What could have PAF done in Kargil war

[white_pawn]

Zarbe Momin, your right what indian media shows is all fake. Only pakistan medias is the most trusted one.

 

[Zarbe Momin]

Yes obviously true pople have truth based open media. We have and proud to be on that. I will put some examples how much media and justice system of india is fake.
Babu Bajrangi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Babu Bajrangi after genocide & organized attacks on Muslims during the 2002 Gujarat violence is free. No justice & media silent. Terrorist are free again to do terrorism. Pakistan is a neighbouring country with muslim population and obviuosly we have concerns on that.
Hemant Karkare report was also there on Samjhauta train terror mastered by indian hindu terrorist. Then Hemant Karkare was killed. Then hindu terrorists and indian government attached this incident with Bombay incident and Ajmal Kasab. Even till today it is not clear Ajmal kasab is pakistani or not. In Samjhauta train terror we showed response as a responsilbe nation but unfortunately in Bombay attack indian government and media response was ugly monky type. I don't want to derail this topic but i think it is enough to shut your mouth. Just try to talk with facts.

 

[SQ8]

I believe the ceasefire was held in Kargil. One of the terms of the deal Nawaz Sharif made with US was that there be no firing during withdrawal.
Indian TV had coverage on news of people withdrawing and it was pretty clear there was no firing going on.

Negative, It was a withdrawal under fire. While this agreement was Clinton saying he would ask the Indians not to attack withdrawing troops.
But that was not the case and the Indians had field day with killing retreating troops who HAD been told by our GHQ that the Indians have been told by the Americans not to fire at them & there was an agreement on this(not).
As far as killing retreating troops, I see no reason why the Indians would not want to, because while the infiltrators held the peaks they had direct line of fire on the main Indian supply lines to Kashmir. And for the Initial ten days or so were having a duck shoot at the supply convoys and any attempts by the Indian army to recapture those peaks. the losses stated by the Indians are accurate in their troop count, but do not state the losses in equipment and supplies which were worth millions if not billions of rupees. Not to mention the extra millions per Kg they had to spend to just sustain the existing troops by aerial resupply.(for e.g 1kg meat in a truck costs 1000rs to get to an Indian position, the same amount by helicopter costs 25000rs)
So when they opened up their barrels, they wanted some payback, after all..Zee TV needed something to start with in their bloated propaganda(starting with the M2k LD-FLIR shots of LGB's taking out our posts). So while our troops were pulling back in the false assurance that they would not be fired upon, the Indians were raring at the chance to send those poor chaps to their maker.

 

[wtf]

Negative, It was a withdrawal under fire. While this agreement was Clinton saying he would ask the Indians not to attack withdrawing troops.
But that was not the case and the Indians had field day with killing retreating troops who HAD been told by our GHQ that the Indians have been told by the Americans not to fire at them & there was an agreement on this(not).
As far as killing retreating troops, I see no reason why the Indians would not want to, because while the infiltrators held the peaks they had direct line of fire on the main Indian supply lines to Kashmir. And for the Initial ten days or so were having a duck shoot at the supply convoys and any attempts by the Indian army to recapture those peaks. the losses stated by the Indians are accurate in their troop count, but do not state the losses in equipment and supplies which were worth millions if not billions of rupees. Not to mention the extra millions per Kg they had to spend to just sustain the existing troops by aerial resupply.(for e.g 1kg meat in a truck costs 1000rs to get to an Indian position, the same amount by helicopter costs 25000rs)
So when they opened up their barrels, they wanted some payback, after all..Zee TV needed something to start with in their bloated propaganda(starting with the M2k LD-FLIR shots of LGB's taking out our posts). So while our troops were pulling back in the false assurance that they would not be fired upon, the Indians were raring at the chance to send those poor chaps to their maker.

I understand your points that India had a motive to attack, but you gave no evidence that they did. My evidence is the TV coverage of the withdrawal and the report by US forces about the war which mentions the agreement with US. http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/research/kargil/war_in_kargil.pdf

Here is also another report on Indian treatment of the fallen
Rediff On The NeT: Pakistan refuses to take even officers' bodies

I can't see any evidence that India broke any laws of war or agreement with US.

Question: Where is your evidence ?

 

[SQ8]

I wish I could present about a dozen Pakistani personnel to you who would swear on an oath that they saw their comrades cut down in retreat. The documents mention only a negotiated settlement. Not whether it was carried out or not word for word. The TV coverage you mention.. I saw it too, we got Zee tv here via dish back then too.And all I saw were long distance shots of artillery hitting peaks, A few Pakistani bodies along with shots of various weaponry, not to mention the famous FLIR videos of LGB strikes and continuous blaring of how victory after victory was being achieved by the Indian army. I was living in bhurban, and heard artillery all night and day. met army officers routinely and even saw my favorite picnic spot by kohala river turned into a holding point.
So truly.. I am at a loss of evidence, but then, you don't present me anything concrete either apart from US navy article which mentions a negotiated settlement ("In a negotiated settlement, Pakistan decided to
withdraw its troops from the remaining locations in a set time frame") and a report about refusal to accept bodies which we all know happened, nowhere does it state about a ceasefire or surrender.
And as a simple conclusion.. citing the report that you do, It states that "India likewise tried to use the international media to make its case known". Therefore it had the world media in its favor. Now as Pakistan was already denying involvement, WHY on earth would anyone state that their soldiers were killed retreating from enemy territory, hence your question has its answer in itself.

 

[SQ8]

from Nawaz Sharif’s US visit during Kargil conflict canary trap

On July 2, 1999 Sharif called President Clinton and requested him to intervene. The President also consulted with then Indian Prime Minister A B Vajpayee who clearly stated that India will not negotiate “under the threat of aggression” and that withdrawal of Pakistani forces was essential.

Sharif again called President Clinton on July 3 and told him that he was ready to come to Washington. The President warned him that without agreeing to withdraw Pakistani forces behind the LoC, the visit will not yield any results. Sharif told him that he was coming to the US on July 4.

According to the policy paper, the White House and the State Department prepared two documents before Sharif’s visit. The first was a draft statement President Clinton would issue if Sharif agreed to withdraw Pakistani forces behind the LoC. The second draft was a statement the President would issue if Sharif refuse to withdraw the forces. The latter draft clearly stated that Pakistan was solely responsible for the crisis in South Asia.

The paper states that the US had evidence that “Pakistan was preparing their nuclear arsenals for possible deployment”. The US government also took help from Saudi Arabia, Britain, and China to pressurize Pakistan to back down from Kargil. Before the meeting, President Clinton’s advisers briefed him and suggested that the President should not be alone with Sharif at any time during the meeting. According to them a record of all the conversations was very critical.

Firm US response

During the meeting with President Clinton, Sharif kept on playing the old Kashmir tune. But the US President made it clear that the issue at hand was withdrawal of Pakistani forces behind the LoC and that there was no point in raking up old issues at this point.

The paper further states that Sharif then requested twice to be left alone with President Clinton. But the President insisted that he wanted a record of the event and asked Bruce Riedel to be present with him.

Sharif told President Clinton that he needed a face saving formula to withdraw the Pakistani forces otherwise the fundamentalists in his country would use the opportunity to topple him.

The Pakistani PM once again asked for a one-on-one discussion with President Clinton, which was dismissed. The paper states: “The President dismissed this with a wave of his hand and then told Sharif that he warned him on the second not to come to Washington unless he was ready to withdraw without any precondition or quid pro quo. Sharif had been warned by others as well. The President said he had a draft statement ready to issue that would pin all the blame for the Kargil crisis on Pakistan tonight.”

President Clinton reminded Sharif that despite making commitments about helping the US locate Osama bin Laden he has done nothing. Instead, the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) was conniving with bin Laden and the Taliban in spreading terror. The President also warned him that his draft statement would also mention Pakistan’s role in supporting terrorism in Afghanistan and India.

The two leaders took a break after the first round of talks and met again. President Clinton presented a draft statement for the press that the two leaders would jointly issue.

The key element in the draft read “the Prime Minister has agreed to take concrete and immediate steps for the restoration of the LoC.”

“The statement also called for a ceasefire once the withdrawal was completed and restoration of the Lahore process. Finally, the statement included a reaffirmation of the President’s long standing plans to visit South Asia,” the paper states.

Sharif read the statement and again took a break to discuss it with his team of advisers. Finally he accepted the draft statement with one addition of his own.

According to the paper, Sharif wanted a sentence which would say, “The President would take personal interest to encourage an expeditious resumption and intensification of the bilateral efforts (i.e. Lahore) once the sanctity of the LoC had been fully restored.”

Finally the announcement was made. Pakistan withdrew its forces behind the LoC.

Joint Statement

Following is the full text of the joint statement issued by the US President Bill Clinton and the Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif after their talks:

President Clinton and Prime Minister Sharif share the view that the current fighting in the Kargil region of Kashmir is dangerous and contains the seeds of a wider conflict. They also agreed that it was vital for the peace of South Asia that the Line of Control in Kashmir be respected by both parties, in accordance with the 1972 Shimla accord.

It was agreed between the President and the Prime Minister that concrete steps will be taken for the restoration of the Line of Control in accordance with the Shimla Agreement. The President urged an immediate cessation of the hostilities once these steps are taken. The Prime Minister and President agreed that the bilateral dialogue begun in Lahore in February provides the best forum for resolving all issues dividing India and Pakistan, including Kashmir. The President said he would take a personal interest in encouraging an expeditious resumption and intensification of those bilateral efforts, once the sanctity of the Line of Control has been fully restored.

The President reaffirmed his intent to pay an early visit to South Asia.

 

[wtf]

I wish I could present about a dozen Pakistani personnel to you who would swear on an oath that they saw their comrades cut down in retreat. The documents mention only a negotiated settlement. Not whether it was carried out or not word for word. The TV coverage you mention.. I saw it too, we got Zee tv here via dish back then too.And all I saw were long distance shots of artillery hitting peaks, A few Pakistani bodies along with shots of various weaponry, not to mention the famous FLIR videos of LGB strikes and continuous blaring of how victory after victory was being achieved by the Indian army. I was living in bhurban, and heard artillery all night and day. met army officers routinely and even saw my favorite picnic spot by kohala river turned into a holding point.
So truly.. I am at a loss of evidence, but then, you don't present me anything concrete either apart from US navy article which mentions a negotiated settlement ("In a negotiated settlement, Pakistan decided to
withdraw its troops from the remaining locations in a set time frame") and a report about refusal to accept bodies which we all know happened, nowhere does it state about a ceasefire or surrender.
And as a simple conclusion.. citing the report that you do, It states that "India likewise tried to use the international media to make its case known". Therefore it had the world media in its favor. Now as Pakistan was already denying involvement, WHY on earth would anyone state that their soldiers were killed retreating from enemy territory, hence your question has its answer in itself.

I was talking about the later TV coverage, where it clearly showed Pak troops/infiltrators retreating. There was no firing shown, and none reported. There was general feeling and discussion that firing should be allowed but the army was holding back.

But I guess if you heard directly from those involved, that is as good as an evidence as I have. I'll keep looking for either side, but I'll let your point stand.

 

[Muradk]

Just a few word on what PAF thought.
If PAF would have entered in Kargil war and would have short down a plane Pakistan and India would have gone into a full bore War.

 

[TexasJohn]

Just a few word on what PAF thought.
If PAF would have entered in Kargil war and would have short down a plane Pakistan and India would have gone into a full bore War.

In other words, the author of the article was right. The goal of the PAF was to not escalate as it was merely an Army adventure?

 

[Hellfire]

In other words, the author of the article was right. The goal of the PAF was to not escalate as it was merely an Army adventure?

actually the world opinion swung away from Pakistan, so they could not do a volte face and intervene as they had been claiming the areas were occupied by local separatists and no PA regular/irregular pers were involved.

escalation would have been a grave mistake and as such there was no overt interference on Pakistani sides.

 

[Hellfire]

I was talking about the later TV coverage, where it clearly showed Pak troops/infiltrators retreating. There was no firing shown, and none reported. There was general feeling and discussion that firing should be allowed but the army was holding back.

But I guess if you heard directly from those involved, that is as good as an evidence as I have. I'll keep looking for either side, but I'll let your point stand.

wtf

even after the cessation of military operations, IA was conducting missions for further few days. It was to regain control of 2 peaks which had never been under Indian occupation since early 1980s and were essential to secure the highway (by negating development of static arty OP over there by PA).

its true that PA troops were eliminated after the said dates but it was not on "withdrawl", rather in continued military operations.

 

[Contrarian]

wtf

even after the cessation of military operations, IA was conducting missions for further few days. It was to regain control of 2 peaks which had never been under Indian occupation since early 1980s and were essential to secure the highway (by negating development of static arty OP over there by PA).

its true that PA troops were eliminated after the said dates but it was not on "withdrawl", rather in continued military operations.

This i did not know. Could you help me know more about it mate-a few links or something of the sort.

 

[Hellfire]

This i did not know. Could you help me know more about it mate-a few links or something of the sort.

MM

as you know exchanges of features between India and Pakistan was a regular feature along LoC till ceasefire was declared mutually, India had lost 2 peaks (numbers not recalled, will mail in when I do) in 80s which could not be taken by India till end of Kargil War. The Kargil war was over by July 18 however IA continued operations declaring no ceassation of hostilities and no ceasefire "to verify" clearance officially. It was only by July 23/25 that IA finally stopped all operations after securing these 2 features with active participation of elements of 9 SF supported by Infantry and Artillery Units.

If you google you can find it in news items like this:

Rediff On The NeT: Last of the Pakistanis leaves Kargil

the exact reference numbers I have forgotten as it was hardly of value any further as another one which was needed to be secured could not be.

This was done to ensure that direct observation by PA could not be undertaken of the national highway any more

 

[TexasJohn]

What video? no links visible....

 

[salman nedian]

if anyone wants to reply me do that on my email manoj00007@gmail.com
Jai Hind

The mujahideens were initially involved in the fighting and later on when army saw an opportunity, they tried to cpatalize on it. Simple is that and as far as PAF couldn’t do any thing, it is a mere speculation because when needed we shot down 2 IAF planes as soon as they crossed the border.Pakistan’s main goal was to highlight the Kashmir issue as a nuclear fleshpoint and we succeded in that.

Hope you got your answer.

Pakistan Zindabad.