Coming to Terms with Kargil

Good criticism is coming and I welcome it. This article is now outdated and my views have also changed.

This was written soon after Kargil when everyone thought Kargil was quite a feat. In addition, at places it was suger-coated (Kashmir) to make it publishable - even then Dawn censored the portions dealing with exchange of students.

After 9/11, Afghan and Iraq war, it is certainly outdated. I do not care two flamangoes about Kashmir - normalization of relations with India, economic SAARC union and eventual political union are my new visions for South Asia. Kashmir will automatically get resolved in between.

If one sees the history of South Asia through the centuries, every kind of outsider - Hindue, Muslim, Arab, Persian, Central Asian, Portugese, French, British - came to South Asia - conquered it, looted it, stayed on or went back - because the locals were fighting with each other.

The new outsider could be America and in the long run China - should we learn from history or even now let the outsiders again take advantage?

Pakistan`s security threats are not external - these are internal - its military and its Mullas - and this realization is widespread within the country.

more later.

rsridhar:

dude, my forefathers were smart. they saw this day coming. they made sacrifices so that this could be prevented. that i did not have to take advice from you lot. i therefore am not going to dishonor their memory by listening to a man demonstrating his impotence in khula bazaar.

RSridhar:

``Are you kidding? Who from India wants to visit Pak except the muslims who have relatives there? ``

Hain? Speak for yourself bro. There are plenty of people who woild like to visit from India. Punjabis, Sindhis, assorted UPites and Bombayites. What are you talking about dude?

Sameer/ Sherdil

``although I was too little for `62, I`m interested in the idea that Pakistan should have gone into Kashmir in `71 when India got involved in BanglaDesh. Kargil, a brilliant undertaking in tactics and ops, was a failure because it did not take into account the international diplomatic realities, and thus there was no diplomatic gain ``


Agree on Pakistani opportunity in 1962,

Disagree on 1971. Even though the bulk of the action was on the East, the western front too saw some set piece battles with India gaining an edge in terms of total territory held. Simply pit, Pakistan did not have the resources to launch a major offensive in Kashmir without leaving its flank vulnerable to counter attack. Also, taking land in Kashmir makes sense if Pakistan holds on to its own territory. In 1965, that is precisely what happened, and there is no reason to think that it would not have been repeated in 1971.


``Kargil, a brilliant undertaking in tactics and ops, was a failure because it did not take into account the international diplomatic realities, and thus there was no diplomatic gain ``

I disagree completely and I think Pakistanis have learnt all the worng lessons from Kargil. Sameer alluded to the truth but did not expand on it.

Conventional Pakistani wisdom talks of ``international diplomatic realities`` while it ignores the cause of those realities. In 1984, when India committed ``aggression`` by taking over the Siachen heights, it had two advnatges.

1. The LOC did not demarcate actual territory on the ground. (Legal advantage)

2. Pakistan chose not to internationalize the issue. It restrained its responses to localized covert action thus keeping a low profile. (Diplomatic advantage)

Now let us look at the Indian response to Kargil

1. The LOC clearly demarcates actual territory on the ground (Legal Advantage)

2. Response by Air Force raised the profile of the issue and invited international pressure to revert to status quo.

Since the first point is moot, the point Pakistanis should examine is the difference in tone and methodology of its reponse as compared to India.

Pakistan lost ground in Siachen. Yet, it preferred to keep quiet about the issue rather than making a ruckus about it. The establishment did not want to portray any sort of weakness to its people. In order to mantain the image of invincibility, it allowed actual losses on the ground. The question that arisies..why does the Pakistani establishment fear its own people that much.

India too lost ground in Kargil. Publicizing the issue by using the Air Force and raising the profile of the conflict also meant admitting to breakdown in intelligence, military ops etc. In short, it meant admitting to the world and more importantly to the Indian people that the administration was caught napping. Yet, it chose to do so in order to gather national consensus for reversing the facts on the ground.

The difference is not of strategy or tactics but of the fundamental difference in the Indian and Pakistani political systems, the relations between the rulers and the ruled. Pakistan needs to trust its own people more and that can only happen when it does not depend on policies that are based on deniability.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

``Nehru, who in his arrogance responded, ``Joint Defense against whom?``

Nehru`s punishment is to sit in perpetuity in the seventh circle of hell eating authentic chinese food. :)

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Harimau #30, how about Lal Pari (old Gurgaon border) or Narangi (Red Gate, ID, Bompay Port). With omlettes at Star of Konkan (Irani).

Romair#7
Could you please tell me when and where I supported atrocities anywhere. I recently wrote a whole article elaborating my views on this issue, entitled ``The beginning of the end of the Kashmir problem``. I encourage you to read it and then make a statement.
Nor was I shocked by Fazloo`s recent statements. If you recall, I had predicted at the time of election results that MMA leaders are political leaders and quite capable of changing their tunes.
But one caveat for the Indians. Remember that when Musharraf made his about turn on Taliban on September 12, 2001, he referred to the treat of Hudbaiya. Fazloo did not make the same reference in India but I am sure he is doing so to the tulebaa of his Madrassas.

nazar:
The footnote says that the article was first published soon after Kargil. Would you make any changes in it if you were to write it today?
I think Kargil revealed some very major chinks in the Indian army as well, both its military and general intelligence - military was caught with its pants down and politicians with their dhotis up. If India still came out of it smelling like roses, it was less due to its politicians` statesmanship and more due to the international situation. And if you are to believe Musharraf, it was still a great Pakistani success since it internationalised the Kashmir issue. I guess it`s hard for a military leader to admit defeat, even in political arena!


Yantric:
If what you say about the Pakistani hatred is correct, one of the reasons is that the Pakistani media wants it so. I am convinced of this after seeing their converage (or rather non coverage) of the Fatima Noor story. The story was a front page news in India for a whole week. The little Pakistani hearthrob (literallly!) who stole Indians` hearts was a tailor made to showcase how ordinary Indians are capable of loving Pakistanis. Emotions, tears, anxiety, prayers, flowers, toys - were all there for a heartwringer which it was made to be in India. The only thing with which I can compare the Indian reaction is with the Jessica Lynch story in the U.S in April. And yet, it hardly made it a front page story in Pakistan because it would have portrayed Indians in a positive light. Indeed, one newspaper (News?) went to the extent of criticising the govt. for allowing children to go to India and present Pakistani medical profession in a bad light. And let`s face it, one cannot blame Musharraf or the Pakistani government for the newspapers ignoring this story.

SameerJB:
Two years before the debacle (I wont call it war) with China, President Ayub had offered a Joint Defense Pact to Nehru, who in his arrogance responded, ``Joint Defense against whom?`` Well, he got his answer soon enough! But I dont think that Pakistan could have attacked India at that time. Kennedy/Galbraith (US ambassador to India) were quite cognizant of the situation and had told Pakistan (whose indigenous weapons industry was not very significant then and the country was totally dependent upon its SEATO ally in all defense matters) in no uncertain terms to not take advantage of the situation. Then, as now, Pakistani military leaders dared not go against the American orders.

In 1971, Pakistan did in fact opened the Western front and was badly losing even there. In fact, the U.S was gravely concerned about West Pakistan and some people believe that the seventh fleet was instrumental in preventing India from inflicting a humiliating defeat in the West as well.

Pakistan had to open the Western front. If you recall, the whole Pakistani military strategy was that the defence of East Pakistan lay in West Pakistan. The strategy was implemented but it did not work.

#22 by Mantolives
``Saima, Kindly read Rsidhar`s post also... as by his admission you totally made his day :) (read as: You totally reassured him about his rampant insecurities with regard to India``
I applauded Saima when she gave Romair a befitting reply to his sexual innuendos vis-a-vis some Indian women (real or imaginary) at work. You seem to have gotten the picture wrong. Like the Field Marshal, you seem to carry your brains in your balls.
Sridhar

re:#23 by Mantolives
For records, my best friend in US was a Pakistani. That does not change anything. Pakis are causing a lot of problems for India and can never be friends. We just need to learn to live and tolerate each other despite our enormous differences. Did you hear the recent news that ISI has infiltrated the pilgrim site at Nashik where a Kumbh Mela is about to happen? If you hear some killings there, you will now know who to blame.
Sridhar

re:#21 by faisaluno
You as a nation seem to have accomplished the near-impossible job of ``living by Kashmir alone``. Seems to me you guys need a break. Go and see some Madhuri Dixit movies and come back to Chowk.
Sridhar

Ref Mantolives #25

[I second Faisal Uno`s suggestion... How about some wine Music and women...]

I tried asking a liquor store once what wine they would recommend with women and song. I got strange looks back.

Would you have any suggestions? A good Cabernet Sauvignon? A light Chardonnay? A merlot, perhaps?

;)

re:#27 by yantric
What you said in your post is revealing if indeed it is true. What you saw was Paki indoctrination at work. After all, Paki indoctrination, started at earnest by Zia, seeks to give Pakis thr` fantasy what they could not gain in real life. So, they would fantasize that India is breaking, that Kashmir is all their`s, so on and so forth. It would be amusing if it were not so tragic. You can see glimpses of that indoctrination in Chowk itself. Despite losing all wars, despite the Kargil fiasco, despite being subjugated by Americans, most Pakis on Chowk continue to believe that they are just one step away from trashing India.
Sridhar

PM,

Is it fair to say that the sum of all my insecurities has given me a basic security (i.e. that I will always be insecure, and that it is always best to be insecure)?

-Manto