Musharraf has finally admitted that Pakistan lost 357 soldiers in Kargil
Re: Pakistan lost 357 soldiers in Kargil: Musharraf Says
hehe *AgniPath...
*no credible clue who authorized the revision and how conveniently it's only availabe in the Hindi version and that too prior to release of the English version. amazing.
Re: Pakistan lost 357 soldiers in Kargil: Musharraf Says
Like Shariff's inflated figures, this is Mushy's deflated figures. They are just playing volleyball with soldiers and their casualty figures. And who will admit how many mujahideen casualties were there?
Re: Pakistan lost 357 soldiers in Kargil: Musharraf Says
nawaz sharif reported the figure in thausands (2,000/3,000)
Re: Pakistan lost 357 soldiers in Kargil: Musharraf Says
and you r gonna take the word of the buffoon, traitor, and coward nawaz sharif over Musharraf who planned, commanded, executed kargil and is the current head of the army and leader of pakistan?
Re: Pakistan lost 357 soldiers in Kargil: Musharraf Says
^ and fooling the world too.
Re: Pakistan lost 357 soldiers in Kargil: Musharraf Says
i hope general is telling truth, but nawaz sharif tells of a heavy price and turning of world oppinion against pak over kashmir.
Re: Pakistan lost 357 soldiers in Kargil: Musharraf Says
well i think the casuality figure by General is correct as thousands dead means tens of thousands injured and accordingly this figure can only be achieved if army has en masse been employed in the operation, which is definitely not the case, it was a secretive plan but his explanation of Kargil as a defensive manoevure is not correct, since when crossing into some one else's territory without being attacked is a defensive manoevure. (Pakistan has accepted LoC as a defacto boundary in Simla Agreement)
Re: Pakistan lost 357 soldiers in Kargil: Musharraf Says
heres some very interesting points being raised by mr sharrif. these points need careful consideration, difficult to brush aside.
http://www.pmln.org.pk/factsheet.php
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Pakistan’s principled position on Kashmir used to be endorsed by the United Nations and friendly countries. The people, therefore, were convinced that the issue would be resolved sooner or later in accordance with UN resolutions, and the state of Jammu and Kashmir would become the fifth province of Pakistan. Nawaz Sharif also tried hard to achieve that goal. He held talks with four Indian Prime Ministers, and the nuclear tests were also part of that endeavor. The result of his efforts emerged in the shape of Lahore Declaration. But General Pervez Musharraf sabotaged that process with the Kargil misadventure. He then took a complete u-turn on Kashmir after he usurped power on October 12, 1999.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]During the five years of his rule, General Musharraf yielded to the Indian demand of resolving the Kashmir issue without reference to the UN resolutions. He accepted the Indian accusation of terrorism in Occupied Kashmir during his meeting with Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee in Islamabad on January 6, 2004, and gave an undertaking in writing that “he will not permit any territory under Pakistan’s control to be used to support terrorism against India”. He already declared unilateral ceasefire along the Line of Control to allow India erect an iron fence along the Line. The fence has now been completed. On July 12, 2004, Musharraf’s Prime Minister Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, and later official spokesman Sheikh Rashid, negated Quaid-e-Azam’s pronouncement, and declared that Kashmir was not Pakistan’s jugular vein. As a result of this policy of Musharraf administration, Pakistan has been deprived of the support from not only world community but also from its faithful friends. India, on the other hand, has not only moved ahead on the diplomatic front, but has also strengthened its position on the Line of Control. It continues to insist that Kashmir is its integral part, and refuse to bring the issue on dialogue table. The Musharraf administration has been practically following Indian diktat in the name of CBMs. Meanwhile, it continues to hoodwink the people of Pakistan with sham assurance of not entering into any deal.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It should be made clear, that Pakistan Muslim League (N) wants a resolution of the Kashmir issue, but it must be an honorable solution on basis of equality, and in accordance with the Lahore Declaration and UN resolutions. It does not want a solution like General Musharraf’s, who would yield to Indian dictation and throw Kashmir in India’s lap like a ripe fruit. It must be recalled here that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had chosen an honorable course. The Lahore Declaration signed on February 21, 1999, by Nawaz Sharif and Vajpayee, and Vajpayee’s speeches at Shalimar Garden and Minar-e-Pakistan are evidence of that fact.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In view of the steps taken by General Pervez Musharraf during past five years, we are justified to believe that he is going to sacrifice the interests of Pakistan and the Kashmiri people in order to protect and prolong his unconstitutional rule, and practically hand over Kashmir to India. Like Yahya Khan lost East Pakistan, the way to fall of Kashmir is being paved at the hands of General Musharraf.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Following is a summary of the measures that Pervez Musharraf has adopted during past five years to hand over Kashmir to India:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1. The seven-point agenda that Pervez Musharraf announced in his speech on October 17, 1999 did not include the issue of Kashmir.
2. In that speech, five days after usurping power, he also unilaterally declared recall of Pakistani troops from forward positions that amounted to his first retreat against India.
3. Throwing national dignity to winds, and as opposed to policies of elected governments, he begged over a hundred times for talks with India resulting in weakening of Pakistan’s position.
4. As a result of his repeated pleas, and US intervention, India invited Musharraf to Agra on July 15, 2001. There, despite talking of forgetting history and changing mindsets, he failed to get even the slightest concessions with regard to Kashmir, and returned without even a joint communiqué. The failure led to increased pressures, and he agreed to follow Indian diktat.
5. In the meeting with Indian Prime Minister on January 6 after the SAARC Summit, he admitted to the false accusation that Pakistan had been sending terrorists to the Occupied Kashmir. Then he assured in the joint statement that “he will not permit any territory under Pakistan’s control to be used to support terrorism against India”.
6. Later, when asked whether he had raised the Kashmir issue during his talks with the Indian Prime Minster, Pervez Musharraf said that Kashmir was a contentious issue and he did not want to destroy the cordial atmosphere of talks. Evidently he sacrificed Kashmir at altar of goodwill.
7. He then announced on national and international forums that UN resolutions would have to be set aside to solve the Kashmir problem. That was a complete retreat from UN recognized legal position of Pakistan, and consequently our friends abandoned their support to Pakistan on the Kashmir issue.
8. Prime Minster Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali, under instructions from General Musharraf, declared unilateral ceasefire on the Line of Control on November 23, 2003. The India leadership welcomed the decision and said that it would help them complete the fence along the line. That was another retreat by General Musharraf, because he accepted the Line of Control as practically an international border.
9. It was also under the directive of General Pervez Musharraf that Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain declared that Kashmir was not the jugular vein of Pakistan. Later, Musharraf government’s spokesman and Minister of Information Sheikh Rashid repeated Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain’s statement in October 2004, when he returned from US visit with General Musharraf.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Despite General Musharraf’s complete retreat form the cause of Kashmir, unmistakable deviation from national position, and his obsequious attitude toward Indian leadership India has once again hardened its stance with demands of more concessions. It probably wants Azad Kashmir also, because, according to Indian Foreign Minister Natwar Singh, entire Kashmir, including Azad Kashmir, is integral part of India.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We are afraid that if General Musharraf remains in power any longer with his defeatist mentality and extreme psychological pressures, he might deprive Pakistan of Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas as well.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The above facts amply prove that the interests and security of Pakistan is totally unsafe in the hands of General Musharraf. If we want to ensure the security of the country, to consolidate national integrity, to follow the Constitution and solve all problems, including Kashmir, strictly in accordance with national interests, then removal of Pervez Musharraf from power is imperative.
Re: Pakistan lost 357 soldiers in Kargil: Musharraf Says
The loss on Kashmir in Gen Musharraf's time completely agreed, however some reservations about intentions of Nawaz Sharif.
but from where it proves that Pakistan lost thousands of soldiers in Operation Koh-e-Paima (Kargil Operation)
i think the thread was about the numbers
Re: Pakistan lost 357 soldiers in Kargil: Musharraf Says
well nawab
There was some media war going on as well, about the bodies not being taken etc etc, i specifically asked one Indian Army officer and he also told me that they did find few bodies but buried them according to Islamic Traditions in Military style (in flag). neither had they got the time to offer the bodies in any flag meeting and they themselves had so many casulaties in start that they were unable to handel bodies of their own. Yes Pakistan did not acknowldge that the occupants of the posts ar ehis soldiers and it needlessly got them butchered in the Indian Artillery fire.
But you are right, The main architechts of the war on Pakistani side must have been fired for the reason that we lost almost 1500 soldiers (in total) on both sides for something which was not required. we should avoid boasting on the fact that we killed so many of your and you killed so many of ours. Who so ever got killed was a human and was killed due to no fault of his own.
Re: Pakistan lost 357 soldiers in Kargil: Musharraf Says
musharraf forgot to put 0 in the end of the number he mentioned.
he is such a liar.
Re: Pakistan lost 357 soldiers in Kargil: Musharraf Says
or maybe it was your media which convinced of that?
Re: Pakistan lost 357 soldiers in Kargil: Musharraf Says
chintu
what has hurt you in the book? The lesser Pakistani casualties or more Indian casualties? What is this debate about 0 or whatever? Your army people are real gentlemen and they talk in terms about loss of lives and not boasting what they did and what we did.
i would suggest that you better put your time in researching something constructive or you can post all the type of fake statistics on your forum bharat-rakshak and impress your fellows.
Re: Pakistan lost 357 soldiers in Kargil: Musharraf Says
Majority of the casualties suffered by our troops was because we had to leave by order of our prime minister. America (bill clinton) at the time threatened pakistan, and we didnt have nukes back then. The pakistani troops had surrounded and captured so many indian soldiers and cut thier supplies off. When they let the troops go, as our soldiers were coming back they fired on them and bombed them from above (basically they stabbed us in the back) and the prime minister couldnt do anything about it because he had protested his troops wernt there. Many kashmiri villages were wiped out because they had supported the pakistani troops and mujahideen. If it were up to me, we should of stayed there and fought it out...
P.s. My anscestors are from Jammu & Kashmir (pakistan Insha'ALLAH) e.g. before the partition...
Re: Pakistan lost 357 soldiers in Kargil: Musharraf Says
This is a theoretical battle in future where all the world goes against Pakistan under the able leadership of Soft Spoken Indian Prime Minister to once and for all finish the issue of terrorism
I could not believe some Indians could be this naive to imagine such a scenario. A very wishful thinking indeed.
Your statistics seem to be coming out of such fictitious battles i think.
Re: Pakistan lost 357 soldiers in Kargil: Musharraf Says
Well, when there are conflicting claims from different sides (especially Nawaz Shareef (and his cronies), India and President Musharaf), don’t people think that they should use some intelligence on what people are claiming rather believe blindly what they like to believe (and also make comments on that, believing that all who would read them would be ignorant enough to believe blindly too)?
It seems that story of two, NS and his supports plus India, is in harmony and President Musharaf is in contrast to what they are saying. So, even if one cannot analyse the truth (even if that is obvious), why not look what the main negotiator, that is USA, saying?
** NS: **Claims that Pakistan was loosing the war and thus army asked Nawaz to go to USA and plead USA to let Pakistan withdraw and thus save precious life of Pakistani soldiers in occupied places.
India**:** Well, they claim that they had a big victory and cleared their land from Pakistan by force.
President Musharaf: Pakistan was in strong position and Nawaz went to USA under pressure from world that Nawaz could not take (his knee became wobbly). Musharaf believes that Nawaz had no need to visit USA. To counter world pressure, Nawaz job was supposed to argue on the validity of Pakistan occupation of Kargil on Pretext that India captured Siachin in similar way (after Simla agreement).
Argument should have included that Kashmir is disputed land and India has no right to claim that capturing anything in kashmir is capturing part of India. Thus, since India kept Siachin what they captured, Pakistan has all the right to keep Kargil what Pakistan captured. Unfortunately, Nawaz for whatever reasons, under harassment by President Clinton (who was doing his best to get India out of trouble in Kargil) agreed to withdraw from Kargil (unnecessarily). It is mystery why Nawaz showed such weakness.
Thus, we have two different and opposing claims and one of those claims is lie. Either Nawaz (plus his cronies) and India is lying or Musharraf is lying. Let use some intelligence to see, who are liar amongst two different claims (involving three different groups).
I will not go into details as I have already put a lot of information on another thread.** Regardless, I am putting here an abstract from Indian newspaper quoting American source (surely, Indian newspaper and American source are not Musharaf sympathiser, that they would publish something that would show that India and Nawaz both are lying while there is weight in what Musharaf is claiming).**
American source: Former US deputy secretary of State Strobe Talbott writes in his new book ‘Engaging India - Diplomacy, Democracy, and the Bomb’. This book should be available for all to read.
Indian source quoting American source: The Hindustan times (press trust of India)
What the paper writes: Please read it carefully and think rather understand nothing and keep repeating what NS and his cronies (that includes many in Pakistan media) and Indian government claiming: If in doubt, find the book and read that too. [All in brown and red is what Papers writes and all in black within square brackets are what I can understand from what papers has written on the issue]
http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/archives/archives2004/kashmir20040711c.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 paragraph that if Nawaz was asking something (demanding) for withdrawing from Kargil, obviously, Pakistan was occupying the peaks and American wanted Pakistan to withdraw. Nawaz wanted to link withdrawal to Kashmir solution, that Clinton considered as blackmail and told Nawaz not to blackmail.
Thus, it shows that if Nawaz was in position to ask something (demand), it is obvious that on ground, Pakistan was winning and was in control, else if Pakistan was loosing and just wanted to withdraw safely, to safe life of soldiers trapped, why NS would demand something, rather he should be holding Clinton foot and should be pleading?]
**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 help resolve Kargil issue but for that India must be prepared to resolve larger issue (that is Kashmir) in specific timeframe.
What a forceful demand by NS the ‘he is prepared to help resolve the crisis but (not even ‘if’) India must (not even ‘can’)’ commit to resolve the larger issue … when Nawaz claims that he went to plead USA to help safe Pakistan soldiers life that were trapped, but here Nawaz is not asking for help but offering help. Above paragraph shows that Nawaz is a liar when he say that he went to USA to ask for help.
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 a little out of Pakistan winning position on Kargil. Later when he could not negotiate anything and realising how wobbly his knee went, he started lying]
**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. Shows that Indian claims and NS and his cronies claim these days are all lies. Musharaf is telling truth].
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 withdrawal, 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. Clinton started scaring Nawaz that if Pakistan keeps kargil, it could lead to bigger war that could end into nuclear war if Pakistan did not retrun to its previous positions].
**
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.
Clinton hoping to scare Nawaz, told Nawaz that this war can escalate and that according to American intelligence, Pakistan was preparing for nuclear war, as Pakistan was preparing nuclear forces to attack India (recently, Musharaf in interview said that during Kargil war, Pakistan did not had nuclear war capability as delivery system was not developed at that time. In effect, by this statement, Musharaf is saying that Clinton was lying to Nawaz about Pakistan was preparing nuclear forces to attack India)]
**’ 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 holding firm with Pakistan (Clinton to Vajpayee: Dost tumhara kaam hou jayea ga, Nawaz ko may sakhti say juta maar raha hoon, us ka dil kamzoor hay, buhut darta hay, woh agree hou jayea gaa kay Kargil choor day.
Well, all what in that article (above) shows that Indian was getting big thrashing in kargil and then ran to their new Master (USA) so that their Master can pressurize Pakistan to leave Kargil, so that Vajpayee can tell the ignorant Indians that they won Kargil (and Drass) on the ground.
To me, reading above article in ‘The Hindustan times’ it is obvious that what Nawaz Shareef and his cronies are claiming and what India claims are nothing but lies. Actually, Nawaz and his cronies are liar and traitor. Nawaz lost Kargil on table and now blaming Pakistan army (though Army achieved victory). Nawaz should have told Clinton in clear words that since India violated Shimla agreement on Siachin, what Pakistan did was legal and that Pakistan is not going to withdraw.
India wants to capture all of Azad Kashmir and if they could, they would, so **after Pakistan took over Kargil, Kargil should have become part of Azad Kashmir and as Pakistan defends Azad Kashmir, Pakistan should have started defending Kargil too, with full force. **
If India cannot take Azad Kashmir, I do not know what they brag? If Nawaz had not negotiated Kargil away (done unconditional surrender of winning position), Kargil would have been part of Azad kashmir (as Nawaz says in above article: [When Sharif insisted he had to have something to show for his trip to the US [COLOR=Red]beyond unconditional surrender over Kargil]. Regardless of whatever Nawaz said to Clinton, in the end that is what Nawaz did, ‘unconditional surrender’.
** Note:** If India could have regained Kargil militarily, then India could regain whole of Kashmir militarily, as for India to recapture Kargil from Pakistan was much difficult then to capture many other part of Azad Kashmir from Pakistan (if they can). If India is not doing so, it is because they could not do so as Pakistan is well capable of defending what Pakistan holds. Once Pakistan captured Kargil, it became part of Azad Kashmir and then it was up to Pakistan government resolve to keep it as part of Azad Kashmir.
As for Shimla treaty, when India violated it in Siachin, Shimla treaty finished. When India did not cared for Shimla treaty when opportunity arises and they captured Siachin (and they would do it anytime if they believed that they can capture any part of Kashmir) why Pakistan should care for it?
One should remember that when India detonated their first nuclear device, Advani started talking about hot pursuit into Azad Kashmir that stopped when Pakistan detonated their own nuclear device. Thus, India does not care when it comes to capturing any part of Azad Kashmir, so why Pakistan should care when Pakistan could?]
Conclusion: Since it can be seen that when it comes to Kargil, Nawaz Shareef (and his cronies, including many in media) plus India, both are liars whereas Musharaf seems to be telling truth, I have to say that regarding death toll, both Nawaz (plus his cronies) and India must be telling lies and Musharaf, whatever he claims, must be true.
My personal life experience is that a blunt and straightforward person does not usually lie and when that person is in absolute power over his affairs (no power is above him except power of Allah), that person does not normally lie.
Musharraf is not only a blunt and straightforward person but he is in absolute power over his affairs, so there is no reason for him to lie on mundane issues (like how many died in Kargil, as he has option to mention or say nothing) neither I believe that he lies.
From all his speeches, TV interviews and book, one can tell that Musharaf is not a boaster. He is blunt about his success and failures, and can take criticism that even many people with little power in irrelevant places cannot take, and that is a rare quality in someone, especially when that person is the most powerful leader in Muslim world.
Re: Pakistan lost 357 soldiers in Kargil: Musharraf Says
Good arguments saleem
I agree with the casuality count of Gen Musharraf, it was a discreete operation involving no more than 2000 soldiers. How can we have thousands of casualities out of 2000 people. Sharif is simply lying.
I have read the book and got the reason why Gen Musharraf was at the airport as i assumed that as he came to the tarmac to see him off, he must have been the one who sent Sharif to USA.
Also the Indians i met have said that most of the time at the completion of attack, the posts had already been vacated by Pakistani Troops. so it is clear that there was some withdrawal and definitely some posts were captured by Indians with physical attack as well.
Pakistani's who participated in the operation also mention the severe difficulties in shortage of rations and ammunitions in the later part of the battle. Many had withdrawn as they had simply finished with every thing and in few cases went on to fight for days consecutively without food.
According to Indians, initially the army went on back foot as it was their fault that they did not conduct patrolling in winters and on faulty intelligence they hurriedly sent brigades to dislodge the guerillas. Sever casualities happened in the start e.g. in one night Indian 17 Punjab suffered 246 casualities. There was severe backlash in Army officers on this needless butchery. one man on the top of mountain can literally stop a full battalion with one machine gun. It is simple knowledge, so no question about bravery or cowardice.
Lately after having severe casualities, Indian Army learned quickly and than used massive artillery and sair bombardment. Here was the first tactical mistake commited by Pakistanis. As we did not give any fire cover to our troops, Indians lined up their Bofors FH-77B guns and pounded the posts with impunity. Indian Army itself admits that had their been retalitaory fire from Pakista, they could never had done so and could never have got the posts back. This severe artillery punsihment cut all the supply routes and fighting on the tops got very tough.
How and when withdrawal happened, was it due to compulsion on ground or compulsion by government, is something debatable. so far i assumed that it was due to compulsion on ground. however from the excerpts you have quoted above it seems that it was both ways. Army also readily agreed to withdraw as it was having problems. One Pakistani officer told me that there was severe verbal clashes between the post commanders and their battalion commanders as our commanders refused to call the troops back, last man last bullet type of mentality and also refused to provide fire cover as demanded by them saying that operation needs to be kept low profile.
It is true that enroute to withdraw, there must have been severe casualities as the withdraw was not with India and they never gave any safe passage to returning troops. Probably this is the reason Indians did not find much bodies. A Pakistani officer told me that in front of tiger hills, Indians had lined up their bofors FH-77B guns in open, practically tyre with tyre, one salvo of counterbombardment from Pakistan would have destroyed or put out of action, at least half of them. As Indians knew that Pakistan is disowning its soldiers and cannot reply they did the deployment like this.
So though Nawaz Sharif could not hold on, Gen Musharraf is also repsonsible for this illmanaged operation. He should have gone alongwith Nawaz Sharif. However by claiming thousands dead, Nawaz is trying to score ploitical mileage on shoulders of pakistan Army.
Re: Pakistan lost 357 soldiers in Kargil: Musharraf Says
Mazhar-Kaleem-Fan: Bhai, thora tou sonch ker kuch likha karo:
Do you know when Nawaz met Clinton and when Kargil was vacated? Let me remind you.
Nawaz met Clinton on 5th July (6th July Pak time), official appeal to Pakistan forces was made on around 7th July (8th July Pak time) and from 9th July (10th July India time) India started claiming that they are getting Kargil reoccupied as their brave soldiers are advancing in Kargil. Before that day, they were begging the world to put pressure on Pakistan to withdraw from Kargil. Once Pakistan agreed, India suddenly started claiming victories (from 10th July) and within few days (all withdrawal completed by 14th July) their forces reoccupied heights.
Where Indians could not do anything for months other then getting slaughtered in droves while Pakistanis were holding all positions without worry of ammunition or supplies, suddenly (according to you) all ammunition disappeared and supplies stopped and Pakistanis started getting beaten, such that in few days, India reoccupied everything (in around 4 days). Is that a joke or what?
Here is news from British newspaper (a left oriented newspaper and considered as pro-India).
Militants reject Kashmir deal (6th July 1999)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio…293396,00.html
Situation until 6th of July from above article in ‘The Guardian’:. Withdrawing fighters from the Kashmir frontline with India: “out of the question” several militant Pakistani groups said yesterday, despite the weekend agreement in Washington between the prime minister of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif and President Clinton, aimed at defusing the Kashmir conflict.
Militants reject Kashmir pullout (8th July 1999)
Richard Galpin in Islamabad**
Thursday July 8, 1999
The Guardian**
From above date Guardian (note, the date and read the guardian, especially extract below, carefully):
An alliance of the main Muslim militant groups fighting Indian forces in Jammu and Kashmir yesterday rejected appeals by the United States to withdraw from positions inside Indian territory.
But:
The rejection of the Washington agreement leaves Mr Sharif in a difficult position. Faced with heavy international pressure and the threat of all-out war, he needed a formula to defuse the tension.
Most of the occupying forces in northern Kashmir are widely believed to be regular Pakistani soldiers who could be given the order to pull back. And the army chief has said there is no difference of opinion between the political and military leadership over Kargil -once a withdrawal has been worked out.
“Nawaz Sharif can’t win on this one,” said one diplomat. “His days may be numbered.”
[Can you read the line: “Nawaz Sharif can’t win on this one,” said one diplomat. “His days may be numbered.”. [COLOR=DarkRed]Now think, why diplomats were saying that Nawaz days are numbered (even at the beginning of the withdrawal, 8th July)? Is it because Nawaz saved Pakistan army from dying on the heights of Kargil OR that agreement with Clinton was considered by Army as being treachery to Pakistan. Diplomats are foreigners and not Pakistanis. Even they started feeling that Nawaz days are numbered. why? Can you answer that?].
Pakistan** calls off Kashmir invaders (10 July 1999)**
Above article part of headline: ‘Tarnished Indian military tries to claim victory’
Suzanne Goldenberg in New Delhi**
Saturday July 10, 1999
The Guardian**
From above Guardian:
**‘The attack is bound to puncture India’s buoyant mood after the Pakistani-backed intruders’ retreat from the hills near the line of control’. … **‘Meanwhile in Islamabad more than 6,000 Islamic militants held a rally denouncing the prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, for agreeing to the Pakistani withdrawal, calling him a coward and a traitor’.
** [Note: The words used in Guardian (10th July 1999):**
Pakistan calls off Kashmir invaders | Kashmir | The Guardian
**Pakistan calls off Kashmir invaders
Tarnished Indian military tries to claim victory
****Note the words of the headline from one of ‘serious and prestigious’ British newspaper ‘The Guardian’. Words are of Guardian British journalist ‘Suzanne Goldenberg’ from Delhi - India (not Pakistani journalist reporting from Pakistan)
**[Suzanne Goldenberg, a Jewish name – and jews are not known to be sympathic of Pakistan but are sympathic to Indians. So, why she would write wrong and regardless, why ‘The Guardian’ would publish wrong?]:
**’Tarnished Indian military’ and ‘tries to claim victory’: If you know the meaning of the words and what the above sentence means, you would feel ashamed to even say that India reoccupied anything on Kargil. **
Kashmiri separatists take Indian camp (14th July 1999, that was after almost complete withdrawal)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio…282366,00.html
Suzanne Goldenberg, South Asia Correspondent**
Wednesday July 14, 1999
The Guardian**
Now, until 8th July Pakistan army was comfortable in their place, holding to everything that they captured. Withdrawal started, by 10th July India started claiming victories and by 14th July all finished. In these few days, Pakistan started feeling shortage of foods and ammunition and thus could not hold the position (that they were holding for months) while India became brave and recaptured everything? **Is that what you believe and think that others should believe too? **I believe, believing such to happen would be nothing but joke.
Yaar, mazaak kewn kartay hou? Aqal say kaam lo. Let liars [Nawaz (plus his cronies) and India] lie as one is trying to cover their treachery (Nawaz and his cronies) and other is trying to cover their embarrassing defeat (India), using propaganda based on lies. Regardless, such ridiculous untrue propaganda statements that are joke on the face of truth, that only demeans Pakistani soldiers that achieved victories in Kargil. This in spite of evidences that shows Pakistani successes on Kargil battle ground, backed by international newspapers, all intelligent analysis, events that unfolded after Kargil and there are many living that took part in that war.
Just look at Indian (politicians and newspapers alike) that are trying to make hero of their defeated soldiers and then there are some so-called Pakistanis (like Nawaz and his many cronies, including Ayaz Amir who fought election of 2002 on ticket of Nawaz Shareef party) that are trying to demean Pakistani soldiers’ achievement just to cover their treachery.
**Another thing: Let put aside all the news and whatever reality on the ground. **One thing to remember is that, as what you claiming that India retook some part of Kargil from Pakistan and that Pakistan was having difficulty to hold ground on Kargil, then if you are really correct, then can you please tell me that why India is not recapturing all Azad Kashmir?
[As they claim that all of Kashmir is theirs as much as they claim that kargil was theirs even after Pakistan occupied it, how Pakistan is holding in other parts of Kashmir (Azad Kashmir)?. We all know that India do not care about any agreements and took Siachin when they got chance regardless of any agreement, so why they are not taking all of Azad Kashmir by force?]
Regardless, can you (or your military experts that you claim to talk) explain that, what is the difference and difficulty to Pakistani forces in holding on Azad Kashmir and holding on to Kargil after liberating? Don’t you think that if India can take back Kargil militarily, India can and should take all of Azad Kashmir too?
Ask your military expert (whom you claim to know so many) that, don’t they think that under the threat of Indian military might; Pakistan should leave Azad Kashmir as since they cannot hold Kargil after liberating, then certainly Pakistan could not hold anything in Azad Kashmir too?.
Can you ask your military experts that, when India could recapture liberated Kargil, what is stopping them to take over all of Azad Kashmir? Obviously, if they can take Azad Kashmir militarily (as they did Kargil) it would save them lot of trouble (because they claim that all insurgency is happening from Azad Kadhmir plus they claim that Azad Kashmir is their land occupied by Pakistan, similar to what was kargil, hence they should get it back.
Another thing I would like to ask you is that, who are the people in Pakistan army at high position that are telling you all these lies?
**
Re: Pakistan lost 357 soldiers in Kargil: Musharraf Says
This article was interesting;
http://dawn.com/2006/10/23/nat1.htm
Clinton adviser: confusion gripped Islamabad during Kargil crisis
By Anwar Iqbal
WASHINGTON, Oct. 22: There was confusion in Islamabad during the Kargil crisis and it was not clear who was calling the shots, says Bruce Riedel, President Clinton’s special assistant for South Asian affairs who played a key role in the US-Pakistan talks on the issue.
Mr Riedel, who was the only person to attend the Sharif-Clinton talks in Washington on July 4, 1999, said in a paper on ‘America diplomacy and 1999 Kargil summit’ that the then prime minister Nawaz Sharif ‘seemed genuinely interested in pursuing the Lahore process’.
Mr Sharif had argued eloquently with a series of American guests, including Washington’s UN Ambassador Bill Richardson, that he wanted an end to the 50-year old quarrel with India, Mr Riedel said.
“His military chief, General Pervez Musharraf, seemed to be in a different mould … he was said to be a hardliner on Kashmir, a man some feared was determined to humble India once and for all.”
Commenting on the current controversy between Gen. Musharraf and Mr Sharif, he said: “We will probably never know for sure the exact calculus of decision making in Islamabad. Each of the players has his own reasons for selling a particular version of the process. Gen Musharraf and Mr Sharif have already put out different versions of who said what to whom.
“What is clear is that the civil-military dynamic between Sharif in Islamabad and Musharraf in Rawalpindi was confused and tense.”
Explaining what worried the Americans most, Mr Riedel said: “The danger was that the Indians would grow weary of attacking uphill (actually up-mountain) into well-dug Pakistani positions. The casualties the Indian forces were taking were mounting. New Delhi could easily decide to open another front elsewhere along the Line of Control (LoC) to ease its burden and force the Pakistanis to fight on territory favourable to India.”
Mr Riedel’s version shows the former prime minister as getting ‘increasingly desperate’ to end the crisis. He says: “(Mr)
Sharif became increasingly desperate as he saw how isolated Pakistan was in the world. He urgently requested American intervention to stop the Indian counterattack. Washington was clear the solution required a Pakistani withdrawal behind the LoC, nothing else would do.”
According to Mr Riedel, by end of June 1999, Mr Sharif began to ask to see President Clinton directly to plead his case. “The president also consulted with (the then) Indian Prime Minister (Atal Bihari) Vajpayee on the phone. The Indians were adamant: withdrawal to the LOC was essential. (Mr) Vajpayee would not negotiate under the threat of aggression.” President Clinton “sought to reassure Mr Vajpayee that we would not countenance Pakistani aggression, not reward them for violating the LoC and that we stood by our commitment to the Lahore process, i.e. direct talks between India and Pakistan were the only solution to Kashmir, not third party intervention.”
Mr Riedel then explains how before meeting Mr Sharif, President Clinton had asked his advisers to prepare two statements about the results of the meeting.
“The first was a draft statement the President would issue if (Mr) Sharif agreed to pull back his forces to the LoC, the second a statement which would be used if (Mr) Sharif refused. The latter would make clear that the blame for the crisis in South Asia lay solely with Pakistan.”
Mr Riedel says that US officials also noted that Mr Sharif brought his wife and children with him to Washington. “(Mr) Sharif’s intentions also became clearer. He was bringing his wife and children with him to Washington, a possible indication that he was afraid he might not be able to go home if the summit failed or that the military was telling him to leave. At a minimum, (Mr) Sharif seemed to be hedging his bet on whether this would be a round trip.”
He then explains how the Clinton administration took the highly unusual decision of not sending a US official to the airport to receive Mr Sharif.
Mr Sharif would be met at Dulles Airport, where his commercial PIA flight was being diverted from JFK, by the Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan. The Saudi prince had a long history of helping assist key American diplomatic initiatives and also had worked with Pakistan extensively in the past during the Afghan war against the Soviets.
Prince Bandar asked for a briefing on what President Clinton needed from Mr Sharif. “I met with him in his McLean home and gave him our sense of the crisis. Bandar promised to weigh in forcefully with (Mr) Sharif on the ride from Dulles to Blair House, and he secured Crown Prince Abdallah’s support for our position.”
British Prime Minister (Tony) Blair also contacted Mr Sharif to weigh in as well on the need for withdrawal.
Contrary to the reports published in some Pakistani newspapers which said that the US faked the nuclear threat to force Mr Sharif to withdraw troops, Mr Riedel says that the Americans were genuinely worried the crisis could lead to a nuclear conflict.
“There was more disturbing information about Pakistan preparing its nuclear arsenal for possible use. I recommended that he (President Clinton) use this only when (Mr) Sharif was without his aides, particularly not when the Foreign Secretary, Shamshad Ahmad, who was known to be very close to Pakistani military intelligence (ISI) was in earshot.”
Soon after Mr Sharif arrived, Prince Bandar called Mr Riedel and told that the Pakistani PM was “distraught, deeply worried about the direction the crisis was going toward disaster, but equally worried about his own hold on power and the threat from his military chiefs who were pressing for a tough stand. In the meeting, President Clinton asked for “a full and complete withdrawal without pre-conditions” from Kargil and also warned him that “there could be no quid pro quo, no hint that America was rewarding Pakistan for its aggression, nor for threatening its nuclear arsenal at India.”
President Clinton told Mr Sharif that he “must act today.” Mr Sharif handed President Clinton a document which he said was a non-paper provided to him early in the crisis by Mr Vajpayee in which the two would agree to restore the sanctity of the LoC and resume the Lahore process. Mr Sharif said at first India had agreed to this non-paper but then changed its mind. Mr Sharif then asked that the meeting continue just with the two leaders.
“Everyone left the room except Sharif, Clinton and I. The President insisted he wanted a record of the event. Sharif asked again to be left alone, the President refused. The prime minister then briefed the president on his frantic efforts in the last month to engage Vajpayee and get a deal that would allow Pakistan to withdraw with some saving of face.
“(President) Clinton asked (Mr) Sharif if he knew how advanced the threat of nuclear war really was? Did (Mr) Sharif know his military was preparing their nuclear tipped missiles?
“(Mr) Sharif asked again to have me leave the room. The president dismissed this with a wave of his hand and then told Sharif that he warned him on the second (July 2) not to come to Washington unless he was ready to withdraw without any precondition or quid pro quo. (Mr) 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.
“The president was getting angry. He told (Mr) Sharif that he had asked repeatedly for Pakistani help to bring Osama bin Ladin to justice from Afghanistan. (Mr) Sharif had promised often to do so but had done nothing. Instead the ISI worked with (Osama) bin Ladin and the Taliban to foment terrorism.
“His draft statement would also mention Pakistan’s role in supporting terrorists in Afghanistan and India. Was that what (Mr) Sharif wanted, Clinton asked? Did (Mr) Sharif order the Pakistani nuclear missile force to prepare for action? Did he realise how crazy that was? You’ve put me in the middle today, set the US up to fail and I won’t let it happen. Pakistan is messing with nuclear war.
“(Mr) Sharif was getting exhausted. He denied that he had ordered the preparation of their missile force, said he was against that but he was worried for his life now back in Pakistan. The president suggested a break to allow each leader to meet with his team and consider next steps. He would also call Prime Minister Vajpayee to brief him on the discussions. After 90 minutes of intense discussion the meeting broke up.
“The president put through a short call to New Delhi just to tell Vajpayee that he was holding firm on demanding the withdrawal to the LoC. (Mr) Vajpayee had little to say, even asking the president “what do you want me to say?” There was no give in New Delhi and none was asked for.” Mr Riedel then says that after agreeing to withdraw Pakistani troops without any conditions, Mr Sharif asked Mr Clinton to play a role in resolving the Kashmir dispute. Mr Clinton asked him to send an emissary to Washington once the Kargil crisis was over.
“Finally in September (Mr) Sharif sent his brother … to Washington for the long-awaited discussions. Rick Inderfurth and I met with him for hours in his suite at the Willard Hotel.
“We tried to get a feel for how the prime minister wanted to pursue the Kashmir issue. Instead, Shahbaz Sharif only wanted to discuss what the US could do to help his brother stay in power. He all but said that they knew a military coup was coming.
“On October 12, 1999 it came. Ironically, it was (Mr) Nawaz who provoked the coup’s timing by trying to exile (Mr) Musharraf when he was on an official visit to Sri Lanka.”
Mr Riedel said that when Mr Sharif was jailed, President Clinton instructed the US National Security Council to “do all we could to convince the new Pakistani leadership not to execute (Mr) Sharif as General Zia had executed Prime Minister (Z.A.) Bhutto in 1978. That outcome would have been a horrible one for all Pakistanis and would have considerably setback the country’s already slim hope of a better future.
“The president urged Musharraf to let (Mr) Sharif free. With our encouragement the Saudis pressed hard for (Mr) Sharif’s freedom. Finally, in December 2000 Sharif was exiled to the Saudi Arabia.”