The General and Kargil

Re: # 126

Haan Turly Haan ... malichch hai tu .... isilye to saari fight hai :)

aaj tujhe moksha mil gaya .... LOL !!

Re:urstruly#126

Your long post is so full of misconceptions that it is hard to argue against all of it.

Islam has been around in the subcontinent for 1000 years. Let me ask you the following -

1. How many wars did ALL hindus fight with ALL muslims in the subcontinent before 1947?

2. How many times did hindus declare holy war on Islam?

3. During the past 1000 years, name me one hindu ruler who made any muslim revert back?

4. Since 1947, name me one muslim who has reverted back based on hindu pressure in India.

The answer to all the above is a big fat zero. Do hindus resent muslim conversion from the past? Of course they do. After all if a part of your community is lost to you, you will feel bad too. However, we have reconciled to it and we have never initiated a conflict on that basis. In fact, India has excellent relations with every muslim country except for Pakistan.

On the other hand, it is Pakistanis who have not reconciled to the fact that there is no longer muslim rule all over the subcontinent. That is the latent desire which gets manifested by creating excuses to create and continue a conflict.

Ranjit #130,
I understand the point you are trying to make, but I insist on historical accuracy. So:


Islam has been around in the subcontinent for 1000 years. Let me ask you the following -

1. How many wars did ALL hindus fight with ALL muslims in the subcontinent before 1947?
While maybe not ALL, the 3rd battle of Panipat in 1762 pitted Abdali`s Afghans, Mughals, and the Nizam against Mahrattas and Sikhs.

2. How many times did hindus declare holy war on Islam?
No one really declares ``holy war`` against a faith. Hindus have at numerous times engaged in murderous violence against unarmed Muslims - Jabalpur, Ahmedabad, Ayodhya, Bombay, Gujarat (Naroda Patya), etc...


3. During the past 1000 years, name me one hindu ruler who made any muslim revert back?
There was a movement in the last century to convert Meo Muslims back to Hinduism and it did succeed. There have been other attempts - especially in the east.


4. Since 1947, name me one muslim who has reverted back based on hindu pressure in India.

Nargis - LOL

#131
two questions (just for historical accuracy)

1) which battle was fought at Panipat in 1762? (I dont know of any)
2) Which Sikh units participated at Panipat? under who`s leadership?

bongdons,
Sorry, I meant 1761.
The battle with the Sikhs happened in 1762, Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia was leading the Sikhs.
My apologies for the confusion I created.

ok so i am still a little confused....but why should sharif run off to washington..i mean if the indians were so scared of the nukes, why did they not go to washington? after all it was summer and its real hot in dilli? or alternatively why did clinton not summon vajpayee and tell him to cool his guns?

Re: # 134

You are asking too many uncomfortable questions. .... the arab goo chaaters are going to
come after you .....

Remember the fate of the russioan journalist ....

*makes menacing gesture*

Re: # 112

Muthu,

I give u a closer view of Musharraf. Compare a Tibetan macaque with him.

For that view pl check this:

Jungle Macaque:

http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwvir/VirusInfo/pages/tibetan1_jpg.htm

AND

for the 3-piece suit Macaque:

http://www.paktribune.com/images/newsimages/2004/09/musharraf-for-pope-meeting.jpg

:-)

#134 jang {``....but why should sharif run off to washington``}... {``or alternatively why did clinton not summon vajpayee and tell him to cool his guns? ``}


Elementary Jangson,
Sharif, being the perennial pervert, was well aware of the Cubans in the Oval Office and of course, the possibility of paging an intern or two while looking for Bubba`s orifice (office). He had heard that Washington, especially near the White House and the Ellipse, was the center of explosive fireworks around the Fourth of July. Thus, being the putrid Paki pervert, our man Nawaz Sharif, took the opportunity. Now, you ask ``why not Vajpayee Ji?`` Very dumb question. Seriously, do you really expect Vajpayee to catch an intern the way he walks and the speed with which he walks. Also, Mr. Vajpayee`s guns have been cool for a very long time and Clinton did not need to tell him to do that.

hmmm...the discussion seems to be definitely moving forward....no longer are the discussants referring to one another as plain ``macaca``.

Now it is ``ugly macaca``. ``moron maccaca`` ``dimwit macaca``.


next step, it will be: ``like totally ugly macaca``.

Perhaps we should send the discussion the other way and talk sublimely of ``ma and caca`` (as in ``mother and child`` as illustrated in the following painting

#137 yar salim be serious now..vajpayee is/was a brahmachari and would surely be as interested in a white-house encouter. no real physical prowess was necessary, clinton would have provided the cigars anyways...anyhoo in this case the there prolly was no intern, just clinton, the cigars, mr sharif and a matchbox.

#139, Jang, {``anyhoo in this case the there prolly was no intern, just clinton, the cigars, mr sharif and a matchbox``}

Jang,
Surely you jest and speak in erroneous ways, my friend. I know for a fact that Nawaz Sharif had rented a white sherwani over white shalwar kameez for the occasion.

Re:salim_chauhan#131

[...1. How many wars did ALL hindus fight with ALL muslims in the subcontinent before 1947?
While maybe not ALL, the 3rd battle of Panipat in 1762 pitted Abdali`s Afghans, Mughals, and the Nizam against Mahrattas and Sikhs....]

Salim bhai, how come the Punjabi, Bengali, Sindhi and UP muslims are not included in this 1762 war on behalf of the muslims? Arent they the majority of muslims in the subcontinent? That precisely proves my point - hindus never ganged up and fought a war with indigenous muslims.

[2. How many times did hindus declare holy war on Islam?
No one really declares ``holy war`` against a faith. Hindus have at numerous times engaged in murderous violence against unarmed Muslims - Jabalpur, Ahmedabad, Ayodhya, Bombay, Gujarat (Naroda Patya), etc...]

My point is that there were no formal jihads or crusades as compared to the middle-east where such formally declared wars went on for centuries!! Occasional communal riots, while despicable, do not scale up to the level of crusades.

[3. During the past 1000 years, name me one hindu ruler who made any muslim revert back?
There was a movement in the last century to convert Meo Muslims back to Hinduism and it did succeed. There have been other attempts - especially in the east.]

Wonderful point. Once again shows the hollowness of urstruly`s thesis that hindus are chomping at the bit to ``revert`` muslims, given that this is all you could pull up from 1000 years history.

As usual, reality shows it`s well known bias against the pakis..

The US version of Kargil

Zinni`s book, ``Battle Ready`` written with fiction writer Tom Clancy and published by GP Putnam`s Sons, a member of the Penguin Group in May 2004, covers Zinni`s career from Vietnam to Kargil and Pakistan is mentioned in less than 10 pages scattered over the 450-page hard cover edition. Zinni`s account of Kargil is, however, detailed and covers pages 346 to 350. Earlier he also devotes one page to Pakistan `s position when in 1998 Nawaz Sharif was about to detonate the nuclear bomb in response to the Indian test.

According to him America intervened decisively in 1999 to end the Kargil stalemate between India and Pakistan and provided a face saving exit to Nawaz Sharif. General Pervez Musharraf, according to Zinni, ``encouraged the then PM to hear out the US withdrawal proposal``. When Kargil took place General Zinni was sent on a special mission to Pakistan by President Bill Clinton.

The Pakistan Army had at the time claimed that its troops were not involved in Kargil and it were the Kashmiri Mujahideen who were fighting but Zinni writes with full authority and knowledge that the entire operation was carried out by the Pakistan forces. More proof of this was, incidentally, provided in the Punjab Assembly on June 1, when the provincial government placed data in the house stating that 2,000 acres of special land in Punjab had been allotted to the Pakistan Army for distribution among the families of the troops killed in the Kargil war.

General Zinni writes: ``On the 21st of April, (1999) I traveled to Pakistan for several days of meetings with the new Chief of Staff General Pervez Musharraf. The two of us connected quickly and easily. He was bright, sincere, and personable. A fervent nationalist who nevertheless leaned toward the West, he was as appalled as General Karamat over the ever-worsening corruption within the civilian government.

``Nobody actually quarreled with this rationale. The problem for the Pakistani leadership was the apparent national loss of face. Backing down and pulling back to the Line of Control looked like political suicide. We needed to come up with a face-saving way out of this mess. What we were able to offer was a meeting with President Clinton, which would end the isolation that had long been the state of affairs between our two countries, but we would announce the meeting only after a withdrawal of forces. That got Musharraf`s attention and he encouraged Prime Minister Sharif to hear me out.

``Sharif was reluctant to withdraw before the meeting with Clinton was announced (again, his problem was maintaining face); but after I insisted, he finally came around and he ordered the withdrawal. We set up a meeting with Clinton in July.``

This is General Zinni`s account of Kargil and what he says is the US version of how things were perceived in Washington and how they were settled. No matter what Nawaz Sharif or General Musharraf may claim, the truth has to be sifted out from what the others have to say about the issue and Zinni has given the most authentic third-party account. Analysts and historians can now determine whether General Musharraf has written the truth or what Nawaz Sharif has been saying is right.

reality: female of the canine species..

General Pervez Musharraf
Military misjudgment

In short, heaven forbid that anyone unfamiliar with Pakistan should wholly trust this book. General Musharraf is as partial as any campaigning politician. One monstrous example is his account of a short war with India at Kargil in 1999, when he was merely army chief. It began when Pakistani state-sponsored jihadist militants attacked across the front-line in contested Kashmir, drawing a ferocious Indian response. General Musharraf calls this an over-reaction—but if it were, it was understandable—and he says that India`s army came off worse in the fray, even to the point where the military ran out of coffins for their dead. Yet he omits to mention the hundreds—some say thousands—of Pakistani fighters who were slaughtered in a humiliating retreat.

Disingenuously, he says the war at Kargil was an important catalyst in the peace process that followed: if that is true, it is because Pakistan, not India, was forced to the table by the drubbing it took there.

IMO indian army took a good beating in terms of losses of jawans and afsars (its acknowledged in indian accounts)..but what was getting paki army anxious was measured air-power demonstrated. i dont think indians would have sent an occupying army, they would have merely started more air incursions on supply lines on PoK, and with limited air force of pakis, low on spares (and prolly a reluctant airforce) this was not an escalation they wanted.

over to you HP.