When Pakistan Defeated Herself...

.........(yawn)

..........over to you Umairr.


---t


PS: Hope this gets 100+ hits in its short span on page one, now that articles are raining down in quick succession.

Oh Crypto!

I apologise for being unfair to your article. Just a slice of life.

It is bleeding us to death and the Emperor is playing flute. Or saarangi. Or tabla. Or the public`s posterior. Or something!

rgds

t

Good article.

I think the approach taken by Pakistan was very wrong in the first place. Pakistan kept stressing on the human right abuses of Kashmiris in Indian administered Kashmir, instead of treating it as a border dispute. The track record of Pakistan with regards to human rights abuses is much worse than India (treatment of Bengalees and their massacre during the creation of Bangladesh. So the world community is not convinced that Pakistan is only interested in helping out Kashmiris.

India also has some other advantages in it`s favor. Democracy, comparatively large number of minorities which includes Muslims, Christians, Parsis, Sikhs etc. The other advantage of India is the fact that India can trumpet ``There are more Muslims in India than Pakistan itself``. India can boast that it has had Muslim Chief Ministers, Presidents, Politicians, Cricketiers, Film Personalities and can claim that Muslims are represented in all walks of life. It is very difficult for Pakistan to prove that minorites are safe in Pakistan forget occupying respectable positions.

Dear Crypto!

It’s a well written article accept on one account i.e. Kargil. Most of the writers at Chowk refer Kargil only as a big mistake that Pakistan committed. Whereas I consider the whole expedition as a masterpiece of military planning and brilliant execution of this well thought off plan. I will not discuss in this post what were Pakistan`s political objectives and how much we were successful in achieving them. A lot of it has been written and still being written.

Not too many people are aware of the fact that Kargil Pass is the only land route to the Siachin Glacier (from Indian side). There is no other way to get there. In order to transport supplies to the soldiers stationed at Siacin India is bound to use that Pass. There is no air route since helicopters are not effective at the heights where Siachin is located.

The plan was to cut the supply route to Siachin and hold the occupation of Kargil till late September when snow starts falling and land routes are closed by it. Deficient of supplies for the winter, the Indian soldiers would have died from cold or surrendered the Siachin. The plan went well. Pakistani soldiers and Mujahideens held the strategically important heights right from the beginning and keeping occupation till September was not a problem at all. With 750 thousand army stationed at Kashmir India would have been very reluctant to open up another front, say somewhere near Sindh.

The plan was going right on the target until Mr. Nawaz Shrif peed in his shalwar. Everybody knows rest of the story.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/88aug/obrien.htm

The Indian state came into being amid the scenes of communal-religious carnage that accompanied the partition of the subcontinent between mainly Hindu India and entirely Muslim Pakistan. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, had resolutely rejected the idea of a secular state that could encompass both Hindus and Muslims. In his presidential address to the Muslim League at Lahore in 1940, Jinnah declared: ``Islam and Hinduism are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but in fact different and distinct social orders, and it is only a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality.... To yoke together two such nations under a single state ... must lead to a growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state.``



Yet in the event, the fabric of India`s secular state proved tougher than that of confessional Pakistan. Pakistan originally consisted of eastern and western sections, connected by a common religion but different in language and culture. The religious bond proved insufficient, and East Pakistan in 1971 seceded and became the independent state of Bangladesh. Secular India, however, has held together. There are now almost as many Muslims in India as there are in Pakistan. Muslims and Hindus in India may perhaps not have ``evolved a common nationality,`` but they -- and Sikhs also, so far -- have managed to live together, within one state, for more than forty years now, whereas the ``common nationality`` of the Muslims of Pakistan burst asunder after twenty-four years.

The viability of the secular and democratic system in India is a remarkable phenomenon, and one that has received less attention in the West than it deserves. Yet there have been continuing challenges, both internal and external, to India`s secular democracy, and to the very existence of an Indian state.

#4 -

[...``The plan went well. Pakistani soldiers and Mujahideens held the strategically important heights right from the beginning and keeping occupation till September was not a problem at all...``]

yup! not a problem at all!

shareef peed in his shalwar simply because he had taken just a little bit too much alcohol. otherwise, things were going great!

Some comments on Crypto`s article :

1. The regions of Kashmir as given is wrong, unless Kashmir means only the Kashmir Valley. But the plebiscite that Pakistan is asking for applies to the whole state formerly ruled by Raja Hari Singh. As far as I know, Pakistan has never been willing to limit the plebiscite to the Valley of Kashmir alone.

The current division of Raja Hari Singh`s state of Jammu and Kashmir is as follows :

1. i-Kashmir : Indian Administered Kashmir

2. p-Kashmir : (so-called Azad Kashmir, this is the northern end of the Kashmir valley, and is only a small part of Kashmir that is held by Pakistan.)

3. The Northern Areas : these supposedly have already ``acceded`` to Pakistan. They are not administered by the Azad Kashmir government.

4. c-Kashmir : this is the area of Kashmir held by China. Most of it was captured by China in 1962, and part of it was ceded to China by Pakistan.

2. The Northern Areas already make it clear that Pakistan is after territory. As to what is going on there, one interesting thing to do is to go to the United Nations web pages, www.un.org, and find the search engine, and search for ``Gilgit``.

3. Foreign intelligence agencies have enough information about what is going on in Kashmir -- if you think that the Western powers rely on the story told by India or by Pakistan, you are sadly mistaken.

4. Please remember that in 1992, Pakistan was put on the terrorist watch list by the US, and then removed therefrom in 1993. The US have known all along what is going on. It is not the success of Indian propaganda that has changed US minds, but rather the US perception of its own self-interest.

5. Please remember that friends of Pakistan have changed their tune somewhat after being allowed to visit i-Kashmir.

6. I don`t think India tried to provoke Pakistan into the mistake of Kargil. I think India was taken quite by surprise.

7. I don`t think the Pakistani strategy was brilliant. The game Pakistan had to play before the international audience after denying its military was involved allowed India to use its air force; Pakistan could not. Once the IAF was involved with no PAF involvement, the Pakistanis lost the advantage of holding the high ground, and the eventual end came. I don`t think Sharif ``peeing in his pants`` had anything to do with it. If the Pakistani forces were winning, there would be no hesitation in making the official documents public now, especially with the military CE in place.

If Pakistan wanted to make the world fear escalation of the fight, it should have not denied its military involvement (especially when such involvement would have been obvious to the Western powers` intelligence agencies), and should have brought in its air force to deny India the advantage of the skies.

Pakistan would have run a risk of India then opening more fronts, and making significant and potentially fatal-to-Pakistan advances before the world intervened. But this would have been precisely the kind of escalation that would cause the world to fear a nuclear war and to intervene in Kashmir. Little risked, little gained.

8. Pakistanis believe their own propaganda too much. 750,000 of the Indian army or even 500,000 are not in Kashmir. Perhaps the total of the J&K police force, the Border Security Force, the Central Reserve Police, the Army, the Air Force is 500,000 (or less). People tend to exaggerate so !

9. If Pakistan had played the ``honest broker`` and brought the civil war in Afghanistan to a quick end after the Soviets left, they would have a much stronger hand. But they first backed one faction of the Afghan Mujahideen over the others, and later went with the Taliban.

10. Iran has won sympathy from the West in its war on drugs. Please look up the number of Iranian border guards killed by drug smugglers on the Baluchistan and Afghanistan borders. Guess whom the world blames for that lawlessness. Again, absolutely nothing to do with India or Indian propaganda, but only Pakistan shooting itself in the foot.

-arun gupta

When it rains, it pours. Articles have all of a sudden started going by extremely fast on Chowk. Just a few months ago, they were moving extremely slowly.

The only country that can solve the Kashmir problem is India, since the problem exists in Indian Kashmir. So the Kashmir problem will be solved (cease to exist is perhaps more suitable here) when one of the following happens:

a) India is albe to suppress and kill so many Kashmiris, that they finally give up, and accept Indian subjugation.

b) The Kashmir suppression becomes so costly for India in terms of finances and human rights issues, that India itself gives up and agrees to a solution.

c) Somehow or the other India is able to convince the Kashmiris they are better off with India than being independent (or with Pakistan).

Option c hasn`t worked for 50 years, so I don`t see it working now. The current situation is hanging in between option a and option b. If Pakistan`s economy stablizes then option b will occur. If it does not stabilize, then some form of option a will probably occur, in the long term. However, it is India which will have to decide whether a or b will be the final option.

Despite all the hoopla created in India, there isn`t much Pakistan can do to solve the Kashmir problem. Even if Pakistan accepts the LOC as the border, and stops giving any kind of small arms support to the freedom fighters, that still will not solve India`s Kashmir problem. It will just accelerate the outcome towards option a. Option a however, is only a short term solution for India.

As Senator Bill Bradley commented quite eloquently on Russia`s action in Chechnya (and on freedom movements in general); the country suppressing freedom movements is in a lose-lose situation. If the freedom fighters win, the human rights violations of the suppresors will be laid open to the rest of the world. If the freedom fighters lose, the suppressors will have converted a generation of freedom fighters into a generation of terrorists.

Pakistan has now officially declared it has no territorial ambitions in Indian Kashmir. Despite what Vajpayee says, the last thing Pakistani Kashmris want to do is to join India (it was pretty ridiculous for anyone to assume that they would want to do that); so that option is out. The only issue that now remains unsettled is in Indian Kashmir; a problem which India can solve in one hour, if it wants. Just pass a bill declaring some sort of self-determination to the Kashmiris.

What surprises me is the strong support of even educated Indians for the Indian soldiers killing the Kashmiris (yes they are killing innocent people in huge numbers, regardless of what kind of spin the Indian govt. attempts to put on the whole situation to convince the rest of the world and its own Indian citizens). I think the Indians` dislike for Pakistan is clouding their conscious. Instead of using Pakistan as a scapegoat for India`s actions in Kashmir, perhaps Indians should ask themselves the following question: How would Gandhi have handled the Kashmir sitution? Would he have approved of Kashmir becoming the largest civilian killing fields in the world? If the answer to the later question is, ``yes,`` then perhaps Gandhi isn`t all he is made out to be. If the answer is, ``no,`` then Gandhi is all he is made out to be, and every Indian supporting the supression in Kashmir becomes a hypocrite.

Regarding Kargil: Urstruly #4 has given a good account of why Pakistan carried out Kargil. It was a counter-offensive to Siachen. I am surprised once again, that educated Indians actually think Pakistan would launch an offensive with a few hundred men to, ``liberate`` Kashmir. Liberation of Kashmir by force would require hundreds of thousands of soldiers, with the whole PAF providing air support, the whole economy rationed to prepare Pakistan for war, etc. etc.

I think people (at least educated people) should be able to understand this, and not get caught up in all the propoganda created by the Indian govt. and media about Kargil. Kargil was as stupid an action on Pakistan`s part, as India`s action in Siachen, however it is nothing close to what everyone in India seems to think it was. It was definitely not an attempt to liberate KashmirI It was an attempt to get the Indian army to withdraw from Siachen (something that India refuses to agree to do through bilateral peace talks). I think Pakistan incorrectly assumed that since no country spoke up when Siachen occured, none would mind a Kargil.

Ironically, had Kargil been successful, the poor in both India and Pakistan would have been better off. The reason being that Pakistan would have eventually withdrawn from Kargil and Siachen, and India would have been forced to withdraw from Siachen. Both countries would have saved a lot of money. Unfortunately, India will now never agree to end the Siachen war; a war which due to logistical reasons, is costing India ten times as much as Pakistan.

Pakistan is currently offering talks to India, even though India is actively carrying out the Siachen offensive. India is not accepting the offer of talks, even though Pakistan pulled out of Kargil a long time ago. Doesn`t anyone see the irony in that?

Oh Allah, here we go with Ummair`s old and tired monologue on Kashmir. What worse form of torture is there than to read one of these every time the word Kashmir is uttered.

umairr,

[...``the last thing Pakistani Kashmris want to do is to join India (it was pretty ridiculous for anyone to assume that they would want to do that)...``]

lets not assume anything, shall we? i suggest we have a plebiscite in pakistani kashmir to ascertain their feelings. are you game? give them the right of self-determination already, will ya?

macgupta #9: ``Pakistanis believe their own propaganda too much. 750,000 of the Indian army or even 500,000 are not in Kashmir. Perhaps the total of the J&K police force, the Border Security Force, the Central Reserve Police, the Army, the Air Force is 500,000 (or less).``

In a sense this is accurate. The total number of Indian, ``soldiers`` in Kashmir is now well over 500,000. This has been confirmed by the international press also. Peter Jennings just reported it during Clinton`s visit to India. India claims there are only 250,000 soldiers. It is true that all the soldiers do not belong to the Indian army. Many of them are probably BSF. This is probably more dangerous than having army soldiers in Kashmir, since Border Security Forces are usually less well trained, and hence more susceptible to killing civilians than a professional soldier.

RSexana #11: I am surprised you actually read what I write. I thought you belonged to the category of people who would ignore my comments. Sicne you have read it, could you point out where my comments are inaccurate. I want to make sure what I write is accruate. If you just don`t like the general theme since it is critical of India`s stance in Kashmir, then there isn`t much I can do about that.

As long as Indians continue to look at Kashmir as an India-Pakistan problem, they will continue to be able to justify the actions of India in Kashmir, by finding faults in what Pakistan has done. However, if they look at Kashmir, as a Kashmiri-Indian problem, then basically everything India is doing in Kashmir becomes subjugation of innocent people. Using reasons like Pakistan`s actions in Bangladesh to justify India`s actions in Kashmir makes no sense. Two wrongs don`t make a right. Also being secular (Indian govt. historically has been secular, although the BJP is the furthust thing from secularism) does not give one a green light to suppress people. There are too many other baseless arguments, like the above, that are being used to justify India`s actions in Kashmir.

Why don`t people just admit that India is carrying out its actions in Kashmir because it does not want Kashmir to break away from India, and India knows that if Kashmiris are given their free will, they will definitely break away. I think this should be quite obvious to everyone in India, Pakistan and Kashmir.

Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/06062000/commenta/55401.htm

RE: MacGupta Reply# 9

The winter- time Indian ``army`` (only) concentration is 500,000, whereas, it is augmented to 700-750K during spring and summer time when cross border logistics becomes easier for Mujahideen. These estimates are usually published in world English media.

Theoretically, your argument is correct that Pakistan couldn’t use PAF because of its denial of military involvement. If you remember the first week of war, the occupying Pakistan Army and Mujahideeen, in Kargil outposts shot down 3 Indian warplanes by using SAMs, most probably Stingers or Silkworms. That considerably limited the effectiveness of IAF. In addition, the captured Indian posts were design to withstand the air strikes. Indian ground forces were again under severe disadvantage because supply routes were also under heavy attack from Pakistani troops and snipers.

You are asking about publicizing Pakistani war plans since it is over now. Unfortunately, there is no law in Pakistan that governs that kind of situations. However, I will be really interested to see the Indian war plans; I assume that they must have been published by now. Could you please point me in the right direction where I can get an access to them.

Who`s Got What, Where

And why all those weapons might be needed

By OLIVER ROHLFS

With the end of the economic crisis, most Asian countries have increased spending on arms. But more worrisome is the fact that so many nations are going it alone. Asian governments have been slow to develop military ties with their neighbors. That makes Asia not only more vulnerable to regional spats, but an ideal playground for superpowers looking to find allies in global conflicts that might come in the future.

http://cnn.com/ASIANOW/asiaweek/magazine/2000/0609/security.map.html

In reply to Urstruly, #15, and Umairr, #13 :

The international press reports that the number of people killed in the insurgency in Kashmir in the last ten years is 22,000 (e.g., do a search on CNN) to 70,000 (e.g., do a search on Reuters).

( The Pakistani daily Dawn on microfilm is available in a university library here; I actually once planned to do a body count based on Pakistani news reports in Dawn to find out the truth -- but it makes for tremendous eyestrain, and my eyes were giving out).

There is a similar factor of three that probably applies to the international press reporting on the strength of the Indian army in Kashmir.

It may well be that BSF, CPRF etc., paramilitaries make the situation worse for Kashmiris; but that is not what we were discussing. We were discussing the military situation, and for example, whether India could open new fronts in Punjab or Kutch during the Kargil war if 750,000 of her troops were in Kashmir.

Regarding the Kargil war, the government has had an inquiry, whose results were made public, as to why India was caught by surprise. A lot of information, including info. about specific battles, names of Indian soldiers killed, photographs, etc. have been posted on the Web. The casualty list could all be lies; but they would be dangerous lies, because someone or the other would complain that their martyr`s name was not on the list; I doubt patriotism and the desire not to catch the army in a lie would keep so many people silent.

You may take a look at :

http://armedforces.nic.in/army/arkargil/

http://www.armyinkashmir.org/

http://www.indiamail.co.in/kargil/

Regarding IAF air tactics, here is what they say :

(quoting from : http://armedforces.nic.in/army/arkargil/kargil-web.htm)

The loss of one fighter and one Mi-17 chopper to enemy action indicated the need for a change of tactics, resulting in withdrawal of armed

helicopters and employment of fighters in modified profiles out of the Stinger SAM envelope. By itself, the change of tactics is nothing

unusual, and is an inherent part of the qualities of flexibility and adaptability; in fact, a far more serious lapse would be a dogged tendency to

persist in sacrificing assets when, clearly, there was a need for a re-assessment. It is, perhaps for this reason that NATO, after deploying

100 Apache attack helicopters in Greece, reconsidered bringing them into Kosovo till the shooting was over, as they felt the environment

didn`t justify it. Unfortunately, IAF Mi-25/35 attack helicopters were not able to operate in this terrain.

One of the many facts that have emerged clearly is that target acquisition by the pilot is the bottom line. Totally unfamiliar surroundings in the

Kargil area made target recognition difficult from the ground, let alone from a fast moving aircraft. As a result, the initial few sorties from

high levels were not effective as desired. However, once revised and modified profiles, tactics and manner of system usage had been

perfected, the accuracy of the airstrikes improved dramatically. Any time the target was spotted, a very high success rate invariably

resulted.



The following may be a case of blowing their own horn, but nevertheless, info. is given :

IAF Air Strikes : the Results

IAF air strikes against enemy supply camps and other targets yielded rich dividends. A noteworthy fact is that there was not a single

operation on ground that was not preceded by airstrikes, each and every one of which was the result of coordinated planning between 15

Corps and the AOC, J&K. However, one of the valuable lessons that emerged was the need for joint Army-Air Force planning and

consultations from the very beginning, where the Air Force would be able to contribute by rendering advice on targeting which could, at the

very outset, be incorporated into the Army plan of ground operations. This would prove far more effective than a case where the Army

proceeded as per its own plans made earlier in isolation, and called for air support when they felt it was required.

Firstly, in the area of interdiction of enemy supplies, the successful and incessant attacks on the enemy`s logistic machine had, over the

last few weeks, culminated in a serious degradation of the enemy`s ability to sustain himself in an increasing number of areas. The series of

attacks against Pt 4388 in the Dras sector was an excellent example of how lethal airstrikes combined with timely reconnaissance detected

the enemy plans to shift to alternate supply routes which were once again effectively attacked. In this the IAF succeeded in strangling the

enemy supply arteries, amply testified to by enemy radio intercepts. The primacy of interdiction targets as opposed to Battlefield Air Strikes

(BAS) targets was clearly brought out, as also the fact that air power is not to be frittered away on insignificant targets like machine gun

posts and trenches, but on large targets of consequence (like the supply camp at Muntho Dhalo, enemy Battalion HQ on top of Tiger

Hill, etc). Gone are the days of fighters screaming in at deck level, acting as a piece of extended artillery. The air defence environment

of today`s battlefield just does not permit such employment of airpower anymore, a significant fact that needs to be understood by

soldier and civilian alike.

The second major impact of air power in this operation was in the area of casualties. Normally, an enemy defending a well fortified

position (in this case, Pakistan) suffers between 3-6 times less casualties than does the force on the offensive. However, this operation has

seen the reverse, with the enemy casualties far in excess of those suffered by us. One significant fact must not be lost sight of; of the two

warring sides, it is the Pakistani Army that suffered air strikes, which, obviously, contributed significantly to its casualties. It is felt that without the use of air power, our own casualties could have approached if not exceeded four figures.

The third aspect is that of attack chopper operations. IAF dedicated attack choppers like the Mi-35 were incapable of operating at that

altitude, which prompted the use of armed and modified Mi-17s for the role. Besides the capability of the machine itself vis-a-vis the area of operation, the creation of the right air defence environment is a crucial factor which would determine the employment of this platform.

Effectiveness versus vulnerability would need to be examined; during Op Safedsagar, the abundance of man portable SAMs in all

enemy-held areas precluded the effective employment of attack choppers. As a result, whether Army or IAF, choppers were constrained to

operate in SAM-free areas. Nevertheless, IAF Cheetahs were instrumental in carrying out front line roles like providing a platform for the

Airborne Forward Air Controller (FAC), a fighter pilot who guides the fighters in to the attack against ground targets.

The fourth major impact of air power is in the enormous difference it made to the ground operations, no better example of which exists

than the message from the HQ of a field Army unit, (shown in italics above) stating that `` as a result of the precision airstrikes on Tiger

Hills our troops have literally walked over the entire Tiger Hills area. The enemy is on the run..``

Fifthly, night operations were carried out using ingenuity and imagination; at times, excellent results were achieved by aircraft like

MiG-21s using little else but a stop watch and a GPS receiver. These operations had a significant effect on the enemy’s resilience, stamina

and very will to fight.

Sixthly, the effort put into air defence escorts and area Combat Air Patrolling by day as well as night proved an effective deterrent which

ensured total air superiority. At times, PAF F-16s orbited a scant 15 kms (on their own side of the LOC) from our strike formations

attacking Pakistani targets, kept at bay by our own air defence fighters flying a protective pattern above the strike.

The seventh aspect is the high degree of imagination, felexibility and IAF-Army coordination which marked every phase of the

operation.

-----

The point is : if Pakistan was indeed winning victories, surely it should have no hesitation in relating what it had done.

-arun gupta

The following, from http://www.idsa-india.org/an-may012.html,

would imply that Pakistani policy is consistent, and that Muslims in China are also slated for liberation.

Quote :

The religious parties, who had been fundamental to the jehad, soon were imparting armed training in their own seminaries. This increased after 1994 when there was obviously ``big money`` in the business of setting up the Taliban.

These groups began to operate into Central Asia from 1984 and India in the same period as part of a strategic game plan that involved the spread of the jehad.

Their operations into China (post 1992) led to the formation of the National Movement of Uighur Muslims and the Xinjiang Moslem Liberation Front whose members fled to Gilgit after a crackdown in March 1997.

---

-arun gupta