 is much better than the current ratio and under no condition would Indian MP's and Senators enjoy 2/3rd majority for any anti-Muslim policy.

Furthermore, today most of the enmity and division is driven because of past wars and sour relations between the countries; it just would not have been the case and without divisions, without wars and without deep hostilities, United India would just be a massive economy and also a much bigger military power, bigger than even China and Russia.

 

[Xestan]

I don't have a roll count, neither have I access to the NLI who were indeed fighting at Tiger Hill or Tololong or similar peaks so have no first hand account or narration of events from the horse's mouth. What I do have is a conclusion based on what happened and what did not happen. India had deployed a massive amount of resources to retake Kargil peaks and in no world would have have 'compromised' unless they had no other option.

5353 is a fact, one of many other posts which we hold even today, which indicates that Indian Military was simply unable to retake all the positions and even many of the positions which they eventually captured was only made possible when the NLI were issued orders to retreat; incidentally, during retreat we took the heaviest casualties.

That's factually incorrect. NLI was ordered to fall back in the third week of July, the battle for Tiger Hill happened in first week.

Tololing had already been captured in June, one of the most important points defended by the NLI. So, saying that withdrawal orders resulted in casualties is wrong since when Tololing was being bombarded and our troops martyred in May and June, there were no plans of falling back even in consideration with the Army.

 

[Mav3rick]

That's factually incorrect. NLI was ordered to fall back in the third week of July, the battle for Tiger Hill happened in first week.

Tololing had already been captured in June, one of the most important points defended by the NLI. So, saying that withdrawal orders resulted in casualties is wrong since when Tololing was being bombarded and our troops martyred in May and June, there were no plans of falling back even in consideration with the Army.

Please do not misread or misunderstand my posts. I would suggest you return and re-read what I wrote, specifically in regards to the number of casualties as I had emphasized the retreat where we suffered most of the casualties; does it mean that we did not suffer casualties otherwise, no it does not!

 

[Xestan]

Please do not misread or misunderstand my posts. I would suggest you return and re-read what I wrote, specifically in regards to the number of casualties as I had emphasized the retreat where we suffered most of the casualties; does it mean that we did not suffer casualties otherwise, no it does not!

That's also factually incorrect that we suffered 'most' casualties when we were falling back. The troops at Tiger Hill, Tololing and other surrounding peaks were cut off from ground support on our side of the LoC. And on these hills we suffered the most casualties. Their supply line was cut off in June and by the the time GHQ issued orders for retreat, we had already suffered the majority of the casualties of the failed operation.

You can check the timeline of the battles and our official number of casualties and martyrdom dates of our soldiers with regards to withdrawal orders. They are easily available with ISPR.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

That's just an assumption based on the near past in which both Hindus and Muslims were played against each other by outsiders. Factually, a ratio of 7:1.2 is much better than the current ratio and under no condition would Indian MP's and Senators enjoy 2/3rd majority for any anti-Muslim policy.

Furthermore, today most of the enmity and division is driven because of past wars and sour relations between the countries; it just would not have been the case and without divisions, without wars and without deep hostilities, United India would just be a massive economy and also a much bigger military power, bigger than even China and Russia.

from 750 million muslims even if half of them pursue Islamic ruling system then you will have anarchy. Look how much 15 million muslims in Kashmir are able to create problem for India. NO way will Muslims want to be ruled by Hindus with their system even if they label it democracy. This is what British Empire realize when they were dividing their empire so they could indirectly control it.
And why would west want to create a regional super power which may challenge them? India is a loyalist to west and will NEVER pose any threat to them. Even before British empire Muslims and Hindus were in constant battles but only during brief period they decided to unite against ruthless empire which turned out to be failure.

 

[Mav3rick]

from 750 million muslims even if half of them pursue Islamic ruling system then you will have anarchy. Look how much 15 million muslims in Kashmir are able to create problem for India. NO way will Muslims want to be ruled by Hindus with their system even if they label it democracy. This is what British Empire realize when they were dividing their empire so they could indirectly control it.
And why would west want to create a regional super power which may challenge them? India is a loyalist to west and will NEVER pose any threat to them. Even before British empire Muslims and Hindus were in constant battles but only during brief period they decided to unite against ruthless empire which turned out to be failure.

I know what you are saying; I was just trying to put across a point how damaging partition may have been for us Muslims in particular and India in general (including Pakistan & Bangladesh).

 

[Myth_buster_1]

I know what you are saying; I was just trying to put across a point how damaging partition may have been for us Muslims in particular and India in general (including Pakistan & Bangladesh).

Would you prefer to live under Hindu dominated rule or divided Muslims?

 

[Mav3rick]

Would you prefer to live under Hindu dominated rule or divided Muslims?

I would like under anyone as long as Muslims are united and strong, in that case we can take on any adversary.......besides, Hindu majority does not mean Hindu authority.

 

[Hamza913]

Apart from 5353

You can't just gloss over the strategic importance of that peak.

In any case, we lost far more than any few peaks can justify.

Not really. Only 5,000 men were sent for the operation.

 

[Jungibaaz]

You can't just gloss over the strategic importance of that peak.

Not really. Only 5,000 men were sent for the operation.

Please read through the discussion on 5353, we’ve already talked about it here. And anyone who claims this 5353 was reason enough to destroy our credibility and intl standing by starting a war, destroying the peace process talks between Vajpayee and NS, doing something that caused martial law eventually, damaged Kashmir cause, squandered a good tactical strategy, and leading our men to their deaths, anyone who thinks all of that is worth a peak or few peaks is making a mountain out of a rather tall mole hill (pun partially intended).