INDIC
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2012
- Messages
- 18,512
- Reaction score
- -12
- Country
- Location
There are three reasons for it ...
1- India was utterly humiliated and embarrassed (as your General at Kargil accepted) , so it had to do alot of propaganda to cover that (Read Brian Cloughley's analysis of Kargil war which concludes at Pakistani military victory , and Indian victory on Indian media lols)
2- We are not brainwashed , inferiority-complex stricken race...hence we didn't need to celebrate our military victory in a battle/small conflict
3- It relates to the last point : Kargil was NOT an official full-fledged military war..It was a pro-longed skirmish , if you may...Pakistan also out-performed India in "run-of-Kutch" skirmish before 1965 war (if you knew) ..but yet we don't "celebrate" run-of-kutch ... So if Kargil was some "war" , we would've celebrated...but it was not a war.
Lastly , your General who commanded forces AT Kargil says that Kargil was an embarrassment and he wasn't convinced that Inida really won...on the other hand...Pakistani Commander during the war says that Kargil was a brilliant operation and was a military success....
So what is there to argue? People who actually fought tells the story
@AUZ, But you did the same in 65, got Ceasefire, declared victory even you never won, public holiday and censored operation Gibratar from textbooks. Why not same repeated for Kargil. You nation still don't know the names of all dead soldiers unlike 65 or 71.