Re: Who really won Kargil war?
No, you did not take Mushy's name :) but what you are stating is what Mushy has said in his book.
Minorities live in fear of their lives ?? :D There are some Indian muslim GS members who I am sure would be able to debunk your myth.
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
Muslims in India don't feel safe after Gujarat massacres. Also, Kashmiris would disagree too.
India is not a paradise that 'net indians paint it.
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
How would you know ? Let the Indian muslims speak for themselves, instead of you trying to poke your nose in their affairs 
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
Symk:
You wrote a long story but did not answered, what I asked. That is, if Nawaz was nijad-hinda (saviour) and Musharaf put the army into peril, why army sided with a sacked general and did not accepted the general as chief whom Nawaz appointed, rather even thrown Nawaz out of power?
** If Army thought that Nawaz was saviour (due to his American visit), then they had not rejected appointment of new army chief by Nawaz and certainly would not have acted against Nawaz for a chief that was already sacked.** That becomes more important event after knowing that Nawaz was a very powerful and very popular politician in army (before Kargil). Had lot of army support (that when Ishaq Khan sacked him as prime minister, army sided with Nawaz and made Ishaq Khan resigned as President).
On the other hand, those generals that supported Musharaf were mostly religious and thus suppose to be more pro-Nawaz then Musharaf, but there must be something that made them pro-Musharaf then Nawaz.
All shows that what you believe is due to brainwashing by Nawaz, goons and other vested interests, rather it is anything to do with truth.
Hollowman:
[quote]
heheh.. thank god atleast this time you are admitting India is capable of recapturing posts from Pakistan coz just 4 posts above you the same person said "India recapturing the heights, are complete lies" is this your double standard kaya mere Saleem bhaijaan like your mushy bhaijaan or you r totally confused in urself..
[/quote]
Hmmm :) well, I am not confuse nor said anything wrong. I never said that India is incapable of capturing posts from Pakistan at any time and in any circumstances (that would have been ignorance if I said that).
I only said that India did not captured posts in Kargil neither they were capable of capturing kargil posts (due to the region, these posts are more accessible from Pakistan side and it was/is impossible for India to recapture it, unless Pakistan army was tin-pot army). I also further added that if India were capable of capturing posts from Pakistan, other posts would have been much easier (though at present I believe that India is incapable of doing anything in Kashmir militarily).
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
HAHAHHAAHHAHAHA
Did I hit a nerve, babuji?
I personally know many and they would agree with your statement.
After the descration and destruction of Babri Mosque (masjid), followed by the Gujarat massacres of Indian muslims, they haven’t felt safe in India.
Kashmiris have suffered the most from the hands of Indians.
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
Sa1eem:
Did your hero mention a word about Kargil when he sacked nawas shareef? Kargil was not the issue it was a power struggle, if it was why he did not prosecute shareef for his crimes against pakistan's interest and instead went for that strange charge of attempted hijack and murder
Unlike you i do not follow these rascals blindly, i have no sympathy for nawaz shareef as he was incompetent
And I have mentioned it before that Army knows how to serve its interests and they are all above the law
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
I don'nt know where you are getting your information.According to most foreign sources Kargil was an absolute disaster for Pakistan.A stupid decision that made Pakistan suffer heavy casualties.Even according to Nawaz Sharif battalion after battalion was wiped out and Pakistan was forced to retreat,they really did'nt have a choice.Pakistan's military is much smaller compared to India's military and they would've been run over in 3 days had India chosen to invade.So it was a sensible thing to do for Pakistan to call it off just like they did in the 1971 war when they felt over powered by the military might of India.
As for Musharraf becoming a hero,he was already a hero,not being successful at Kargil did'nt do anything to his reputation,the army generals were happy to back him up over the corrupt regime of Nawaz Sharif.
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
The TRUTH is Musharraf got so frustrated after losing the Kargil War and that is the only reason he kicked on Nawaz Sharif butts coz that was the insult of Pakistan and their Army which also includes "Mushy" 
otherwise he had no need or any reason to kick on Nawaz Sharif butts
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
Your analysis is too narrow. In the broader scheme of things, I'd say Kargil was a brilliant tactical move, but a disastrous strategic move by Pakistan. They only analyzed and thought about the initial territorial win when they intruded into Kargil. However, as an Army, they should have also analyzed the after-effects of this move. They should have assumed that India would retaliate and open other war fronts. They should have also assumed that US will not help them since they were the ones perceived to be disturbing the peace and they should have known that without US help, they won't be able to fight this war.
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
In other words, they had a brillaint chess opening, but forgot about the end game and also forgot that the goal is to win the game.
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
i dont really understand how u guys can just say who won and who lost... the Loss however was on the both sides... be it Pakistan or India.....
Gosh.....when u guys are going to understand that war is not the answer, its the question !!... its not about winning or losing...its just about losing innocent lives..
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
To play flute in front of buffalo is useless. Buffalo only keep repeating a sound without understanding anything. Seems same is happening here 
In that ‘times issue’ quoted above by ‘hollowman’, it says nothing that India repelled Pakistani attack. It only mentioned stories of both sides and claims that India took over handful of posts back. There were 132 posts occupied by Pakistan and loosing few of those posts were not important militarily, when winter was near and once winter would have started, Pakistan could have recaptured all the posts again and could have further advanced.
Regardless, let me give you something to read: (Now go and read if you find the book, before commenting further). Read the abstract too on the site.
http://www.rand.org/congress/terrorism/phase2/kargil.pdf
“Limited Conflict Under the Nuclear Umbrella: Indian and Pakistani Lessons from the Kargil Crisis " by Ashley J. Tellis, C. Christine Fair, Jamison Jo Medby of RAND Corp”
If you can get hold of this book, you will find discussion of various Pakistani views: Book includes analysis
"A second common variant is that Kargil was a tactical success but a strategic failure. This view was also articulated by a number of in-formants and has been reiterated in various articles. Shireen Mazari, for example, has written that the military aspect of the Kargil action was simply brilliant. Later in the same piece she laments that **India was able to turn a military defeat into a diplomatic victory **. . . . . [and] that Pakistan was unable to translate a tremendous military success into a politico-diplomatic victory. "
Apart of the above book: If you want to read further:
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/research/kargil/JA00199.pdf#search="Musharaf%20and%20kargil%20war"
An analysis of the Kargil conflict 1999
By Shaukat Qadir
Extract: I am quoting some sentences, please read the whole article, especially the last part ‘The Aftermath’ .
"The Aftermath: Nawaz Sharif, who had been gloating (triumph) over the drubbing (thrashing) that the Indians were getting, began to feel uncomfortable." (clear indication that India was getting a good thrashing).
"The international pressure was becoming unbearable and when the posts at Dras fell, he began looking for an escape route, not appreciating the military causes of battle, which the army made no effort to explain."
"Sharif was very worried about the reaction of the military leadership, realizing that a withdrawal might result in his untimely ouster. He responded by despatching his brother, Shahbaz Sharif to Washington, where he succeeded in getting the US administration to issue a warning that it would regard a military coup in Pakistan as unacceptable."
(It is easy to guess why Nawaz thought that there is now chance of military coup in Pakistan, due to his decision of withdrawal under world pressure)
“During the last briefing in late June, the COAS, General Musharaf, told Sharif that, while military did not believe that India would succeed in ousting Pakistani troops from the posts they were holding, the army would pull back if the government so desired.”
(The above para shows that military did not want the withdrawal but just went along with what Nawaz decided, that is withdrawal).
“He (Nawaz) met Clinton on 4 July, and armed with guarantees of his support, returned to announce the withdrawal of the ‘freedom fighters’ occupying Kargil.”
“Sharif was apprehensive, however, and also uncertain of his ability to survive his decision to pull back.”
(further read that Pakistan timing was wrong as Vajpai was consolidating power in India and loss of Kargil would have been disaster to him, that world did not wanted and thus all the pressure on Pakistan to withdraw).
Anyhow, my post was nothing to do with starting an argument. I believe (and still believe) that whoever thinks that Pakistan lost kargil war on ground are retarded, as not only it is not a fact but that after events of Kargil is evidence itself.
Regardless, my question stands to those who think that Pakistan lost in Kargil, that is:
**If Pakistan lost Kargil on ground (not on table) then why Musharraf became hero and Nawaz became villain in the eyes of the Army.
**[Actually, once I had many quotes sites from British newspapers articles (though all articles were paid articles) but now they are unavailable on internet and hence I am not quoting. One thing in all those articles was same, and that is, Pakistan gave a good thrashing to Indian forces with few soldiers but Pakistan (Nawaz) lost the war on table.
Most of those articles were written around Kargil war, and especially in October 1999 when Musharraf took over.]
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
i think musharaf has given a very good view on kargil in his book and finaly the facts have come out to the world.
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
I concur, the end result was musharraf begging for dialogue with india as the victorious General realized that he can't capture kashmir with military force and has bent backwards to appease Indians (had a politician done this he would have been sacked and labelled as a traitor but all is kosher for Generals). The same mujahideens are now terrorist for him.
I remember Advani making an interesting statement after musharraf's U-turn in afghanistan that they will do the same in kashmir
I am still waiting for formal investigation or charges against hapless nawaz shareef since he was made the escape
goat for the whole fiasco
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
***Please keep to the topic and avoid insulting remarks. Thanks.
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
Kya ant shant bol rahe ho saleem bhai ! We all know Musharaff is jhootha no. 1 !!
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
If Mushraf did win the war then why after getting controll did he not continue the war. Why did he tove the line of Nawas. Why is he always inclined to be friends with India. It was he who initiated the hand shake with Vajpayee.
To tell u the truth, Mushi is still smarting under the 1971 defeat. Kargil was a blunder on the part of Pakistan. India and Pakistan was well into the peace process. Mushraff didnt like this and plotted Kargil. Nawas played well too so after seeing the losses he went to US, mush agreed otherwise why would he allowed him to go to US.He could have taken the country by coup that day itself.
Whats the official death in pakistan side. Not even one reporter were allowed to go there from ur side. In indian side there was news and channels broadcasting live. Each soldier who were dead were brought back with heroes welcome. There were not many though. Around 100 I would say.But indeed it helped to cement a strong nationalistic feeling in Indians.
U answer me this not by quoting but by common intelligence.
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
Tahirbhai:
Tahirbhai: may kuch ant shant nahi kah raha, may nay post may haqeeqat (truth) kaha hay. Agar aap ko meri post samaj nahi ayie (because you did not even read it) tou yea dusri baat hay. If you had read the post (and pondered), you would not have said what you said.
Even though I do not think that Musharaf has intentionally (knowingly) ever lied but regardless, from your above post it seems that you want to link my post with something Musharaf said, even though I did not quoted Musharaf nor referred to anything what President ever said, in my post at any place.
Thus, what should I assume from what you tried to do by linking my post with sayings (or claims) of Musharaf and then claiming that Musharaf lies. Only thing I can say is that, you are talking ‘ant shant’ about my post due to ignorance (as you either did not read my post or read but still trying to be ignorant of what I wrote). So, if you really want to comment, instead of commenting ignorantly, please first read the post, understand it, ponder over it, and then make comments. Thanks.
Vineshvk:
Vineshvk: I liked your statement inviting me to answer you intelligently using common sense.
Well, there is a problem. You can only answer intelligently using common sense to those that have intelligence and common sense. Don’t you think so?
The thing is that if you had (or used) intelligence and common sense, you would have agreed with my post and would not have posted what you did posted (above post).
Regardless, since you invited, I would answer you intelligently and logically (and would keep my finger cross, hoping that you will read the answer and would understand it). Please find answer with intelligent analysis, using common sense (and references when required).
Well, after pullout from Kargil heights, it is not that easy to recapture it again (especially in this world environment). Its not such that, you put a key in the hole and door of occupation would get open. Regardless, at present Musharaf is trying to solve the matter peacefully but if he would stay in power and peaceful settlement does not materialises, another Kargil is not unexpected (in far future).
As for not agreeing to withdraw when Kargil was already occupied, that could have happened, but that needed consent, will, and support of prime minister Nawaz Sharif.
Nawaz Shareef was prime minister and Musharaf at that time was just army chief. Remember when Kargil happened, Musharaf was a new army chief. He was doing (Kargil episode) what he thought best for the country but if prime minister (Nawaz) later did not agreed, he felt to tow prime minister‘s line. In previous post, I already answered that. Read my post: #32](http://www.paklinks.com/gs/showpost.php?p=4440187&postcount=32)
From the site referred in the post #32](http://www.paklinks.com/gs/showpost.php?p=4440187&postcount=32):
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/research…gil%20wa r%22
"The Aftermath: Nawaz Sharif, who had been gloating (triumph) over the drubbing (thrashing) that the Indians were getting, began to feel uncomfortable."
"The international pressure was becoming unbearable”
[Read above statement carefully, as it explains the reason why Nawaz Sharif decided to withdraw from Kargil]
“During the last briefing in late June, the COAS, General Musharaf, told Sharif that, while military did not believe that India would succeed in ousting Pakistani troops from the posts they were holding, the army would pull back if the government so desired.”
[Read above statement carefully, why Musharaf (and army) agreed what Nawaz decided]
I hope that you got a part of your answer.
Well, Musharaf kicked the Indians and thus it was his duty (as a decent person) to encourage and console Indians. You see, when you kick someone (hard), it is not the one got kicked come and ask to shake hand, as they are grieve party (and upset), thus it should be you who go to them, encourage them, and give your hand for friendship. That is what Musharaf did. Anything wrong there? If India had kicked Pakistan, as grieve party, Pakistan would be upset to offer hand of friendship to India (and would have expected India to come forward if friendship is desired).
Hmm, It seems that you believe Musharaf was hurt of 1971 defeat and thus wanted to sabotage peace process that was progressing, hence plotted Kargil (according to your above statement). Chalo maan laytay hain. It seems that, after giving a lot of thrashing to India in Kargil, Musharaf is satisfied and believe that 1971 defeat avenged, that is why he is now agreeing to peace process. Theek hay na? (Lagtaa hay aap bhie intelligently sonchnay lagay hou :)).
Read above post again. According to the reference I put above (also according to what happened after Kargil, ground reality and historical reality that I discussed earlier) it is obvious that Musharaf (and army) was not happy for Nawaz deciding to pull back.
“During the last briefing in late June, the COAS, General Musharaf, told Sharif that, while military did not believe that India would succeed in ousting Pakistani troops from the posts they were holding, the army would pull back if the government so desired.”]
^^ Shows that Musharaf (and army) did not wanted to pull back and clearly told Nawaz, that if there would be pull back, it would be only IF government (in other words, Nawaz) desired. (Obvious reason seems that government wanted to pull back and thus Musharaf (as army chief) was telling Nawaz that militarily it is not a good idea and thus showing discontent over the decision by Nawaz wanting to pull back.
That was not an option at that time. Before Nawaz making army pull out of Kargil, Nawaz was very popular and strong prime minister of Pakistan with lot of support even in the army. Nawaz had more support then Musharaf could have mustered even in the army and thus coup at that time would have failed. (I do not think that at that time or even in Oct 1999, when coup did happened, Musharaf was thinking of military coup in Pakistan).
Regardless, taking over and holding Kargil was not for his personal benefit but for the benefit of Pakistan (and for Kashmir cause) and as Prime minister, Nawaz was supreme at that time in Pakistan. Within last one year before the event of pullback from Kargil, Nawaz sacked President (Lagari), chief justice (Sajjad) and army chief (Karamat) without any challenge from any sector to him. Thus, even to think of coup against Nawaz Sharif (before Nawaz Sharif blunder of pulling out of Kargil and thus making army against himself) was impossible by any military man.
Leave Pakistani journalists (and reporters), even western journalists (and reporters) went to Kargil from Pakistan side. It was on Indian side that was not allowing anyone to visit Kargil. Many do not know but Indian media is complete under government control (worse then ever happened in Pakistan as voice of dissents always found space in media throughout Pakistan history). Just imagine that when Indra Ghandhi imposed emergency, media went silent without any voice of dissents, towing government line as obedient dog.
Recently, during Israel attack on Lebanon, just to please Israel, India put sanction on all coverage of the attack and media complied to Indian government wish (by complete blackout of Lebanon happening from all Indian newspaper, radio, televisions or whatever, be they government control, communist control or any private media outlet).
Same happened on Indian side during war in Kargil (media towing the line of government) and thus Indian people believe that their soldiers were making honeymoon in kargil when India was loosing 100s of soldiers a day in Kargil, while losses was minimal on Pakistan side. Actually, even without Kargil, India is loosing several soldiers a day in Kashmir. Anyhow, during Kargil war, India loosing 100s of soldier a day can be very conservative estimate and no one should be surprised of that. There is reason for it too (as you love intelligent reasonable answers, I will answer that later in this post :))
[Note: India may be pathetic militarily compare to Pakistan, but certainly, their propaganda machine using media is generation ahead of Pakistan]
Read below:
http://www.defencejournal.com/nov99/india-kargil.htm
“As the fighting in Kargil escalated with more troops being rushed to the area, the casualties started to mount and alarming headlines appeared in newspapers, such as ‘Army loses 15 more in Kargil’, The Statesman, Delhi, June 12, 1999. ‘Major among 17 Armymen killed in Tololing’, The Hindu, Delhi, June 15. ‘Intruders destroy ammunition dump’, The Asian Age, New Delhi, June 18. This prompted the India government to ban journalists from going to the front, so that the flow of information could be controlled. India also banned the seeing of Pakistan Television in India. Efforts were being made to keep the news of reverses and the high rate of Indian casualties from public view.”
What a joke :D Actually, most Indian soldiers (many thousands Indian dead soldiers) became food for vultures and even now if you go there, you will be able to find bones of Indian soldiers around Kargil posts, scattered in the valley, while Indians have forgotten them
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/research/kargil/JA00199.pdf#search="Musharaf%20and%20kargil%20war"
From above site: Actually, during kargil war, mujahadeen occupied 132 posts (peaks) of various sizes, and total number of Mujahadeen (soldiers) occupying them posts never exceeded 1000 (from all ranks). Most returned, when Pakistan pulled back, so Pakistani loses could be 100 or so. As for India, over 30000 were involved and according to remarks from one of Indian own officer (a colonel), ‘We (Indian soldiers) are dying like dogs here (Kargil)’. Actually, according to all estimates, India lost many thousands soldiers dead in Kargil (without gaining any success).
Read the site below too (it would be informative for you to come out of illusion):
http://www.defencejournal.com/nov99/india-kargil.htm
[Few paragraphs from above site:
“On May 9 India launched a major assault to drive out some 400 or so Muslim guerrillas, allegedly trained by Pakistan from its side of the Line of Control (LoC) in the desolate, high-altitude Kargil sector of Kashmir’ wrote M.R. Josse in the Rising Nepal of Kathmandu on June 9, 1999. This attack was apparently beaten back with heavy losses to the army which prompted a Colonel to remark ‘we are dying like dogs here’. ‘At this point, India lost three aircraft, two fighter jets and one helicopter gunship besides suffering 50 casualties’ continued the paper. The initial Indian euphoria concerning the use of air power for the first time in Kashmir since 1971 has been dampened considerably’. The paper concluded by saying that, even a casual reading of Indian media accounts is enough to indicate that the Indian political and military leadership were ‘caught completely off-guard by the Kargil militants’.”
…………..
“It was only after all the Indian attacks which were supported by heavy artillery and air bombardment had failed, with heavy losses in men and material that the Indian Army was forced to admit the actual position on the ground. The Times of India goes on to say that the magnitude of the incursion came to light only around May 18. It took several more days for the Army to realise ‘that the intrusion was actually spread over four large areas along the 140 km LoC from Zojila to Turtuk. The estimate of the number of infiltrators had by then risen to about 800’.”
…………….
“As the fighting in Kargil escalated with more troops being rushed to the area, the casualties started to mount and alarming headlines appeared in newspapers, such as ‘Army loses 15 more in Kargil’, The Statesman, Delhi, June 12, 1999. ‘Major among 17 Armymen killed in Tololing’, The Hindu, Delhi, June 15. ‘Intruders destroy ammunition dump’, The Asian Age, New Delhi, June 18. This prompted the India government to ban journalists from going to the front, so that the flow of information could be controlled. India also banned the seeing of Pakistan Television in India. Efforts were being made to keep the news of reverses and the high rate of Indian casualties from public view.”]
An intelligent and logical analysis especially for you, as you asked.
[Make sure that you would keep your mind open and would not try to hide your head into sand, then take it out and start crying that .. may na manu].
Why India could not have taken back Kargil and why India lost thousands of soldiers during Kargil war and why Pakistan lost minimal? Let me answer you intelligently :hoonh:.
In war, it is more difficult to dislodge entrenched soldiers from their position then defend position. The difference between strength of Pakistan and Indian army is not such that any can easily dislodge others from entrenched positions. [Once India captured a part of Siachin, Indian did it as Pakistan left their position during winter and when returned, Indian soldiers were occupying it. Now, it is very difficult for Pakistan to dislodge Indian from Siachin. Same happened in Kargil.
To defend Kargil heights for Pakistan would have been much easier then Indian defending Siachin. It is because Kargil heights are steep heights from Indian side but it is easily assessable form Pakistan side (thus, it was easy for Pakistan to provide provisions to Kargil heights). Once heights occupied, it was almost impossible for Indian to retake it back from Pakistan. Actually, Indian tried but their trying was futile, as the only thing they got was dead soldiers. Whenever Indian soldiers tried to recapture height posts, couple of soldiers sitting in the post on the heights started turkey shooting Indian soldiers, and achievement for Indian soldiers was nothing except death. Actually, even if thousand soldiers had tried to recapture one height post, they would have got killed easily (Mujahadeen only needed enough bullets to kill them all).
There was chance for India to attack other part of Pakistan Kashmir so that if they succeed, they could try to recapture Kargil from Pakistan side (capturing Kargil from Pakistan side is possible). Pakistan was ready for this eventuality and thus army was not worried about that. Actually, during Kargil war, Pakistan shot down several Indian aircrafts (and helicopters) though only few fell on Pakistan side. Hence, India started international diplomatic pressure on Pakistan (bringing world behind them). Unfortunately, Pakistan prime minister could not take heat of international pressure, decided to disown the mujahadeen and consequently asked army to withdraw.
That withdraw caused some casualties on Pakistan side, but apart of casualties, it made Nawaz unpopular and Musharaf popular amongst army. Nawaz, wanting to become absolute powerful in Pakistan, started feeling danger from Musharaf and decided to get rid of him. Knowing that due to Kargil, he (Nawaz) lost popularity and Musharaf became popular amongst forces, Nawaz decided to sack him when most vulnerable. Nawaz promoted Musharaf to joint chief of staff few days before Musharaf went to Sri-Lanka (to put Musharaf off guard) and while coming back from Sri-Lanka, while on the plane, Nawaz sacked him (hoping that Musharaf out of Pakistan would make the army keep quite). Nawaz trying to depose Musharaf backfired as army still showed more loyalty to Musharaf, resulting in coup from army officers in favour of Musharaf against Nawaz.
[I hope that you have enough intelligence and common sense to understand what I wrote. If you did not, please read again and ponder before commenting ‘ant shant’, thanks]
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
Amazing intellience at display...
You are right
a) Pakistan was the clear winner of the Kargil war
b) India lost thousands of pathetic people in the war
c) etc etc
You amaze me...but of course you would amaze me...
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
^
Took you that long to figure that out; you guys are slow. :D