Kargil Conflict 1999 - Indian Casualties

[GORKHALI]

We can run in circles all day long, claiming, denying, disputing, just ask yourself, since all the conflict took place on the Indian side, hence most if not all the casualties must have also occurred there.....at the end of the conflict, how many bodies did India discover and remember you are claiming over 4000 Pakistani casualties, surely you don't think or believe that Pakistani soldiers were able to retrieve and take back several thousands of their dead when they pulled back...... unless off course if you live in a fools paradise.

All I can say is ask your army how many they found in one piece ?How many they gracefully accepted? Poor soldiers tagged as Non state actors,why they accepted after 11 years that Yes we got regulars on kargil mountains fighting along side with mujhadeens. Ask what happen to bodies of soldiers as you uprightly rejected Indian claim at that time while Indian army done a task of burying Pakistani soldiers in military manner which should be yours.

 

[GR!FF!N]

Casualties and losses of Indian Army/Air Force:

> 527 killed
> 1,363 wounded
> 1 POW (Prisoner of War)
> 1 fighter jet shot down.
> 1 fighter jet crashed.
> 1 helicopter shot down.


anything else the video claimed??

 

[Windjammer]

All I can say is ask your army how many they found in one piece ?How many they gracefully accepted? Poor soldiers tagged as Non state actors,why they accepted after 11 years that Yes we got regulars on kargil mountains fighting along side with mujhadeens. Ask what happen to bodies of soldiers as you uprightly rejected Indian claim at that time while Indian army done a task of burying Pakistani soldiers in military manner which should be yours.

You are digressing from the real argument and ranting habitual nonsense, Likewise i could ask, why was India reluctant to accept it's downed pilot in front of the media, do you think no Indian dead bodies were handed over by Pakistan, did you witness any of those, your media hyped and glorified even on the handing over of the bodies, and since you show no respect for soldiers, i could conveniently post some graphic accounts of dead Indian soldiers being eaten by wild animals and all but i guess i'll pass on that albeit, this extract from an article by Brian Cloughly written soon after the conflict should put your mind at rest.

Indian newspapers and their public believe--or say they believe--that the conflict in Dras-Kargil last year was a military victory for India. In fact, it was a war 'won' by briefings and a slavishly supportive media. The Indian public wanted to be assured of 'victory,' and every effort was made to provide that assurance. Kargil was disastrous for Pakistan in worldwide political terms, and was an important public relations coup for the Indian government, both internally (in the run-up to the election), and internationally. But militarily it was a shambles for India whose brave but ill-prepared soldiers suffered gravely and would have sustained even heavier casualties had the conflict continued. The prime minister of Pakistan was ordered by the president of the United States to withdraw his troops from a successful military operation and this was done in time to save the Vajpayee government from the wave of criticism that would have swamped it had the confrontation not been stopped.

 

[Joe Shearer]

You are digressing from the real argument and ranting habitual nonsense, Likewise i could ask, why was India reluctant to accept it's downed pilot in front of the media, do you think no Indian dead bodies were handed over by Pakistan, did you witness any of those, your media hyped and glorified even on the handing over of the bodies, and since you show no respect for soldiers, i could conveniently post some graphic accounts of dead Indian soldiers being eaten by wild animals and all but i guess i'll pass on that albeit, this extract from an article by Brian Cloughly written soon after the conflict should put your mind at rest.

And we have to accept the word of this shill as gospel? that's the best you can do?

 

[Windjammer]

And we have to accept the word of this shill as gospel? that's the best you can do?

There must be reason why he's well known and respected in the literature circles alas I find him much more credible than the assessment you made earlier.

 

[chauvunist]

The number of Indian Casualities must be quite huge that Army won't release it publicly as it may demoralize Public in general and Indian Army in particular...

Disclosing Kargil casualties would affect morale of troops: CIC

 

[Capt.Popeye]

And we have to accept the word of this shill as gospel? that's the best you can do?

@Joe Shearer ; this Brian Cloughsley (better known as beecluff in our circles) was better known for wielding a pen than a sword/gun, though he served. His claim to fame is as a journalist/publicist, who was commisioned and paid to write a history of the PA. Probably because nobody in Pakistan was considered erudite enough to do it........ So he duly penned a panegyric and justified his payment. Just as another John Fricker (or was it Frucker?) wrote about the PAF.
Of course Brian was also employed as a consultant to the GoP to help boost Tourism and related activities in Azad Kashmir, but that acrtivity did not really take off and his investment in that venture remained still-born except for his retainer.
During his time in service, he was seconded to UNMOGIP (a UNO sinecure). So he and his erstwhile colleagues (largely Scandinavian) were given cups of hot kahva in Srinagar sometimes but otherwise given a short shrift and sent on their way. I'm sure Brian will remember that. It shows.

And he did only write Literature so he is only respected in Literary Circles
Stands to reason.

 

[GORKHALI]

You are digressing from the real argument and ranting habitual nonsense, Likewise i could ask, why was India reluctant to accept it's downed pilot in front of the media, do you think no Indian dead bodies were handed over by Pakistan, did you witness any of those, your media hyped and glorified even on the handing over of the bodies, and since you show no respect for soldiers, i could conveniently post some graphic accounts of dead Indian soldiers being eaten by wild animals and all but i guess i'll pass on that albeit, this extract from an article by Brian Cloughly written soon after the conflict should put your mind at rest

So the famous Brian Cloughly article is your gospel
Well By putting an English and western name doesn't make it neutral.
Now who is this guy : Brian Cloughley paid and loyal of Pakistan.Here goes your credibility down the gutter

The number of Indian Casualities must be quite huge that Army won't release it publicly as it may demoralize Public in general and Indian Army in particular...

Disclosing Kargil casualties would affect morale of troops: CIC

As PIB already mentioned how many martyr in its website but it can't goes into detail of the type of casualty as it affects morale of forces. Read again Bhai yea PIB(Public domain) hai ,APP(Army generals domain) nahi.

Most of the details which information commissioner ML Sharma allowed the army to withhold are already in public domain through the official web site of the Press Information Bureau, a government of India department.

A feature given on the PIB web site on "Operation Vijay" clearly says that 527 brave soldiers and airmen laid down their lives during the Kargil war.

 

[Windjammer]

So the famous Brian Cloughly article is your gospel
Well By putting an English and western name doesn't make it neutral.
Now who is this guy : Brian Cloughley paid and loyal of Pakistan.Here goes your credibility down the gutter



As already mentioned that PIB already mentioned how many martyr in its website but it can't goes into detail of the type casualty as it affects morale of forces. Read again Bhai yea PIB(Public domain) hai ,APP(Army generals domain) nahi.

Yup, any one who points fingers or exposes Indians stands accused, stripped and humiliated.
God bless you Justice Katju.

 

[pakdefender]

Indians and Indian army are like the puffer fish , being pretentious is part of being Indian

 

[GORKHALI]

Yup, any one who points fingers or exposes Indians stands accused, stripped and humiliated.
God bless you Justice Katju.

Check his webpage : PA history ,PA that ,PA this...I see we are humiliated like never before.

 

[ares]

CONTINUING CRISIS IN KASHMIR -- HON. BILL McCOLLUM (Extensions of Remarks - July 01, 1999)



[Page: E1503] GPO's PDF
---



HON. BILL McCOLLUMOF FLORIDAIN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESTHURSDAY, JULY 1, 1999

• Mr. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern for the ongoing conflict in the Kashmir region of India. This crisis is nearing a turning point for which the outcome is far from being clear. It is extremely important that in addressing this turning point, the United States should act pursuant to its own national and strategic interests rather than succumb to the allure of simplistic short-term ``arrangements.''

• The conflict in Kashmir has been unfolding for nearly two months now. The Kargil crisis erupted in early May when the Indian Army discovered the infiltration of Pakistani regular troops and an assortment of ISI-sponsored Mujahideen into the northern parts of Indian Kashmir. From these captured positions, the Pakistani forces were close to being able to disconnect India's national highway--the blood line to the country's uppermost northern regions. In the fighting that has since ensued, the Indian Army was able to first contain the infiltration and then doggedly evict the Pakistani forces from positions inside India. This fighting, conducted in the extremely rugged and high-elevation terrain of the Himalayan mountains, still continues as Indian troops climb one mountain after another to dislodge the Pakistani forces sheltered at the peaks. The Indian government is determined, and rightly so, to evict all the infiltrators.

• While taking place in a remote and desolate part of the world, the Kargil fighting is not conducted in isolation. In threatening the Indian national highway, the Pakistani intrusion has been of strategic significance--and so is its defeat. Therefore, the stakes are very high for both New Delhi and Islamabad. Indeed, fully aware of the explosive character of the Kargil crisis, New Delhi has instructed the Indian Army to operate only within Indian territory in removing the infiltrators, despite the military expediency of operating in the rear of the enemy and a higher cost in Indian casualties due to frontal assaults on towering peaks.

• Presently, with the fighting in the Kargil area stabilizing in India's favor, Pakistan is in dire need for a dramatic breakout to salvage some achievements from an otherwise doomed strategic gambit. Moreover, Beijing--Pakistan's closest ally and strategic patron that has its own territorial claims for parts of Indian Kashmir--is expressing growing interest in the outcome of the crisis. The People's Republic of China (PRC) is ready to intervene in the crisis in order to safeguard its own strategic interests.

• In order to meet the prerequisites of such a breakout Pakistan has been pursuing a twin track policy:

• On the one hand, Islamabad has been threatening the escalation of the crisis into a major war that, given the declared nuclear status of both protagonists, might escalate into a nuclear war. In order to ensure that Islamabad's threat of war is considered credible, the Pakistani Armed Forces have undertaken several steps since mid June. Pakistan put the Armed Forces on ``red alert'', sent the Navy out to sea, is moving military reinforcements to the border with India, parading units through the streets of cities and towns, is conducting civil and home defense exercises for the population, as well as deploying air defense forces to all airports and key civilian sites.

• On the other hand, Pakistan, with Beijing's active support, has been raising the possibility of a ``negotiated settlement'' to the Kargil crisis. In these political initiatives, the Pakistanis stress the need to resolve the crisis before it escalates out of control and a major, and potentially nuclear, war erupts. In reality, Islamabad is desperate to extract tangible gains from the cross-border intrusion of its forces before they are defeated and evicted by the Indian Army. And it is in these circumstances that the proposed negotiated solutions for the Kargil crisis are being offered.

• The most popular ``package deal'' which the Clinton administration seems to favor at this juncture calls for Islamabad's quiet an un-acknowledged withdrawing of the Pakistani troops in return for the opening of an international negotiations process over the entire Kashmir problem. Such dynamics, the deal's proponents tell us, will provide Pakistan with a ``face-saving'' outlet out of the armed conflict before it escalates into a wider war.

• However, there are many pitfalls in this approach. In all political discussions to-date, the Pakistani forces involved are still formally defined as ``militants''--thus absolving Pakistan of the formal responsibility for what can otherwise be termed an act of war. Further more, the mere international acceptance without challenge of the Pakistani excuse that these ``militants'' are operating in an area where the Line of Control (the Indo-Pakistani cease-fire line in Kashmir) is not properly delineated and that therefore these ``militants'' are actually on Pakistani soil, contradicts the 1972 Simla Agreement between India and Pakistan. This argument is therefore making a mockery of any such bilateral agreements at the very moment both New Delhi and Islamabad are being urged by the international community to negotiate and ultimately sign yet another agreement on the `Kashmir problem.'' Then, the commonly discussed percept of the ``Kashmir problem'' refers to the conditions of the Muslim population living in the Kashmir valley. Thus, the negotiations will delve on the fate of the Indian held part of Kashmir even though India, Pakistan and even the PRC each controls wide segments of the British-era Kashmir.

• Ultimately, international acceptance of these principles will reward Pakistan for its armed aggression and punish India for its self-restraint in evicting the intruders. Moreover, any political outcome in which Pakistan's interests are met will also reward Beijing. The PRC, one should note, has just tested in a major military exercise in nearby Tibet, a quick reaction intervention force optimized for the region's rugged terrain. Moreover, the new strategic posture at the heart of Asia that will emerge from these negotiations will serve as a precedent for similar aggressive wars-by-proxy that could then be repeated and adopted throughout the developing world to the detriment of the interests of the United States and its Western allies.

• Mr. Speaker, in our pursuit to defuse a brewing crisis before it escalates into a war we should not ignore the overall enduring strategic interests of the United States. The United States does have long-term vital interests in Asia. Democratic and pro-Western India is a bulwark of stability in a region rife with such anti-U.S. forces and mega-trends as the hegemonic ascent of a PRC determined to become the regional supreme power at the expense of the United States, the spread of radical militant Islam and Islamist terrorism, as well as the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and long-range delivery systems by rogue states. At the same time, free access to the energy resources of Central Asia is crucial for the long-term economic development of the United States, while the sea lanes of communications in the Indian Ocean sustain the West's commercial relations with East Asia.

• Thus, any `Kashmire'' agreement based on the principles mentioned above will weaken India, reward and encourage the anti-U.S. forces, and will thus adversely affect the long-term national interests of the United States.

• It is, therefore, in the self-interest of the United States to pursue a negotiated process that will take into consideration the U.S. quintessential dynamics and interests in the region and will thus secure the American national interest. Such a process might take longer to define and be more intricate to attain. However, a genuine solution to such a complex problem as the Kashmir dispute will most likely endure future trials and tribulation. Thus, a genuine solution will ensure at the least a semblance of stability in a turbulent region that is of great importance to the United States. Congress should therefore encourage the Clinton administration to adopt such a principled approach to formulating the U.S. position toward the Kargil crisis. Congress should make sure the U.S. position does not reward aggression, challenge the viability of the principle that legitimate international agreements remain valid and not vulnerable to the sudden expediency of one signatory or another, and support the creation of a conducive environment for the genuine solution of the entire Kashmire problem--that of the areas held by India, Pakistan, and the PRC. Further more, we should congratulate the Indian government for the responsibility, maturity and self-restraint demonstrated in this crisis and encourage it to stay the course despite the mounting pressures.

Congressional Record - 106th Congress (1999-2000) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

 

[Capt.Popeye]

CONTINUING CRISIS IN KASHMIR -- HON. BILL McCOLLUM (Extensions of Remarks - July 01, 1999)



[Page: E1503] GPO's PDF
---



HON. BILL McCOLLUMOF FLORIDAIN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESTHURSDAY, JULY 1, 1999

• Mr. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern for the ongoing conflict in the Kashmir region of India. This crisis is nearing a turning point for which the outcome is far from being clear. It is extremely important that in addressing this turning point, the United States should act pursuant to its own national and strategic interests rather than succumb to the allure of simplistic short-term ``arrangements.''

• The conflict in Kashmir has been unfolding for nearly two months now. The Kargil crisis erupted in early May when the Indian Army discovered the infiltration of Pakistani regular troops and an assortment of ISI-sponsored Mujahideen into the northern parts of Indian Kashmir. From these captured positions, the Pakistani forces were close to being able to disconnect India's national highway--the blood line to the country's uppermost northern regions. In the fighting that has since ensued, the Indian Army was able to first contain the infiltration and then doggedly evict the Pakistani forces from positions inside India. This fighting, conducted in the extremely rugged and high-elevation terrain of the Himalayan mountains, still continues as Indian troops climb one mountain after another to dislodge the Pakistani forces sheltered at the peaks. The Indian government is determined, and rightly so, to evict all the infiltrators.

• While taking place in a remote and desolate part of the world, the Kargil fighting is not conducted in isolation. In threatening the Indian national highway, the Pakistani intrusion has been of strategic significance--and so is its defeat. Therefore, the stakes are very high for both New Delhi and Islamabad. Indeed, fully aware of the explosive character of the Kargil crisis, New Delhi has instructed the Indian Army to operate only within Indian territory in removing the infiltrators, despite the military expediency of operating in the rear of the enemy and a higher cost in Indian casualties due to frontal assaults on towering peaks.

• Presently, with the fighting in the Kargil area stabilizing in India's favor, Pakistan is in dire need for a dramatic breakout to salvage some achievements from an otherwise doomed strategic gambit. Moreover, Beijing--Pakistan's closest ally and strategic patron that has its own territorial claims for parts of Indian Kashmir--is expressing growing interest in the outcome of the crisis. The People's Republic of China (PRC) is ready to intervene in the crisis in order to safeguard its own strategic interests.

• In order to meet the prerequisites of such a breakout Pakistan has been pursuing a twin track policy:

• On the one hand, Islamabad has been threatening the escalation of the crisis into a major war that, given the declared nuclear status of both protagonists, might escalate into a nuclear war. In order to ensure that Islamabad's threat of war is considered credible, the Pakistani Armed Forces have undertaken several steps since mid June. Pakistan put the Armed Forces on ``red alert'', sent the Navy out to sea, is moving military reinforcements to the border with India, parading units through the streets of cities and towns, is conducting civil and home defense exercises for the population, as well as deploying air defense forces to all airports and key civilian sites.

• On the other hand, Pakistan, with Beijing's active support, has been raising the possibility of a ``negotiated settlement'' to the Kargil crisis. In these political initiatives, the Pakistanis stress the need to resolve the crisis before it escalates out of control and a major, and potentially nuclear, war erupts. In reality, Islamabad is desperate to extract tangible gains from the cross-border intrusion of its forces before they are defeated and evicted by the Indian Army. And it is in these circumstances that the proposed negotiated solutions for the Kargil crisis are being offered.

• The most popular ``package deal'' which the Clinton administration seems to favor at this juncture calls for Islamabad's quiet an un-acknowledged withdrawing of the Pakistani troops in return for the opening of an international negotiations process over the entire Kashmir problem. Such dynamics, the deal's proponents tell us, will provide Pakistan with a ``face-saving'' outlet out of the armed conflict before it escalates into a wider war.

• However, there are many pitfalls in this approach. In all political discussions to-date, the Pakistani forces involved are still formally defined as ``militants''--thus absolving Pakistan of the formal responsibility for what can otherwise be termed an act of war. Further more, the mere international acceptance without challenge of the Pakistani excuse that these ``militants'' are operating in an area where the Line of Control (the Indo-Pakistani cease-fire line in Kashmir) is not properly delineated and that therefore these ``militants'' are actually on Pakistani soil, contradicts the 1972 Simla Agreement between India and Pakistan. This argument is therefore making a mockery of any such bilateral agreements at the very moment both New Delhi and Islamabad are being urged by the international community to negotiate and ultimately sign yet another agreement on the `Kashmir problem.'' Then, the commonly discussed percept of the ``Kashmir problem'' refers to the conditions of the Muslim population living in the Kashmir valley. Thus, the negotiations will delve on the fate of the Indian held part of Kashmir even though India, Pakistan and even the PRC each controls wide segments of the British-era Kashmir.

• Ultimately, international acceptance of these principles will reward Pakistan for its armed aggression and punish India for its self-restraint in evicting the intruders. Moreover, any political outcome in which Pakistan's interests are met will also reward Beijing. The PRC, one should note, has just tested in a major military exercise in nearby Tibet, a quick reaction intervention force optimized for the region's rugged terrain. Moreover, the new strategic posture at the heart of Asia that will emerge from these negotiations will serve as a precedent for similar aggressive wars-by-proxy that could then be repeated and adopted throughout the developing world to the detriment of the interests of the United States and its Western allies.

• Mr. Speaker, in our pursuit to defuse a brewing crisis before it escalates into a war we should not ignore the overall enduring strategic interests of the United States. The United States does have long-term vital interests in Asia. Democratic and pro-Western India is a bulwark of stability in a region rife with such anti-U.S. forces and mega-trends as the hegemonic ascent of a PRC determined to become the regional supreme power at the expense of the United States, the spread of radical militant Islam and Islamist terrorism, as well as the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and long-range delivery systems by rogue states. At the same time, free access to the energy resources of Central Asia is crucial for the long-term economic development of the United States, while the sea lanes of communications in the Indian Ocean sustain the West's commercial relations with East Asia.

• Thus, any `Kashmire'' agreement based on the principles mentioned above will weaken India, reward and encourage the anti-U.S. forces, and will thus adversely affect the long-term national interests of the United States.

• It is, therefore, in the self-interest of the United States to pursue a negotiated process that will take into consideration the U.S. quintessential dynamics and interests in the region and will thus secure the American national interest. Such a process might take longer to define and be more intricate to attain. However, a genuine solution to such a complex problem as the Kashmir dispute will most likely endure future trials and tribulation. Thus, a genuine solution will ensure at the least a semblance of stability in a turbulent region that is of great importance to the United States. Congress should therefore encourage the Clinton administration to adopt such a principled approach to formulating the U.S. position toward the Kargil crisis. Congress should make sure the U.S. position does not reward aggression, challenge the viability of the principle that legitimate international agreements remain valid and not vulnerable to the sudden expediency of one signatory or another, and support the creation of a conducive environment for the genuine solution of the entire Kashmire problem--that of the areas held by India, Pakistan, and the PRC. Further more, we should congratulate the Indian government for the responsibility, maturity and self-restraint demonstrated in this crisis and encourage it to stay the course despite the mounting pressures.

Congressional Record - 106th Congress (1999-2000) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Ah well then; we do get to read some FACTS.
Not some LITERATURE of some guy who is well known in LITERARY CIRCLES.........
And who gets paid for his writing, in the fond hope of creating some "best-sellers".

 

[Mujahid]

Indian fan boys,

watch this one ..