Re: Who really won Kargil war?
Agreed. India lost the war as it lost three of earlier wars. But still holds the territory, made 93K guys as POW, created bangladesh. It amazes me also.
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
^^ Lagtaa hay, all what you commented is sarcastic comment. Seems, abhi bhie aap loogoon ko yaqeen nahie aataa 
Well, some Indians (and probably some Pakistanis too) are probably still wary from the analysis, so let analyse what is coming from ‘The Hindustan Times’ and some British Newspaper. Please read. From the site below: quoting ‘The Hindustan Times’:
http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/archives/archives2004/kashmir20040711c.html
[Note: I will further include some sites what western press considers happened on Kargil].
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. ‘Clintoncame 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]
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.
Further, I am posting articles on Kargil from British Newspaper, published during those days to show reality of what really happened. .
Now let see what British newspapers say: I am just putting headlines (from Independent-UK) and a bit of content here (as one have to buy them articles, and for me, I have already read them at the time it was published). In later part, I am putting articles from Guardian (UK).
From: Independent - UK (a left wing pro-Indian Newspaper):
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article287807.ece
**How betrayal in mountains led to army’s revenge **
**By Peter Popham in Delhi **
**Published: 13 October 1999 **
THE EYES of Pakistan officers light up when you mention Kargil. The mountain war over desolate bunkers atop 15,000ft peaks and ridges in Kashmir this summer they see as one of the great military feats of the post-war era.
Article Length: 595 words (approx.)
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article287788.ece
**How a few disguised men tied up an army of 60,000 **
**By Peter Popham in Delhi **
**Published: 14 October 1999 **
THE FIRST Indians to discover something was badly wrong in the Himalayan mountains above Kargil this spring were goatherds. They told soldiers in the valley that there were mujahedin, Islamic guerrillas, up there, camping on peaks inside Indian territory. An Indian patrol was sent to investigate: none came back.
Article Length: 658 words (approx.)
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article287796.ece**
British-trained general is man behind the seizure of power **
**By Owen Bennett-Jones in Islamabad **
**Published: 13 October 1999 **
WITH HIS dark shades, Pervez Musharraf appears the classic Third World army general. But colleagues and associates say that the man who is believed to have instigated last night’s dramatic coup is a sophisticated thinker who understands Pakistani domestic politics and their global ramifications.
Article Length: 364 words (approx.)
*.
**
From Guardian UK (a left wing pro-Indian newspaper):**
Note: The state of the war situation on 8th July 1999 was that India did not taken anything back, but after Pakistan forced Mujahadeen to abandon peaks (actually whatever they say, they had no choice), by 12th July, all peaks were cleared with difference that, India is now claiming that they freed the peaks militarily. [Obviously, to fool Indians ignorant citizens and for propaganda to counter embarrassment of their thrashing on Kargil].
Militants reject Kashmir deal (6th July 1999)
Militants reject Kashmir deal | World news | The Guardian
Withdrawing fighters from the Kashmir frontline with India is “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.
(Note: Please read the whole article. Actually, once Pakistan (Nawaz Sharif) decided that forces have to pull back from Kargil heights (under the pressure of China, USA and many other countries of the world, whatever Militants was saying, that withdrawal became imminent)
Militants reject Kashmir pullout
Richard Galpin in Islamabad
Thursday July 8, 1999
The Guardian
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.
The appeals were made after an agreement in Washington last weekend between President Bill Clinton and the Pakistani prime minister, Nawaz Sharif. It was aimed at defusing the escalating crisis between Pakistan and India which erupted in May, when strategic positions in northern Kashmir were occupied by what India describes as “Pakistani-backed infiltrators”.
But in Islamabad yesterday the chairman of the Jihad Council, Sayed Salahuddin, described the Washington agreement as a “betrayal” of the Kashmiri people and an “international conspiracy”.
“Our action against the Indian forces in Kargil will continue until the last drop of our blood,” he said. “We will remain as long as the weather and our supplies allow us to.”
He said nothing would deflect them from achieving “freedom for the people of Kashmir” from Indian rule.
Mr Salahuddin claimed there were more than 1,000 fighters - including many Pakistanis and some Afghans - holding strategic mountain positions around Kargil, Drass and Batalik in the north of Indian-administered Kashmir.
The militant groups deny they have been driven out of key positions overlooking the main road after the massive counter-offensive launched by Indian forces two months ago.
They also say their capture of high ground around Kargil represents a new military strategy. Instead of their hit-and-run guerrilla tactics since the insurgency started 11 years ago, they plan to occupy Indian-administered territory.
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.
But the division of Kashmir is an emotive issue for many Pakistanis, who believe none of the Muslim-majority territory should remain in Indian hands. Any agreement to withdraw from areas seized militarily will not be easy to sell.
“Nawaz Sharif can’t win on this one,” said one diplomat. “His days may be numbered.”
[Withdrawal started but then, that withdrawal turned into Indian claim of victory (by tarnished Indian military … tarnished? Yes tarnished, it is not my word but word of Guardian UK. Seems, even Gurdian UK (again a pro-Indian newspaper. See the article below) did not believe Indian claims of victories :P)
Pakistan** calls off Kashmir invaders**
Tarnished Indian military tries to claim victory
**Suzanne Goldenberg in New Delhi
Saturday July 10, 1999
The Guardian
** India’s army yesterday claimed to be routing the intruders who captured strategic heights in Kashmir. The assertion came on the day Pakistan’s government appealed to Islamic militants to withdraw.
Yesterday’s reported victories - which could not be independently confirmed - were the most spectacular in two months of merciless fighting for the ice-capped ridges on India’s side of Kashmir’s disputed frontier around the town of Kargil.
Meanwhile, Pakistani generals and government officials were endorsing last week’s undertaking by their prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, to defuse this most serious confrontation between the two neighbours in nearly 30 years.
**
Succumbing to fierce US and Chinese pressure, Mr Sharif agreed to roll back the intrusion at a three-hour meeting in Washington last weekend with President Clinton.**
… cont:
… cont:
….cont:
**
The high casualties - and the monumental intelligence blunder which allowed the intruders several months to fortify their mountain bunkers - may make it attractive for the Indian military now to transform a withdrawal into a victory. That would also suit India’s prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who is going to face elections in September and October.
‘‘may make it attractive for the Indian military now to transform a withdrawal into a victory’’ ← That means: (According to the Guardian-UK - a pro-Indian and very respectable Newspaper - not something coming from poor Pakistani military or Musharraf): India claiming Pakistani withdrawal as military victory, just to misguide Indians (and world) using propaganda. Believe me, it seems that Indian propaganda mechine (with the help of Pakistani traitor politicians) obviously made that happen :)]
** Yesterday Pakistan was also trying to extract some comfort from its misadventure by highlighting President Clinton’s pledge to take a “personal interest” in the stalled Indian-Pakistani peace process.
The cabinet defence committee said it was significant that the US had agreed to play such a role for the first time: "Pakistan's objective of focusing international attention on the Kashmir issue and securing US involvement with the process for the settlement had been achieved."
**Kashmiri separatists take Indian camp**
Suzanne Goldenberg, South Asia Correspondent
Wednesday July 14, 1999
The Guardian
Kashmiri separatist militants delivered a brutal reminder to India of their will to fight yesterday, killing four people as they stormed a heavily guarded camp of the border security forces.
A house in the camp, which is near the town of Bandipore, 30 miles north of Kashmir’s capital Srinagar, was occupied by the four gunmen as night fell. As many as a dozen hostages, including children, were being held.
The families of 30 officers were evacuated and 6,000 members of the security forces moved into the area, raising expectations that the camp might be stormed overnight.
**
The attack is bound to puncture India’s buoyant mood after the Pakistani-backed intruders’ retreat from the hills near the line of control. **
It also show how the cracks in Indian security in the Kashmir valley have widened since it was forced to pull its troops back to the ridges around the northern town of Kargil.
**
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: **word .. Pakistani-backed intruders’ retreat from the hills (not defeat) .. and denouncing the prime minister, Nawaz Sharif for agreeing to the Pakistani withdrawal (again not defeat), calling him (Nawaz) a coward and a traitor.]
**I hope that above post will clear things further (without doubts). Certainly, Pakistan did not paid these British (and Indian) newspapers to write what they wrote nor all what is written by those British newspapers is illusion and far from reality.
(Obviously, what those British newspaper wrote is truth: that Pakistan gave good thrashing to Indian forces on Kargil and that India did not recapture those heights in Kargil but Pakistan withdrew under Pressure, especially of USA).***
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
Well, some Indians (and probably some Pakistanis too) ...............................
I hope that above post will clear things further (without doubts)].
Without sarcasm - I do admire your passion for this subject and the intensity with which you feel for it...it shows up in the way you have driven all the analysis to your point of view...good for you (I hope....not very sure if it is indeed good for you) (Oh and ocourse...I am not even slightly convinced about your what you are saying...sadly I am not as strongly interested in convincing you or anyone else about it and so will not be putting all the kind of evidence or arguments - my apologies for not contributing to any discussion here but I just wanted to commend you on your passion - though I feel it blinds you but then...thats just my point of view..:D )
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
Sorry to say sa1eem but the two links that u keep refering to are all written by pakistani ex army men.
Again like PNR has said I admire ur patriotism. But its bordering psychophancy in your case. Its more like jingoism chest thumping patriotism.." turky shooting" ah good figure of speech.
There were around 400 -500 indian deaths. If u look around the web u can find the names of the brave soldiers. my question is what in ur honest opinion is the casualty in the pakistan side.
India didnt hide the death of their soldiers. India was in a turmoil, with a new govt loosing trust vote and all. But deaths that were being reported and the backstabbing of pakistani army really united the indians. Each death in Kargil was glorified.
War was live on tv and it actually helped in forming the world opinion. They could all see who was aggressor in this conflict. :). u were(pakistani govt) all this time denying the involvment of pakistani regulars in the conflict. There are and even now, i can find some , army officers from pakistan side saying that its all mujahidine and pakistani army has nothing to do with it.
Then coming to Mushraff, he is playing a dangerous game. I dont know how long he can fool the world. he was angry with 1971 war. being ssg chief and lost Seiachin and couldnt get it back from the indians with repeated tryings and then came the Kargil. He couldnt do anything to India so tried as is always in the subcontinent to blame it on something less powerfull than him and sacked him and took up the throne.
Now tell me when was the last time when there was a coupe in Pakistan and army were talking in different tunes. Believe me any army is an army only when the sepoys obey their orders.
Now if u want i can give u some links and read if u find time.
www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/research/kargil/war_in_kargil.pdf
http://www.dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/20000429.htm
for some humerous analysis please read this.
http://www.exile.ru/2004-December-10/war_nerd.html
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
Gentleman before fighting first decide what is a military victory.
If the aim of the operation is achieved the operation is victory, cost-profit ratios are not important in combat. (Russian casualities on Eastern front in WWII were almost 8 times the german casualities, can we declare Russia as a looser on the basis of casualities or Germany victorious on inflicting such losses?)
Indian Army had to scale those heights which were occupied by Pakistan Army so naturally they were bound to have these casualities, however such a large number of Pakistani Casualities are strange given they were dominating and still suffered.
The problem was faulty planning simple and straight. The logistics were not up to the mark. The Logisticians were simply kept in the dark (Pak Army has gone under a major logistic restructuring after Kargil, why restructure a successful system). As we never owned our soldiers, Indians were able to nullify our dominance with unhindered use of their Air Force & Artillery. Infact contrary to all tactical employment of artillery, they even placed guns next to each other in line to give maximum possible fire support to their attacking troops, (as Pak has not owned these soldiers so we could not cover them by counter bombarment)
Still the credit goes to young officers and Jawans that inspite of limited rations and ammunitions and being continously pounded by heavy artillery and precision guided bombs they stood their ground to the maximum possible time but till when, there is a limit to human endurance. (Inspite all this i can give you casuality figures on one Indian Unit 17 Punjab which went on an attack. Its attack was successful but it suffered 246 casualities i.e. dead & wounded in one night).
Speaking the truth, Indian casualities were well served but Pakistani casualities were futile. If you remember the video footage shown on Television of the night when Nawaz Sharif dashed for Washington, Musharraf came to see him off till the tarmac. why would he come if he would oppose this move. It was better time to depose a prime minister when he is turning victory into defeat than once he is doing something unkind although constitutional act.
so summarising, Pak Army could not achieve what it aimed for i.e. Dominance of the startegic Srinagar-Leh Highway but Indian Army achieved what it aimed for i.e. eviction of Pak Army from threatening locations. so who won & who lost?
decide yourself
P.S: Kargil was neither a tactical nor a strategic victory for Pak Army. Some heads must roll if we are to avoid such instances in future
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
^^
Brilliant analysis.
To Saleem who is so passionate about the subject, I would suggest him to read the Ayaz Amir's columns during the days of the Kargil war. That would give you a clear perspective on what was really achieved by the Pakistanis in the Kargil War.
All these days , your army generals were denying the fact that army regulars had participated in the war. All kudos to the families of these brave paki jawans who couldnt even get to see the bodies of those killed. Imagine if India had decided to cremate these soldiers according to hindu customs. They wouldnt even have a place in jannat.
And now your general is coming out with the truth when he wants to sell his book.
I just wonder "Are the people of Pakistan so mellowed and crushed that they cant respond to this hideous crime from the president of the country"
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
Brilliant analysis Saleem. :k:
As we can see more than 7 years on Kargil pains the India now as much as it did back then. It’s not often that one of the world’s biggest armies is caught napping for so many months, and then ends up having thousands of it’s soldiers slaughtered. Remember all those coffins that Indian government ministers were ordering up? 
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
Here is what Ayaz Amir had to say about Kargill
*As for the substance of the book, it is an extended tribute to the art of spin, the inconvenient filtered out, the rest seen through rose-tinted glasses. Understandably we hear nothing about broken promises, such as the general’s public pledge to take off his uniform by this and this date. Kargil of course figures but as victory not defeat. Or at least it is presented as a military victory which turned into a political defeat when Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif ordered the army to vacate the heights it had captured.
This is self-serving history, the awkward truth being slightly different. As even unbiased Indians admit, our troops showed great valour but by end June ‘99 they were getting no supplies and were not being relieved. Pushed into the jaws of death (this not being a melodramatic statement), they were left to fend for themselves. They did not flinch. The army high command lost its nerve, realising belatedly it had taken on more than it could handle. Despite suffering heavy casualties, the Indian army had started retaking the lost heights one by one*
You guys still believe the garbage about having Kargil war?
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
Whihe hundreds, if not thousands of Indian soldiers were being slaughtered in the Kargil fighting, the government of the day was trying to make money from the purchase of coffins.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/south/12/11/india.coffins/index.html
Indian standstill over coffin uproar
India’s parliament has ground to a standstill after a fierce uproar broke out over reports the government tried to make money from coffins. Opposition lawmakers on Tuesday demanded the government explain the purchase of overpriced coffins for Indian soldiers killed during a skirmish with Pakistan two years ago. “Coffin thieves! coffin thieves!” opposition MPs shouted in both houses of parliament, forcing the suspension of both chambers without any progress on legislation, including a tough new anti-terrorism law. “Soldiers shed blood, government takes commission,” Reuters news agency cited opposition legislators as yelling.
The uproar follows a damning official report on the Defense Ministry’s purchase of 500 coffins and 3,000 body bags from a U.S. firm during bloody fighting in 1999 to repel infiltrators from Pakistan in the Kargil region. The government-appointed Comptroller and Auditor- General found the ministry had ordered the coffins at a very high price and without any preliminary evaluation. Almost 500 Indian soldiers died on the icy slopes of Kargil during a 10-week offensive to repel infiltrators from Pakistan in the summer of 1999. The bloody faceoff brought the nuclear capable neighbors to the brink of a third war over Kashmir. It was also India’s first television war in which images of soldiers struggling on steep slopes to fight intruders entrenched on the heights were beamed to millions of homes.
Caskets too heavy
The report released on Tuesday said the Defense Ministry contracted to buy the caskets and body bags at a cost of $1.5 million, but did not go through the proper process to buy them. “Despite this being a new purchase, no acceptance test and evaluation was carried out,” the report said. The contract was later cancelled after the caskets arrived and were found to be too heavy and discarded. “The transaction achieved little, other than to benefit the supplier,” the report said. Opposition lawmakers, waving copies of the report, demanded the government resign. In the upper house, Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh offered a discussion on arms procurement policies, but was shouted down.
Scandal-hit ministry
This is the second time this year that the Indian ministry has become embroiled in scandal. In March, two journalists posing as arms dealers secretly filmed a string of politicians, military officials and bureaucrats accepting money for a fictitious arms deal. The scandal – which many said exposed a culture of corruption in the country’s secretive defense ministry – led to the resignation of George Fernandes as defense minister. Fernandes, who was not directly implicated in the video, returned to the ministry in October.
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
^^
this is a separate topic and should be debated elsewhere. If you want to talk about corruption in India, open a new topic.
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
^
Who said it was just about corruption? It's about how India lost hundreds if not thousands of it's soldiers in the Kargil fighting, and how ir's leaders gave little damn about their bodies. It's about how you Indian's will never get over Kargil, because unlike all previous war's this is the one that you just can't over.
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
^ give me a no. :). U can find all those who died in kargil conflict from indian side in the web. Now why dont u give the no. of pakistanies who died.. first u should get ur military junta out before talking about freedom.:). a friendly suggestion.
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
WHo denied that hundreds of Indian soldiers died in the Kargil conflict?? But it sure is funny when you use that to decide who won the war.
It is commendable that despite the disadvantage in terms of the situation Indian Army was in, they still won the various points back though they did lose many men (doesnt matter if it was more than Pakistani losses....and then its a different matter when you debate which act is worse - the one by Indian politicians who are alleged to have received money for the coffins ordered for the soldiers or the Pakistani establishment refusing to take bodies of Pakistani soldiers). You will surely continue to ignore any post that shows any reasoning that says that the Indians eventually won....so no point telling u anything...:D
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
Your own government of purchased 3500 coffins and body bags, a fact that they have not denied, which shows the scale of death and destruction that India really faced in Kargil. A country that has 700,000 soldiers (larger in size than the Pakistani army btw) occupying Kashmir really has no room to talk about freedom.
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
Ohhhhh pleeeease don’t tell em what they don’t want to know
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
atleast we gave respect to our dead soldiers.Not like you who didnt even accepted the bodies of your soldier.shame on u people.....
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
u r side tracking.. u didnt answer my question. how many pakistanies were killed in kargil. :D.
A country who is completely ruled by military is talking about freedom in one of its enemys state. Its irony indeed.:)
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
Limited Conflicts Under the Nuclear Umbrella: Indian and Pakistani Lessons from the Kargil Crisis
read this for an unbiased report on kargil. Its not written by a pakistani or indian.
i am just puting the part for the conclusion from indian side as described by the authors.
"The most important conclusion that India drew from Kargil is that
India must be prepared to counter a wide range of Pakistani threats
that may be mounted by what is essentially a reckless but tenacious
adversary. In this context, India must develop the robust forward
defense capabilities necessary to thwart surprise and to win even if
surprised by Pakistan. Despite this need to prepare for future Pakistani
adventurism, India has emerged from Kargil much more conKargil:
Lessons Learned on Both Sides 59
fident in that it believes it can handle Pakistan’s worst aggression
successfully even when it is relatively unprepared. India also appreciates
that eliminating the prospect of future Kargil-like operations
requires it to focus resolutely on resolving the Kashmir crisis, which
in turn implies that the problem must be engaged at the highest
level. India further recognizes the need to assiduously cultivate international
support and that such support will only accrue to the degree
that India both behaves responsibly and is seen to be behaving
responsibly toward all its immediate neighbors. The Kargil war
demonstrated abundantly that if India behaves as a responsible nuclear
state, capable of restraint and desirous of peace, rich dividends
can be earned not only in regard to Kashmir but in regard to other issues
of interest to India. This understanding is likely to reinforce India’s
customary preference for avoiding overly aggressive responses
to Pakistan"
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
^Link/Reference for this report vinseshvk!?
Kindly mention it asap, or the post may go.
Re: Who really won Kargil war?
link for the above article.. sorry i thought i gave.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1450/