Kargil - by a Pakistani General - review

Neo

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
4,515
Likes
964
Siachen never belonged to Pakistan. Both armies sprinted towards it.
Pakistan's nuclear tests post date the Indian ones by a month. Does it mean that Pakistan never toyed with nuclear energy and suddenly embarked on the path due to Indian tests, finished everything in a month and came up with its own nuclear device?
The fact that both India and Pakistan scaled Siachen at the same time, shows that even Pakistan was preparing to militarily occupy Siachen and India only thinly outran them.
Even then India had to dislodge Pakistan from some of the Siachen posts to gain upper hand there. Shimla argument is only to deflect guilt on the other side.

Regards,
Virendra
Militarisation was a provocation and a direct violation of the Shimla agreement. Pakistan was promoting tourism and had built civil camps only.
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
It can not be ignored while discussing history. Our objective was to control the landlink hence we conquered and defended point 5353.
A peek from peak is not called a land link, specially when the enemy barrel roles over it from three sides.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
India already violated Simla agreement by occupying Siachin. Kargil was a direct result of what happened there.

And how?

Was it demarcated.

The delineation states - NJ9842 location the boundary would proceed "thence north to the glaciers."

And the universal way it is done is by using the watershed (for mountains) and mid stream (for rivers).

Therefore, Pakistan, as usual want to have the cake and eat it too!
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
Militarisation was a provocation and a direct violation of the Shimla agreement. Pakistan was promoting tourism and had built civil camps only.
Then you're not fully informed, moreover if you know that the clause is not clear (according to you) then shouldn't you clarify with the other side before parking tents and stamping tourist tickets there like it was the house backyard?
But it didn't happen. Why? Intentions were not good !!
 

Neo

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
4,515
Likes
964
In that case you would agree that the Pak Army did an extremely poor job sitting on all those peaks for weeks in 99 :D
PA did an excellent job by conquering a large area and keeping the highest peak. I am surprised that IAF didn't bomb point 5353.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
One single attack is what it takes to destroy the highway, doesn't it?
IA tried to regain controll of point 5353 till 2003. If it wasn't
Important, she would not have spent money or risked more lives after the ceasefire.
Have you been to the High Altitude?

What you say is what is like being a Gogia Pasha.

If it were so, then how come Pak failed in Kargil?
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
PA did an excellent job by conquering a large area and keeping the highest peak. I am surprised that IAF didn't bomb point 5353.
And did a greater job in being routed and whipped.

and are not left saying - Blessent mon cœur d'une langueur monotone ("wound my heart with a monotonous languor")
 
Last edited:

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Militarisation was a provocation and a direct violation of the Shimla agreement. Pakistan was promoting tourism and had built civil camps only.
it built nothing.

It was acting as if it was a self appointed Thekedar, when India put Pakistan in its correct place.

Now, Pakistanis can only whine and whine with bogus hot air.
 

Neo

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
4,515
Likes
964
A peek from peak is not called a land link, specially when the enemy barrel roles over it from three sides.
Point 5353 is considerably higher than the three Indian posts and has a clear visual of highway 1D which is well in range of PA artillery now. So are the Indian posts.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
India already violated Simla agreement by occupying Siachin. Kargil was a direct result of what happened there.
A total bogus contention.

The 1972 Simla Agreement stated that from the NJ9842 location the boundary would proceed "thence north to the glaciers."

As anyone knows the international protocol means the boundary is at the watershed in mountains.
 

Neo

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
4,515
Likes
964
Then you're not fully informed, moreover if you know that the clause is not clear (according to you) then shouldn't you clarify with the other side before parking tents and stamping tourist tickets there like it was the house backyard?
But it didn't happen. Why? Intentions were not good !!
India could and should have used diplomatic channels to raise the issue. Both countries would have saved billions by abandoning it. But she chose for a military option.
 

Neo

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
4,515
Likes
964
Have you been to the High Altitude?

What you say is what is like being a Gogia Pasha.

If it were so, then how come Pak failed in Kargil?
Kargil would have escalated into a full scale war if PAF had not backed off. Her objection was that IAF was equipped with BVR missiles and PAF mirages would be sitting duck. That is the only reason we had considerably higher casualties because we did not and could not launch air raides on IA posts.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
It can not be ignored while discussing history. Our objective was to control the landlink hence we conquered and defended point 5353.
Sure, one could discuss it from the historical standpoint.

But did you discuss or were trying to be smart?

What discussion is there if you merely post an article and that is all with no comments on the issue?
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Kargil would have escalated into a full scale war if PAF had not backed off. Her objection was that IAF was equipped with BVR missiles and PAF mirages would be sitting duck. That is the only reason we had considerably higher casualties because we did not and could not launch air raides on IA posts.
Oh yes, if Aunty had..... then she would be Uncle!

How more pathetic can you get?
 

ladder

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
7,255
Likes
12,207
Country flag
One single attack is what it takes to destroy the highway, doesn't it?
IA tried to regain controll of point 5353 till 2003. If it wasn't
Important, she would not have spent money or risked more lives after the ceasefire.
Are janab, in Jammu near Hira Nagar National Highway is just 2/4 Km from IB/WB, and then what does that signify?
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
India could and should have used diplomatic channels to raise the issue. Both countries would have saved billions by abandoning it. But she chose for a military option.
Diplomatic channels?

When you have not abided by the UN resolution, what makes India feel confident that Pakistan would do now?

United Nations Security Council Resolution 47, adopted on April 21, 1948, after hearing arguments from both India and Pakistan the Council increased the size of the Commission established by United Nations Security Council Resolution 39 to five members, instructed the Commission to go to the subcontinent and help the governments of India and Pakistan restore peace and order to the region and prepare for a plebiscite to decide the fate of Kashmir. The resolution was passed by United Nations Security Council under chapter VI of UN Charter. Resolutions passed under Chapter VI of UN charter are considered non binding and have no mandatory enforceability as opposed to the resolutions passed under Chapter VII.

The resolution recommended that in order to ensure the impartiality of the plebiscite Pakistan withdraw all tribesmen and nationals who entered the region for the purpose of fighting and that India leave only the minimum number of troops needed to keep civil order. The Commission was also to send as many observers into the region as it deemed necessary to ensure the provisions of the resolution were enacted. Pakistan ignored the UN mandate, did not withdraw its troops and claimed the withdrawal of Indian forces was a prerequisite as per this resolution.[5] Subsequently Pakistan refused to implement the plebiscite until India accedes to it and continued holding on to the portion of Kashmir under its control.[6] [7]

The resolution was adopted paragraph by paragraph; no vote on the resolution as a whole was taken.
 

shankyz

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2013
Messages
807
Likes
4,597
Country flag
Pakistan refused to take back bodies of its fallen soldiers - this was the highest insult possible ever. No country leaves its men behind - except Pakistan.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top