Kargil; Separating Myth from the Reality

Society Military and Strategic Issues
41

So your Sindhis, Bhuttos, Chaudharys, Rajputs, Gujjars, Ranas , Maliks,Punjabis even your Allama Iqbal and Jinnah were Arabs :) May you should do better trying to hiding your ancestory. :)

Well you see in this propoganda , they didn't teach you that your Sindhi ancestors defeated and killed Arabs expeditions 15 times before falling to Bin Qasim, albeit who was also revenged. What a shame.

Phyisical Traits in Rishta
42

If you dont like the message, badmouth the messenger !!!

43

Re: Kargil; Separating Myth from the Reality

listen kids I know u guys have high opinion about Pak army and like probably u have over rated our military .
As as Insider, who has spent all his youth in military training centers of Army and Navy , its first hand so....trust me Pak Army is no match for Indian army in terms of technology, weapons and size etc.
Examples of our ineffectiveness against India

  1. Operation Gibralater of 1965 where we failed against Indian army in Kashmir
  2. The defeat of 1971 where we lost half of Pakistan
  3. Defeat of Kargil

I know that u kids caz of Patriotism, dont want to accept it! but a fact is a fact....and this is an insider speaking to you ..trust me I know what i am talking about. I don't want to demoralize you but if u want to know what actually happened in Kargil...I can tell u in Private

44

Re: Kargil; Separating Myth from the Reality

Good sportsman's spirit is that " We accept our defeat " and make better preparations for future. Accepting defeat of the past is not unholy.

Cheers
An X Military officer

The Return of Kasauti (Kasauti I)
45

Re: Kargil; Separating Myth from the Reality

When a war is lost, the impact is felt for a very long time. While internal planners have to understand and accept the reality of defeat so that same mistake is not committed again, revelling on the defeat demoralizes the younger generation

46

Re: Kargil; Separating Myth from the Reality

^ that doesn't mean you twist and lie about facts! What rationalization can possibly exist to teach a history where outright failures are taught as success?

47

Re: Kargil; Separating Myth from the Reality

^ unfortunately (or fortunately) that happens everywhere but a more in Pakistan.

But I don't think the guys in this argument are product of such misinformation. They seem to be playing poker with Indians

48

I thought 1965 was a stale mate. And that is what I have read every where else.

49

Operation Gibraltor was not a stalemate but all of our paratrooper died in Indian occupied Kashmir.
The operation was mastermind by late General Ayob Khan. He had this naive plan that if Pakistan sends paratrooper commandoes into Indian occupied Kashmir..the will head a resistance movement and liberate Kashmir with the help of locals.
The Operation was a complete disaster...all of our paratroopers died..and this gave India a reason to attack Pakistan.

50

I appreciate the info. But the world still considers it a stale mate with India gaining a few square miles more than Pakistan. I can see why Indians will consider it a win, they defended and succeeded in doing that.

51

In terms of gaining land it was a stalmate. Non of the country snatched a single inch from each other. But Analysts agree that it was miscalculation of General Ayob Khan..
If he were any smarter he should have attacked India when India was at war with China....but the dumb guy missed that golden opportunity

52

Re: Kargil; Separating Myth from the Reality

Pakistan neve had great generals because they always ceded the moral high ground to India.

53

Re: Kargil; Separating Myth from the Reality

The problem earlier was that both India's and Pakistanis officers and later generals were trained together by the british prior to 1947. And later (and to this day) going to the british Sandhusrt military academy was required for both the senior Indian and Pakistan army officers.
So both nations officers had the same military doctrine and thinking and that is why they both end up in stalemates.

I don't know about pakistan, but thankfully the new indian army officers seem to be training in Russian, American and Isreali military academies.
And the old indian officers were 'gentlemen officers', they rarely ever saw combat. Since, kashmir and other insurgencies are over 20 years old , the present generation of senior officers have combat experience and are going to be ruthless than the old. The young army lientenat or captain in kashmir 20 years ago (who was running combat operations against kashmiri mujehedeen and probably lost some of his soldier friends in combat) is now majors and one star generals. It remains to be seen how the future india-pakistan combat will take shape.

54

Aray yaar why are you arguing with them? No matter how you slice or dice for them its a vijay.. be it surrender to Bin Qasim or the last standoff... Just enjoy their BS and have fun...
[/quote]

m0293,PaRtyGuyz
I was wondering if you would respond to above post, post # 40 intitially.

55

Politics is keeping citizen from both sides away from truth. Truth is to achieve growth india-pak should stop fighting each other and think about their progress.
Both countries are spending billions $ of their hard earned economy into warfare. A bomb/missile made from 1million$ does not contribute to economy it's lost when goes boom..
Having said that India selected right choice not to cross LOC during kargil or after attack on parliament. Not b'cos of fear of loosing war but fear that both countries will go back to stone age and only west will benefit from that.
I happen to meet many of pakistani in west (where i'm now) and all share similar thought. May be it's education which makes you think out of the box. Many of my friends back in india who are still 'kuye ka mendak' dont think of global economy, country progress and all that.
My advise to all those (pakistani and indians) who still think for war should change their perspective to concentrate on country's progress.

56

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 … that 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]

Tension in Karachi
Tension in Karachi
57

hahaha, tumhein to movie director hona chahiye tha…

58

Saieem, I am interested to see what you have in those newspapers you’re talking about.

Because you’re challenging that Nawaz would have begged USA to save Pakistan and interestingly those are the very words used by the very same Talbott in his book. Here is the quote and a link to it:

Talbott writes that “through our ambassador in Islamabad **Sharif begged Clinton to come to his rescue **with a plan that would stop the fighting and set the stage for a US-brokered solution to Kashmir,” In reply to Sharif’s phone call Clinton said that he would consider it only if Pakistan first unilaterally withdrew. ”The next day Sharif called to say that he was packing his bags and getting ready to fly immediately to Washington— never mind that he has not been invited. ‘This guy‘s coming literally on a wing and a prayer ,’said the president,” **Sharif was not given the proper protocol and was received by Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia **and brought to Blair House who informed the Americans that ‘they should be prepared to deal with a man who was not just distraught about the crisis but terrified of the reaction from Musharraf and the military if he gave in to American pressure.’ Talbott suggested to the president that if Sartaj Aziz and Shamshad would participate in the meeting it would not be a productive so president should have a two to one meeting with Sharif attended by one aide of Clinton. In the meeting instead of relenting Sharif made matter worse by linking withdrawal from Kargil with solution of Kashmir dispute .Talbott writes that Clinton came as close to as I had ever seen blowing up in a meeting with a foreign leader. **But after giving him a lecture on history Clinton switched from “chastising Sharif for the reckless stupidity of Kargil **to complementing him on his earlier contribution to moment of diplomatic promise.” “Having listened to Sharif’s complaints against United States he had a list of his own and it started with terrorism. ..Clinton had worked himself back into real anger—his face flushed. ..Sharif seemed beaten, physically and emotionally. He denied he had given any orders with regards to nuclear weaponry and said he was worried for his life.” The meeting however ended on a happy and friendly feeling on Clinton’s part after Sharif signed the press note “ As the president and his advisers were leaving Blair House Shamshad Ahmad scurried after Sandy with alterations he wanted in the text. Sandy kept walking and said briskly over his shoulder ,’Your boss says it’s okay as it is.’”

59

First let see how you are getting confused with the use of word ‘begging’ what Talbott wrote to compare it with what I wrote. I wrote that Nawaz did not beg Clinton to save face of Pakistani forces at kargil. You wrote:

Did you compare correctly? Did Talbott write that Nawaz begged USA to save Pakistan (as you think)? Let see in what context Talbott used the word begging. Here is what he wrote, according to reference you yourself gave.
http://drafzalmirza.blogspot.com/2006/02/b...ging-india.html

Anyone can see from above that Nawaz was not begging Clinton to save Pakistani forces, but Nawaz was begging (rather requesting) Clinton to bring plan brokering solution of Kashmir, so that fighting between Pakistan and India can be stopped.

It is also obvious from above statement that India was gaining nothing back at Kargil, that is why Clinton replied to Nawaz request that … He would consider it (brokering Kashmir issue) only if Pakistan first unilaterally withdrew. If India was inflicting defeat and forcing Pakistani forces to retreat than Clinton could not have asked Pakistan to unilaterally withdraw (withdraw is not retreat).

Obviously, Nawaz did not agree to it and that is why he went (uninvited) to USA so that he can explain his point of view to Clinton regarding unilateral withdrawal (Pakistan withdraw and India do nothing in response). Nawaz wanted conditional withdrawal followed by Kashmir talk where America plays role of broker, but Clinton did not wanted that, and in the end Clinton forced Nawaz to agree with unconditional withdrawal.

It is also clear from your reference that there was huge American pressure (and there are references that Pakistan had pressure of many other countries too), that to withdraw from Kargil Unilaterally and pressure from Pakistan army not to withdraw. Thus, even though Nawaz was prepared to give in (accept unilateral withdrawal) because of American pressure (and pressure from other countries), he was distraught and terrified of the (expected) reaction by Musharraf and Pakistan army if he did gave in to American pressure.

From your reference (if you read the whole reference) it is obvious that Clinton and Talbott both knew Nawaz as intelligently deficient and gutless person, who was prepared to sell-off Pakistani interest at kargil. They knew that other Pakistanis would never agree even if Nawaz is pressurised to agree, that is why they made sure that Nawaz talk alone with Clinton and Talbott (as Clinton’s aide). Shamshad and Sartaj were intentionally told to stay out of talk because according to Talbott, they could make talk unproductive (in other words, could influence Nawaz during talk, not to agree unconditional withdrawal, what Talbott and Clinton wanted). Without them to guide, Nawaz agreed for unconditional withdrawal. Even when Nawaz agreed, Shamshad tried to change the agreement, but Talbott told Shamshad that to keep out of the agreement, as his gutless boss Nawaz has already agreed unconditional withdrawal.

60

Re: Kargil; Separating Myth from the Reality

Saieem - it is right there in the quote from Talbott:

Talbott writes that “through our ambassador in Islamabad Sharif **begged Clinton to come to his rescue with a plan that would stop the fighting **and set the stage for a US-brokered solution to Kashmir,”

If Pakistan was winning as you claim, why would Pak PM beg someone for a rescue?

This is also ably supported by the following statement:

”The American Government followed the conflict with growing alarm which could easily become a nuclear cataclysm…Tony (Zinni) warned Musharraf that India would cross the LOC itself if Pakistan did not pull back. Musharraf professed to be unimpressed.

The fact is that Musharaf and Sharief read the situation differently and very wrongly. Musharaf thought India will not resort to as big a theater in response to his incursion as India was prepared to and set out to do. Sharief, when he learnt about the details of the status of Indian response basically was completely shattered that USA took the stand they took, instead of supporting Pakistan. Both were shocked out of their wits as things unfolded and Sharief, being PM did not want Indian troops in Islamabad and so the begging to Clinton for help.