5Abi: Good post. It is making lot of Indian and Indian propaganda mechines go beserk with their illogical and absurd arguments.
I can put many reasons and references that would confirm that Pakistan gave a good trashing to Indian forces in Kargil and at no point Indian gained back anything at Kargil, until Nawaz gave India Kargil on plate for nothing.
Anyhow, to make thing short, I would only give one reliable reference and would ask some questions. If anyone has answer to those questions without uttering rubbish and absurd, please feel free and we can go on from there … as later, I can bring ‘British Newspaper reports’ of events folding during Kargil time (6th July 1999 to 14th July 1999) when Pak army was pulling out … that would clearly show how Indian were getting the thrashing and that they did not gained anything back at Kargil militarily and only gain they made at Kargil was propaganda. :).
Paragraph from reference (book by Talbott … who was only other person present with Nawaz and Clinton when they talked on Kargil):
When Sharif visited Washington in 1999 to discuss Kargil with Clinton, he insisted, ‘I am prepared to help resolve the current crisis in Kargil but India must commit to resolve the larger issue in a specific time-frame,’
After reading above paragraph, instead of bulshts, please give me logical answer to question: If Pakistan was loosing Kargil and Nawaz went to USA to find save passage for Pakistan army out of Kargil than:
How come Nawaz told Clinton that 'he is prepared to help resolve Kargil cirsis but India must commit to resolve the larger issue in specific time-frame.
Help resolve Kargil crisis? … But if Nawaz went to save Pakistani forces, he should be begging Clinton to save Pakistani forces, not tell Clinton that he could give help.
demanding … India must commit to resolve the larger issue in specific time-frame? … when, if his visit was for face saving, he should not have been in any position to demand or ask for anything … well … not only demanding but asking that demand to be met in specific time frame … how come?
Further, from same referrence: former US deputy secretary of State Strobe Talbott writes in his new book Engaging India - Diplomacy, Democracy and the Bomb. ‘**Clinton **came as close as I had ever seen to blowing up in a meeting with a foreign leader,’ and told Sharif, 'If I were the Indian Prime Minister, I would never do that. I would be crazy to do it. It would be nuclear blackmail.
Now, how come Clinton got upset … and started accusing Nawaz of blackmail? … Well, if Nawaz was there begging to save Pakistan army face, shouldn’t Clinton have told Nawaz that …: What demand? … What help you are talking about? Are you gone banana? You are here to save face for your army … you are not here to give favour … not to give something, so what help you could offer? … You (Nawaz) are in no position to give help and demand something for help, so what help and what demand? … Well, is it not surprising that instead of telling off Nawaz, Clinton going hot and started accusing Nawaz of nuclear blackmail? What nuclear blackmail? Please answer, why Clinton got upset and accused Nawaz of Nuclear blackmail?
When Sharif insisted he had to have something to show for his trip to the US beyond unconditional surrender over Kargil, Clinton pointed to the dangers of nuclear war if Pakistan did not return to its previous positions.
Now, is it not silly that Shareef referring to his demand, insisting he had to have something to show for his trip … beyond unconditional surrender over Kargil? Shareef insisting ‘he is prepared to help resolve Kargil cirsis but India must commit to resolve the larger issue in specific time-frame’. So, is that what he went to USA, to help resolve Kargil crisis on condition that India commit to resolve larger issue in specific time-frame … and want to show that back home that he made India agreed to that … rather Shareef doing unconditional surrender? If that is so, then, where is face saving visit for Pakistan army gone? What demand and unconditional surrender Nawaz was talking about when India was routing Pakistan army anyhow?
Why Clinton have to point out danger of nuclear war if Pakistan did not return to its previous position?
Is it not funny of Clinton? Did Clinton gone banana? Was it not (according to Indian propagandist and Nawaz goons) that, Pakistan was already loosing Kargil and Indian army was chasing Pakistan army to its previous position, so Nawaz was there in USA to save face of Pakistan army, then why Clinton mentioned of nuclear war if Pakistan did not return to its previous position? If Pakistan was already loosing war than that was automatically going to happen without nuclear war, isn’t it? So, why Clinton have to say that when facing with Nawaz demands?
Obviously, if this report by Talbott is right (and it is) then only mentally idiot would think that Nawaz went to USA to save face of Pakistan army retreating from Kargil. Actually, report shows that Nawaz did not go to USA to save face, but he went to USA to negotiate pull-out of Kargil (under world pressure … hat can be confirmed from other sources too), and that he went to USA where he lost everything under Clinton’s pressure, even though Pakistan forces on ground were holding and India was helpless to do anything about it (as the book mentions … that can be confirmed from various other sources too … though talk of Clinton and Nawaz, reported by Talbott tells a lot for any intelligent person to get the picture).
Reference: … from Hindustan times with my comments (note, one can get to referred book from shop easily to confirm :)):
http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/archive…20040711c.html
Clinton** snubbed Sharif for linking Kargil war with Kashmir issue**
11 July 2004
The Hindustan Times
Press Trust of India
Washington: At the height of the Kargil conflict, former Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif told then US President Bill Clinton that he was prepared to help resolve the crisis if India committed to settle the ‘larger issue’ of Kashmir in a specific time-frame, but the American leader snubbed him saying it would amount to a ‘nuclear blackmail.’
[Now anyone can guess from above article that if Nawaz was asking something for withdrawing from Kargil, obviously Pakistan was occupying the peaks and American wanted Pakistan to withdraw, so Nawaz wanted to link withdrawal to Kashmir solution, that Clinton (Clinton is consider extremely pro-India) told Nawaz not to blackmail. Thus, it shows that if Nawaz was in position to ask something, it is obvious that on ground, Pakistan was winning]
When Sharif visited Washington in 1999 to discuss Kargil with Clinton, he insisted, **‘I am prepared to help resolve the current crisis in Kargil but India must commit to resolve the larger issue in a specific time-frame,’ **
[Here also, Nawaz was telling that he is prepared to resolve Kargil issue if India is prepared to resolve larger issue (that is Kashmir) in specific timeframe. How, a loosing side could make such demands? Obviously, Nawaz was making such demands because he was not on loosing side, and it was world pressure to withdraw so he wanted to get even a little out of his winning position on Kargil]
former US deputy secretary of State Strobe Talbott writes in his new book Engaging India - Diplomacy, Democracy and the Bomb. ‘**Clinton **came as close as I had ever seen to blowing up in a meeting with a foreign leader,’ and told Sharif, 'If I were the Indian Prime Minister, I would never do that. I would be crazy to do it. It would be nuclear blackmail.
[How can Nawaz blackmail if Nawaz had nothing to blackmail? Obviously Nawaz had something to blackmail, that was what Pakistan captured in Kargil and Drass, and was holding].
If you proceed with this line, I will have no leverage with them. If I tell you what you think you want me to say, I will be stripped of all influence with the Indians.’ ‘I am not - and the Indians are not - going to let you get away with blackmail, and I will not permit any characterisation of this meeting that suggests I am giving in to blackmail,’
[Above paragraph shows that Clinton wanted Pakistan to withdraw without giving Pakistan anything in return.]
Talbott writes, adding, Clinton** also refuted Sharif’s accusation that the Indians were the instigators of the crisis and intransigents in the ongoing standoff.**
[Nawaz told Clinton that Kargil instigator was Indians (Musharaf is claiming in his book same thing and India is shouting foul). It also means that Nawaz told Clinton that Indian instigated Kargil and in consequence we gave them black nose and captured Kargil and Drass but Clinton refuted Shareef accusation (shows that Clinton was acting on behalf of his client, India and was bias). Note the word ‘ongoing standoff’. It means that Pakistan was still occupying what they occupied and India could not get anything back, even an inch (there was ongoing standoff = unchanging situation). It also shows that what India was claiming of successes to Indians, were all propaganda].
When Sharif insisted he had to have something to show for his trip to the US beyond unconditional surrender over Kargil, Clinton pointed to the dangers of nuclear war if Pakistan did not return to its previous positions.
[When Nawaz started insisting that he wants something for withdraw, Clinton started pressurizing Nawaz to withdraw by mentioning danger of nuclear war. It also shows that India was in no position to recapture Kargil but to get it back India wanted west to pressurize Pakistan and try to scare them of a bigger war. (Though from same article, it seems that Musharaf was prepared for the eventuality of Indian attack and war spreading, as he was putting nukes at forward positions. That will come later in the talk between Nawaz and Clinton)]
**Seeing they were getting nowhere, Clinton told Sharif he had a statement ready to release to press that would lay all the blame for the crisis on Pakistan. **
[Now, Clinton started black mailing Nawaz Shareef]
‘Sharif was ashen.’ 'Clinton had worked himself back into real anger - his face flushed, eyes narrowed, lips pursed, cheek muscles pulsing, fists clenched. He said it was crazy enough for Sharif to have let his military violate the Line of Control, start a border war with India, and now prepare nuclear forces (US had received intelligence Pakistan was preparing nuclear forces for attack against India) for action,
[Above paragraph shows that Nawaz was completely taken aback (he got pale). Clinton was angry and shouting on Nawaz wanting Nawaz to withdraw Pakistani forces. Accusing Nawaz that Pakistan is preparing nuclear forces against India (obviously, that would have happened if Indian attacked Pakistan to take back Kargil)].
’ Talbott says in his book. ‘Sharif seemed beaten, physically and emotionally’ and denied he had given any order with regard to nuclear weaponry.
[Above paragraph Shows that Nawaz was completely beaten physically and emotionally, that was obviously under the pressure of Clinton (USA)]
Taking a break, Clinton spoke to then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee over phone and told him what had happened till then. ‘What do you want me to say?’ Vajpayee asked. ‘Nothing,’ Clinton replied, he just wanted to show he was holding firm.
[Clear proof that USA called Nawaz Shareef (to pressurize Pakistan to withdraw) on behalf of India and was in direct contact with India. Paragraph also mentions that Clinton called Vajpayee to show Vajpayee that he is firm with Pakistan (Clinton to Vajpayee: Dost tumhara kaam hou jayea ga, Nawaz ko may sakhti say juta maar raha hoon, woh agree hou jayea gaa kay Kargil choor day, aur tumhari dhoti uternay say bach jayea]