The Kargil Conflict Revisited

[A.Razzaq]

REALITY..

Musharraf spent a night in India ahead of Kargil | Mail Online


:

 

[acetophenol]

REALITY..

Musharraf spent a night in India ahead of Kargil | Mail Online


:

Why laugh? Later he ran coup in his own very country.

 

[kurup]

Not really, it is because the propaganda machine in India is far more active and effective then Pakistan. Even more importantly, the civilian and military leadership of India has always stood together both during and after the war, there has hardly ever been any criticism despite even the '62 loss. In Pakistan the civilian government is always looking for a chance to discredit the military leadership and vice versa. Unfortunately for Pakistan, we lost the real civilian leadership too early and have never been able to recover.

Then good work Indian propaganda machine for winning the PR war when the actual war which was actually won by pakistan ...

 

[Umair Nawaz]

These are all neutral assesments not our figures.

Neutral assessments

There have been several neutral assessments of the losses incurred by both India and Pakistan during the war. Most of these assessments agree that India had the upper hand over Pakistan when ceasefire was declared. Some of the neutral assessments are mentioned below —

According to the Library of Congress Country Studies conducted by the Federal Research Division of the United States –

The war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavy—on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government.

TIME magazine reported that India held 690 mi2 of Pakistan territory while Pakistan held 250 mi2 of Indian territory in Kashmir and Rajasthan. Additionally, Pakistan had lost almost half its armour temporarily. The article further elaborates,

Severely mauled by the larger Indian armed forces, Pakistan could continue the fight only by teaming up with Red China and turning its back on the U.N.

Devin T. Hagerty wrote in his book "South Asia in world politics" –

The invading Indian forces outfought their Pakistani counterparts and halted their attack on the outskirts of Lahore, Pakistan's second-largest city. By the time United Nations intervened on September 22, Pakistan had suffered a clear defeat.

In his book "National identity and geopolitical visions",Gertjan Dijkink writes –

The superior Indian forces, however, won a decisive victory and the army could have even marched on into Pakistani territory had external pressure not forced both combatants to cease their war efforts.

An excerpt from Stanley Wolpert's India, summarizing the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965,

In three weeks the second Indo-Pak War ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on U.S. ammunition and replacements for both armies forced cessation of conflict before either side won a clear victory. India, however, was in a position to inflict grave damage to, if not capture, Pakistan's capital of the Punjab when the cease-fire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to Ayub's chagrin.

In his book titled The greater game: India's race with destiny and China, David Van Praagh wrote –

India won the war. It gained 1,840 km2 (710 sq mi) of Pakistani territory: 640 km2 (250 sq mi) in Azad Kashmir, Pakistan's portion of the state; 460 km2 (180 sq mi) of the Sailkot sector; 380 km2 (150 sq mi) far to the south of Sindh; and most critical, 360 km2 (140 sq mi) on the Lahore front. Pakistan took 540 km2 (210 sq mi) of Indian territory: 490 km2 (190 sq mi) in the Chhamb sector and 50 km2 (19 sq mi) around Khem Karan.

Dennis Kux's "India and the United States estranged democracies" also provides a summary of the war,

Although both sides lost heavily in men and material, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the better of the war. New Delhi achieved its basic goal of thwarting Pakistan's attempt to seize Kashmir by force. Pakistan gained nothing from a conflict which it had instigated.

BBC reported that the war served game changer in Pakistani politics,

The defeat in the 1965 war led to the army's invincibility being challenged by an increasingly vocal opposition. This became a surge after his protege, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, deserted him and established the Pakistan People's Party.

"A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947" by Robert Johnson mentions –

India's strategic aims were modest – it aimed to deny Pakistani Army victory, although it ended up in possession of 720 square miles (1,900 km2) of Pakistani territory for the loss of just 220 square miles (570 km2) of its own.

An excerpt from William M. Carpenter and David G. Wiencek's "Asian security handbook: terrorism and the new security environment" –

A brief but furious 1965 war with India began with a covert Pakistani thrust across the Kashmiri cease-fire line and ended up with the city of Lahore threatened with encirclement by Indian Army. Another UN-sponsored cease-fire left borders unchanged, but Pakistan's vulnerability had again been exposed.

English historian John Keay's "India: A History" provides a summary of the 1965 war –

The 1965 Indo-Pak war lasted barely a month. Pakistan made gains in the Rajasthan desert but its main push against India's Jammu-Srinagar road link was repulsed and Indian tanks advanced to within a sight of Lahore. Both sides claimed victory but India had most to celebrate.

Uk Heo and Shale Asher Horowitz write in their book "Conflict in Asia: Korea, China-Taiwan, and India-Pakistan" –

Again India appeared, logistically at least, to be in a superior position but neither side was able to mobilize enough strength to gain a decisive victory.




You were defending .....

The war began following Pakistan's Operation Gibraltar, which was designed to infiltrate forces into Jammu and Kashmir to precipitate an insurgency against rule by India
On August 5, 1965 between 26,000 and 33,000 Pakistani soldiers crossed the Line of Control dressed as Kashmiri locals headed for various areas within Kashmir. Indian forces, tipped off by the local populace, crossed the cease fire line on August 15



But all the neutral assessments states your martially superior military were beaten up badly by Indians.

And you talk about blind by patriotism...........

All u indians have is just Wkikipedia as yr ultimate source..

we all know that RAW gives $$$ to media agencies n individuals to report its say.........

These reports r just wrong.
And we have told u people time n again that we dont take wiki or its claimed sources as a credible information.

So tell yr bogus claims to someone who believes in them.

There is Still no proof of Op. Gibraltor. even in 21st century ur not been able to prove it.
So tell yr little bollywood scripts to yr Int. friends.

and u r still not been able to answer my questions.

Let me repeat them for u as u indians have a habit of forgetting when it comes to the weaknesses n stupidity of yr country.

1) Yr objective was to make us stop doing another claimed op in Kashmir( that u claim).
But we all saw that in 90s,80s Kashmir's movement became armed n u guys still blame us for that.

So if u r to believe in yr claims then u certainly couldnt stop us by doing that in future.

So u couldnt achieve the very objective for which u had waged the war.






2) And if u believe everything was so hunky dory then why didnt u continued the fighting??
what stopped u??
the reality is not that what u claim. Yr armed forces had actually depleted its resources, their poor fighting skills were exposed.

and let me ask u another Question....Why is that yr country is still not holding those Pakistan's Occupied land n why both the countries were forced to go back to the pre feb 26, 1965 position??

Why did yr Lal Bahadur Shastri got a heart Attack when he came to know that u had failed to achieve yr goals.???



If u cant answer them logically then........

go ahead believe in ''whatever floats your boat''.

 

[karan.1970]

Why laugh? Later he ran coup in his own very country.

When he could not capture a part of India, he vented his frustration by capturing his own country

 

[Umair Nawaz]

While there were some excesses, I am surprised that you see this as the contribution of the Lashkars. For someone seemingly over-obsessive about 'facts', is that the right attitude? I see that you are interested only in facts that suit you.



This is your opinion of course. Do you have anything to substantiate your claims here? Facts? Where are they? If anything you have just confirmed my assertions. There WAS division in the ranks, and those who were useful to the Indians were co-opted and declared to be the 'legitimate' representatives. That is just what I had said. Thanks for confirming my position.



I am well-aware of the lack of support from some vocal Kashmiris towards Quaid-e-Azam and Muslim League. It was a similar picture in Punjab. But the elections of 1946 completely reversed the picture. People forced the Unionist party to merge into Muslim League. Did we ever have that in Kashmir? Was there ever an election that allowed people to chose? Was there ever a referendum, or a plebiscite?

That is why I say that Raja of Kashmir thought of his subjects as Cattle which was just convenient for Indians. Do you know how Muslims were treated in the Dogra raj? Do you know what indignities they suffered? There were taxes on # of hearths, on houses, on marriage, Dogra army men would extort money as and when they liked. The Hatus of Kashmir were cattle in their eyes. Like I said, this was what Indians wanted and got: cattle they could count on their side without giving so much as a chance for the people to express their opinions. You build up your case on this situation. You think that a piece of paper can be used to decide the fate of millions without asking them for their opinion. Do you hail from a democracy. Based on the above, I think not.




Sadly, you are letting nationalism speak in riddle-legalese devoid of Humanism for you. Instead you should see the facts as they are. Raja and India treated people like cattle and you seem to see no problem with that. The piece of paper with Raja's signature is somewhere in your archives. That is a fact for you. A piece of paper with forced signature handing away people, their property, their rights, their state as though they were not people but cattle. And you support that? A bit of introspection is called for here.




See how one person is built up as the spoke-person and representative for millions of people, even though he was controversial in and outside of Kashmir. I would posit that Ch. Abbas was more popular and a more true representative of Kashmiris. After the Indian take over, Kashmiris voted with their feet. Do you have any idea, how many Kashmiris migrated to Pakistan? It was easy enough though, all the rivers and their valleys point to Pakistan. When you dismiss these linkages, you are ignoring facts. Why are Kashmiris so close to Punjabis of Pakistan? They share cultural, economic, & religious practices. If given a choice Kashmiris of yesterday and today would doubtless side with Pakistan. They voted with their feet, they would vote with their hands, minds, and souls. That is the confidence that Pakistanis have in them. Even if we have to accept an independent Kashmir, we would do so, because in the end Kashmiris would decide in our favor.

You may dismiss my opinion (and it is an opinion based on facts), but yours is no better than mine.



What base facts? You mean a piece of paper signed by an un-elected piece of **** who condoned violence against his own people because they differed in religion from him?

What base facts? You mean an Indian stooge who declared himself to be the representative of people and JLN gleefully put him on pedestal. The same Sh. Abdullah was thrown in jail, once his purpose was served, by the same JLN. Lessons from history are more pertinent than assumed facts. Kashmiris never had a choice. Indians never gave them a choice. They still want to be independent of India.

Go and read up on anti-Muslim pogroms in Poonch aided and abetted by Dogra soldiers. I have read eye-witness accounts from the refugees. I hope you do the same. The first state secretary of Azad Jammu & Kashmir was an ethnic Punjabi who grew up in Poonch, Kashmir - where his father was a retired state official. He chronicles the detail of how and how many Muslims were killed in each district of Kashmir. The Muslims of Bagh, Muzaffarabad, and Mirpur had served in British army and thus put up resistance and repelled the state troops. It was they who called upon the tribals to help them. If you can read Urdu, you may try to find a copy of 'Shahabnama'. That would turn you to many facts that you presently find convenient to ignore.



Like wise, generations of Indians have been brainwashed into believing these urban legends. You really should find out more.



So you do concur that Nawab of Junagadh declared for Pakistan. I hope you see the circular logic at work here. I could substitute names here are your would find that this is almost a mirror case of Kashmir. The only difference being that Lashkars stopped 30 miles short of Srinagar of Kashmir, and Indian army invaded and occupied. I suppose the Nawab of Junagadh fled for no reason, no threats were made, no show of force was on display. Nothing extra-ordinary at all. Something just caught his fancy and he just strolled out with his dogs (are they relevant?). Hypocrisy, anyone?



I suggest the you do the same. Most of your facts are mere spiderwebs. And your opinions are just as fragile.



Nizam of Hyderabad was a ruler in his own right. He had representation at the UN. I would like to know how India made a case for the naked aggression that was comically labelled 'police action', as though police carry heavy weapons, tanks, and other such stuff. Funny people these Indians. They establish 'facts' using force and then hop around making noise just so no one would notice. I am reminded of how a case of Satti was recorded by a traveller (Ibn-e-Batuta?) The widow was placed on the pyre. When the flames reached her and she started to cry and yell and struggle, the priests just pitched up the volume of 'music' Cymbals, conches, and such - so that her screams were drowned out.

Your case of impossible defense of Indian aggression on Hyderabad brings the above incident to mind. Just make noise, make a pseudo-legal argument and cry facts, facts...



Have you?




In that case the aggression carries a halo of holiness? It was not a mission to occupy territory using threat, force, violence? For Kashmir you have a piece of paper, for whatever it is worth as a fig leaf, for Junagadh and Manadvar you may claim a fig leaf of whatever you say. For Hyderabad, there is no fig leaf, but you may imagine that you have something (much like an establish 'fact' on groud a-la-Israel), but what do you have to say about Goa, Diu? No fig leaf here, no instrument, no person you could thrust forward as being a purported 'representative'. What can you say apart from the fact that India got what it wanted by force, like in all other previous cases? Might is right, Right?


No facts, just an acknowledgement of more of 'might is right'. Why bother with facts when India has plenty of guns, soldiers, tanks, planes, and a misleading fig leaf of democracy? If you are sincere, then call for a plebiscite in Kashmir.




Sardar AbdulQayyum. He was one of the first Kashmiris to wage Jihad against Dogra raj. There is your single (and perhaps first) Kashmiri along with thousands of others. Need more? There is a fact for you. Now are you going to argue that these people either did not exist, or that they are not 'true' Kashmiris?




May I remind you that the recent confrontation on the LOC was sparked by a Granny who fled India Occupied Kashmir to join members of her family on the other side? There are a number of Kashmiris who left Indian occupied territory. Many of them live in Pakistan, some of them relocated to UK and other countries of Europe. I would encourage you to do some research and unearth some inconvenient facts. You may not like them, but they are there. But I would not waste my time establishing the obvious for you.




Nope actually I have not provided you with a narrative of support. I have not touched on a number of things, you are just seeing what you want to see. Let me see: did I provide you with an argument legitimizing Sh. Abdullah? No. Did I say that Kashmiris had nothing to do with Pakistan? No. I quoted Mr. Ghulam Nabi as saying that Kashmiris did not do enough. Big difference. Need more? He mentioned his conversation in Indian soldiers who garrisoned Srinagar. Do you want snippets like "Hamary Naitaon nai inn logon sey kuch wa'day kiyai thay. Woh pooray nahi huay tou yeh log Alaihda hona chahtai hain". I hope you found that instructive. After all you probably have never had much of a conversation with a Kashmiri who had something to do with cause of Independence from India? I have talked to several.



Wanderings of a misinformed mind. One word: 1946 elections (and referendum in erstwhile NWFP and Jirga in Balochistan for state of Qalat). I can guess there is something seriously wrong with how you gather facts. How can you make unfounded assertions above? Pakistan came into being by the power of vote preceded by a spirited campaign that ran for a decade or so. My grand father was a worker in Pakistan movement in Punjab. We made the political elements take notice and change course. We made history. Why would we allow you to twist it? Unbelievable.



Have you got your's straight? You are shooting opinions left and right and calling them facts.





I do have some idea of the resolutions. Enough that any Indian who calls Kashmir a part of India can be pointed to these very resolutions and be reminded that Kashmir in fact is a disputed territory.

In case India is sincere, a plebiscite can be held as it is, under UN auspices. But for the last 60 years, there is no hint of sincere action from India to any resolution at all.




Pointless. Why would the British then build forts in Chitral if indeed Chitral was under Kashmir? What did the Raja of Kashmir do when a local civil war of sorts was going on in Swat? He had no influence there, legal or otherwise. Anyone can claim anything. These are your facts? Unbelievable.




As far as I am concerned, any Indian who claims that Kashmir is a part of India is trolling here. After all India and Pakistan have precious little to quarrel over except Kashmir which is a disputed territory.



Bhai, pls go on tilling the soil on this website. But do not claim that you have any special rights. Just look at the hour and a half you made me waste on a set of posts that precious few are going to read. I have a plot too and I intend to do my bit here. No special rights claimed or recognized, apart from the fact that this is Defence.pk...

No point in argument with him dude...

He is a former indian army man. He was trained n brainwashed to invade our homeland n kill our people.

any serious discussion is pointless with him.

i call him the baba G of Indian Army.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

When he could not capture a part of India, he vented his frustration by capturing his own country

u mean liberating our Pakistan from indian occupation.

 

[karan.1970]

u mean liberating our Pakistan from indian occupation.

Call it whatever you want... .. Musharraf has a history of venting his failures on Pakistanis

When in Siachen he failed in 1987 to capture the posts from Indian Army, he went around taking his frustration out on Shias of Gilgit and Baltistan.

In 1999 when he failed in Kargil (Peak 5353 notwithstanding ), he went ahead and subverted the whole country of Pakistan and gifter WoT to Pakistani citizens

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

All u indians have is just Wkikipedia as yr ultimate source..

we all know that RAW gives $$$ to media agencies n individuals to report its say.........

These reports r just wrong.
And we have told u people time n again that we dont take wiki or its claimed sources as a credible information.

So tell yr bogus claims to someone who believes in them.

There is Still no proof of Op. Gibraltor. even in 21st century ur not been able to prove it.
So tell yr little bollywood scripts to yr Int. friends.

and u r still not been able to answer my questions.

Let me repeat them for u as u indians have a habit of forgetting when it comes to the weaknesses n stupidity of yr country.

1) Yr objective was to make us stop doing another claimed op in Kashmir( that u claim).
But we all saw that in 90s,80s Kashmir's movement became armed n u guys still blame us for that.

So if u r to believe in yr claims then u certainly couldnt stop us by doing that in future.

So u couldnt achieve the very objective for which u had waged the war.






2) And if u believe everything was so hunky dory then why didnt u continued the fighting??
what stopped u??
the reality is not that what u claim. Yr armed forces had actually depleted its resources, their poor fighting skills were exposed.

and let me ask u another Question....Why is that yr country is still not holding those Pakistan's Occupied land n why both the countries were forced to go back to the pre feb 26, 1965 position??

Why did yr Lal Bahadur Shastri got a heart Attack when he came to know that u had failed to achieve yr goals.???



If u cant answer them logically then........

go ahead believe in ''whatever floats your boat''.

first tell us what is reliable enough sources for you??

if we present western sources - that's not neutral.
if we present renowned historians/journalists/ etc - that's some individual for you.
if we present a Pakistani source - that will be traitor for you.

what are you expecting ? source from "mars ??
in other words you are not here to accept any..literally any source presented by others.so let's not pretend that you are here to see valid source and debate logically.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

Call it whatever you want... .. Musharraf has a history of venting his failures on Pakistanis

When in Siachen he failed in 1987 to capture the posts from Indian Army, he went around taking his frustration out on Shias of Gilgit and Baltistan.

In 1999 when he failed in Kargil (Peak 5353 notwithstanding ), he went ahead and subverted the whole country of Pakistan and gifter WoT to Pakistani citizens

another brainwashed indian.

Kargil was happened because of Siachin. had there been no siachin by yr armed forces then there had been no kargil.

and see this n believe in that yr own media, generals n some neutral experts have to say.

and listen what rohit d Sousa has to say of news X about the very Tiger Hill(point 5353).

 

[Umair Nawaz]

first tell us what is reliable enough sources for you??

if we present western sources - that's not neutral.
if we present renowned historians/journalists/ etc - that's some individual for you.
if we present a Pakistani source - that will be traitor for you.

what are you expecting ? source from "mars ??
in other words you are not here to accept any..literally any source presented by others.so let's not pretend that you are here to see valid source and debate logically.

dude our status quo is not very good specially in west. n even a child knows that.
They r NOT neutral towards us.
N by neutral we mean the sources who r trust worthy for both nations.

 

[danger007]

first tell us what is reliable enough sources for you??

if we present western sources - that's not neutral.
if we present renowned historians/journalists/ etc - that's some individual for you.
if we present a Pakistani source - that will be traitor for you.

what are you expecting ? source from "mars ??
in other words you are not here to accept any..literally any source presented by others.so let's not pretend that you are here to see valid source and debate logically.

why you are asking typical questions to him... reliable source mean which favors to his country... and which satisfy his ego..... A lot people from his country agreed that Kargil is pakistan biggest blunder..... still they are trying to do political stunts... and some id.... started believing it

 

[ILLUMINATO]

first tell us what is reliable enough sources for you??

if we present western sources - that's not neutral.
if we present renowned historians/journalists/ etc - that's some individual for you.
if we present a Pakistani source - that will be traitor for you.

what are you expecting ? source from "mars ??
in other words you are not here to accept any..literally any source presented by others.so let's not pretend that you are here to see valid source and debate logically.

Just stop quoting him, he is not open for any healthy reasonable logics, he only believes in his noob rants.

 

[Joe Shearer]

There are several classes of interlocutors that may be encountered on PDF.

First, there are the savants and thinkers who are worthy of respect, and should never be shown disrespect. It would show lamentable lack of respect to them to even enumerate them in a list; they are above all that.

Then there are the professional men, patriots who will not give an inch, but gentlemen nevertheless. It is a pleasure to encounter them, brief though these are. One or two of them distinguished themselves in their service careers, and they straddle the two groups of savants and professionals.

There are patriots who are liberals, and whose objectives and intentions are identical with liberals in India. They are some of them liberals who nevertheless feel that Pakistan has painted itself into a corner, and that military intervention, as a background presence, or on an episodic basis, or through outright supersession of regular civilian rule, is a necessary evil.

There are the new ones, earnest and sincere, and pompous to boot, each one convinced that his forensic skills make him God's own gift to the forum, and that he will drive those bloody Indians pell mell from the forum. Sadly a conviction based largely on an inflated sense of his knowledge of various India-Pakistan issues. Sadly, because very often this supposed knowledge is nothing but the locker room gossip that passes for historical narrative in those adolescent circles.

And then there is a pack of the deranged or the half-crazed, who have so effortlessly provided entertainment for the sane.

It might appear at first glance that it is best to stay away from them ; after all, all that they achieve is to generate copious volumes of froth, which only dirty the floor.

Not so.

In the intervals between worthwhile discussions, these 'elements' save the day for participants dying of ennui. Nice to put an argument in spite of his inability to answer it. Watching him splutter is so much fun.

 

[DV RULES]

Nonsense, again. What else is to be expected from you.

Yes, looks like we have only genius on planet with useless comments.