Bharat Rakshak

Originally posted by RayC:
I don't think the Army would have just played ball to see its folks die without a cause.

Originally posted by RayC:
Do amplify. Hate to remain blind for so long.

Originally posted by merlin:
[i]>>Please do not ascribe politics to the Army. They are still free of such skullduggery. In fact to even allude to such silly stuff is i]

Please.

We all know what the score is. The Army as an institution may not indulge in politics. But are you saying that _none_ of the Army brass indulges in it? I'm taking about the men who matter here, 2 star onwards.

Originally posted by merlin:
>>Please do not ascribe politics to the Army. They are still free of such skullduggery. In fact to even allude to such silly stuff is most insulting to the organisation that is still free from political affliliation/ bias. And those who do it are bereft of ideas like politicians and are beneath contempt.

Please.

We all know what the score is. The Army as an institution may not indulge in politics. But are you saying that _none_ of the Army brass indulges in it? I'm taking about the men who matter here, 2 star onwards.

it was a serious lapse on part of RAW to identify five TSP Army battalions across the LoC.

the focus has been more on the criticality of its deficient reporting than on the reasons, which should have been gone into in order to put their deficiencies in the proper perspective

No intelligence agency can provide a 100 per cent coverage, whatever be its resources and competence. If it can, there would be no wars and no other breaches of security and there would be no need for a separate assessment agency. The setting-up of separate assessment agencies all over the world is based on the realisation that in the absence of a 100 per cent coverage, the only protection against surprises is through perspicacious assessment on the basis of available intelligence and past knowledge of the mind-set of the adversary.

Three of them fortuitously found themselves represented as members of the KRC from which the IB and the R&AW were excluded and used this opportunity to hang the R&AW and the IB from the nearest lamp-post without any examination or introspection on their moral right to do so when their own pre-Kargil performance was not free of serious blemish.

Please do not ascribe politics to the Army. They are still free of such skullduggery. In fact to even allude to such silly stuff is most insulting to the organisation that is still free from political affliliation/ bias. And those who do it are bereft of ideas like politicians and are beneath contempt.

Does that mean in the current context that the officers mentioned above by Ray would have had the chance to collude with the politicos or the intel agencies like RAW to let kargil happen? Its highly unlikely, to get ALL of them involved in such a consipiracy.

I am yet to see an Indian general (whether honest, corrupt, whatever) who would wantonly throw away 500+ lives for the 'greater good of the country'

Is it possible that we chuck everything down the drain? How can a military man ever show his face, lets say, if he has run from battle or sold his country? Can one sell his soul who has been trained to give his life and soul for the country? The regimental ethos can never allow. Read Amarinder's LEST WE FORGET and even he ridiculed a General who rose to be a Lt Gen having fled 1962 Thagla Ridge! I beleive this man was not allowed to enter the unit he was commissioned in! Can anyone live down this ignominy? The said General will roll in his grave with utter shame and humiliation when he enters it. Imagine his mental torture of not being able to look anyone in the face throughout his service and retirement! If this is the 2 star an above you are talking about, then, sir, they are the living dead and its not worth being so - at least for the uniformed class.

Is this not proof enough to assume that RAW was very well in posession of intel information about the TSP Army batallions even before they moved across the LoC - which incidentally Subramanyam claims to have happened around November-December 1998?

Isn't it equally possible that RAW didn't actually posses the info and were clueless about the presence of the units?

Originally posted by Ashutosh:
Yup the argument runs both ways. It's anybody's prerogative to belive whichever. For me you are guilty unless proven innocent.

It's a foregone conclusion that they knew about their presence. Read both KRC and Raman's assessment.

I might as well be branded conspiracy theorist.

Originally posted by John Umrao:
As a family who had near and dear in Army, Navy and batch mates in Air Force, I agree with somnath and merlin. There are many great men in IA IAF IN who are truly Officers and gentlemen, but to say no black sheep is beyond belief.

The recent faking of Saichen encounters, to many a scandal in ASC, MES is all to well known to people in the know.

Spinster had often repeated during Kargil and also Adm Bhagwat affair that above the rank of col, the shadow of politics cast is huge and discomforting.

It came as a shock for the Kargil Review Committee (headed by defence analyst K Subrahmanyam) when a lady officer at Army Headquarters told it that General Ved Prakash Malik, then chief of army staff, got a report of intrusions by Pakistanis a day before he was to leave for Poland on an official visit. General Malik instructed his office not to forward the report until his return. The Kargil Review Committee did not, however, pursue this matter.

The second phase of the Point 5353 story started during Operation Parakram which commenced on December 13, 2001, following the terrorist attack on Parliament. By then the area north and east of Zojila Pass, including Leh, had been upgraded into a new Corps Zone from a divisional sector. Parakram had opened a window of opportunity in the Kargil sector for the new 14 Corps to complete the Army's unfinished agenda for the Kargil war: seize Point 5353. While throughout April and May 2002, Point 5353 was pulverised with metal from Bofors guns, sometimes 10,000 rounds a day, Concourse missiles, cargo ammunition and air defence guns in direct fire, by May-end, Point 5070, a pivotal feature about 10 km west of Point 5353, was quietly seized in a brilliant stealth operation. The post was named Balwan after the Jat regiment that took it. Balwan had turned the flank of Pakistani defences in the Dras sector. The Indian Army now had a grand view and domination of the Gultari valley through which Pakistani posts are maintained in Dras.

The Pakistan Army used to occupy Point 5070 as a summer post. Its surprise loss drew furious reaction and several counter-attacks, which resulted in heavy Indian casualties. An incensed General Musharraf removed both the Pakistan GoC and Brigade Commander for losing a post and a new Force Commander, Northern Areas, was also appointed.

The seizure of Point 5070 was a good diversion while all hell was being let loose on Point 5353 in preparation for the assault. On June 10 an Indian patrol managed to creep into Point 5353 and found several wounded soldiers crying for help. D-Day was fixed for June 17. The Northern Army Commander, Lt-Gen R.K. Nanavati, flew into Delhi with the final plan and for the green signal. US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage beat him to it. A few days earlier, he had brought to Delhi from Islamabad General Musharraf's pledge, in his words: "To end cross-border terrorism permanently, visibly, irreversibly and to the satisfaction of India." Mr George Fernandes said "no" to General Nanavati.

It isn't quite the life that Nawaz Sharif would like to lead. The imposing Dholpur-stone Saroor Palace near the Red Sea in Jeddah is comfortable. Amid such regal surroundings, the former Pakistan prime minister lives in exile with his extended joint family that includes his wife, two of their four children and their spouses. Along with them, his ageing parents, two brothers, Shahbaz and Abbas, and their families also live with him.

Dressed in a crisp, white salwar kameez with a black, sleeveless jacket, Sharif spends most mornings surfing the Internet for world news, especially information about Pakistan. Always at hand is his former military secretary, the bearded, broad-shouldered Brigadier Javed Iqbal Malik, who was imprisoned for resisting the military take-over and then exiled after being dismissed from service without benefits. Evenings for Sharif are taken up by a brisk aerobic workout in the gym-it has made his face look ruddier but hasn't really done too much for his waistline. Sunset usually sees him preside over what he calls a mela of expatriates and Saudi Arabian businessmen-his only touch with the real world. Most nights he spends time watching television and confesses that he is especially fond of old Hindi film songs.

It must be frustrating for the 54-year-old Sharif, perhaps the most powerful Pakistani politician since Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, to live in such quiet isolation. Everyone believes it is because of Sharif's unstated agreement with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdel Aziz, whom he calls his "brother", and Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf (he prefixes a "Mr" whenever he mentions his bte noire) that he would eschew political activity while he lived in exile in Jeddah. There was also talk of a deal with Musharraf to commute the 72-year prison term awarded to him by a Pakistan court in return for staying out of the country for 10 years starting December, 2000.

Yet on the fifth anniversary of the Kargil War, the deep scars and their devastating impact on Sharif's political fortunes have clearly not healed. Sharif is now visibly chafing at the bit and with Musharraf appearing increasingly vulnerable, the former prime minister senses that the time for him to make a dramatic comeback may be nigh.

In his most in-depth interaction with the media since his exile, Sharif spoke to India Today on July 3 with stunning candour on a range of key issues. Among the revelations in his 90-minute discussion held in his wood-paneled study inside the Saroor Palace, is a lucid, at times amusing, account of his conversations with former Indian prime minister A.B. Vajpayee that indicates that he may not have been briefed on the Kargil War plans by Musharraf, then his chief of army staff. The former prime minister's account of how the war was conducted casts serious aspersions on Musharraf's abilities as a national leader. He charges Musharraf with "backstabbing" him and wants a commission to be appointed to go into how the General had misled the nation. He also says that it was Musharraf who asked him to negotiate a settlement of the Kargil War with then US President Bill Clinton in Washington DC in July, 1999.

During the course of the conversation, Sharif recalled that while in prison he had seen a television programme featuring five former Indian prime ministers who were asked what they thought India's greatest achievement was. Sharif was struck by their unanimous reply: democracy. He then pointed out the irony that no Pakistan prime minister has ever completed his full term. Excerpts:

Q. It is now exactly five years since the Kargil War. On July 4, 1999, you flew to the US to seek President Bill Clinton's help in bringing a ceasefire. The US president in his recent book talked about that meeting. Why did you go to meet Clinton?

A. I seriously wanted the war to come to an end. Initially when this scuffle had started, Musharraf said it was the mujahideen that was fighting in Kashmir. I thought since mujahideen keep fighting, therefore, it is not a new phenomenon. Later on I got a call from Vajpayee saab, saying, 'Nawaz saab, ye kya ho raha hai?' I asked, 'Kya ho raha hai?' Vajpayee said, 'Your army is attacking our army. They are fighting against our army.' I said there was no Pakistan Army fighting against his army. Vajpayee said, 'Nawaz saab aap ko pata nahin hai? It is your regular forces that are now attacking our positions and have now come into our area. You have occupied our posts.' I said, 'Vajpayee saab let us find out and I will investigate the matter.' I suppose I should have known about all this. But, frankly, I hadn't been briefed.

Q. So General Musharraf hadn't briefed you of the real intent.

A. No. Not at all. He said to me that the mujahideen are fighting and the Pakistan Army was not involved.

Q. When did you have this conversation with Vajpayee?

A. Just a couple of days after the incidents. I told Vajpayee saab that let us tell our respective DGMOs (directors general of military operations) to be in touch and settle the matter. He agreed but I believe that the conversation the DGMOs had was not a very pleasant one. I feared the matter might get further aggravated. So I called back Vajpayee saab to request him to instruct his DGMO and I would do mine so that they could seriously examine the issue. Vajpayee saab then interrupted me and said, 'Bhai, your forces have attacked our forces so you should pull them back. There's a great pressure on me to bring our troops out to the other sectors also'.

Q. So what did you do?

A. I thought this matter might become serious and this might be the beginning of an open war between Pakistan and India. The two nations had just detonated their nuclear bombs and this would be disastrous. I think, Mr Vajpayee also thought it would be very dangerous and that is why despite being under pressure from his army he didn't bring his forces on the other sectors of the border. I kept telling him, 'Let us find a solution.' I sent my foreign minister, Sartaj Aziz, to India. Although reluctant, Mr Vajpayee agreed to receive him. But when he met his counterpart nothing really happened. Then we were looking for an honourable way to end the battle. Mr Musharraf felt we should bring Mr Clinton into the matter. He pushed me to meet him. Mr Musharraf said, 'Why don't you meet Clinton? Why don't you ask him to bring about a settlement?'

Q. So it was the other way around and not as General Musharraf had claimed.

A. It was Mr Musharraf who behaved irresponsibly and it was he who planned the whole affair. Even when I was in Pakistan and in jail I had said categorically that it was a very confused, ill-planned and ill-executed affair. If Mr Vajpayee says that Mr Sharif had stabbed me in the back, I think, he is absolutely right. Because he visited Pakistan in February and in May we were attacking the Indian forces in Kargil which was absolutely wrong. I hold Mr Musharraf responsible for this. I can only tell Mr Vajpayee that I did not know that I was being stabbed in the back by my own general.

Q. Didn't you ask your army chief what was happening?

A. I didn't approve of this idea from day one. When he committed regular Pakistan forces also to fight the Indian forces it was a very dangerous development. Mr Musharraf hid all these matters from me. He didn't allow many of these inside developments to reach me.

Q. Do you mean General Musharraf did not brief you at all?

A. Mr Musharraf didn't brief me on any of these things. When Mr Musharraf called his No. 2 from China (where he had paid a visit during the war-a conversation Indian intelligence recorded), Mr Musharraf categorically told him, 'I hope the prime minister is not aware of these things.' He had no authority to start any war against India without the permission of the prime minister, without the permission of the government, without the cabinet's approval. It was the defence secretary who should have given the permission-the go-ahead signal to start any move by the army. It happened without all this. A thorough inquiry needs to be conducted in the whole affair. This has been my demand ever since I have been out of power.

Lately, General (Antony) Zinni (then chief of US Central Command forces), who was a close friend of Musharraf, has revealed in his book that it was Mr Musharraf who pushed me to pull out our forces from Kargil.

Q. Did you think that there was a threat of a nuclear war with the possibility of a larger battle looming?

A. I was not the only one who feared it. Mr Clinton also expressed these fears candidly when I met him. He said, 'Nawaz Sharif, what have you done? This could lead to a nuclear conflict between the two countries and the consequences and the implications would be catastrophic for both countries.' Mr Clinton also said the war was started by Pakistan. To that, unfortunately, we had no answer. If Pakistan had started it, only four people were responsible for it as far as I know: Mr Musharraf, Lt-General Mohammed Aziz (the Chief of General Staff), Lt-General Mehmood Ahmed (Commander of 10th Corp, Rawalpindi) and Major-General Javed Hasan (GOC of FCNA). Let me tell you that the rest of the army was not aware of it. The other corp commanders were not taken into confidence about this very, very major development. The air chief and the naval chief were also absolutely ignorant about it. They said in a meeting, 'Why were we not informed?' When I learnt all this I was very upset with Musharraf's approach. It is a serious matter and an open defiance of the policy of the government of Pakistan.

Q. Why didn't you sack General Musharraf soon after the war?

A. One way was to remove the man straightaway. Frankly, I was avoiding this kind of action. I was trying to defuse the matter. I felt the proper thing was to first appoint a commission and have a thorough investigation into the whole matter. I admit that I was late in appointing a commission. You are right. While I was in that process, Mr Musharraf acted on that and that is why he took the action against me. Mr Musharraf and those two people, Mr Mehmood and Mr Aziz. These three generals were the main culprits who toppled my government. They all feared a court martial if an inquiry was conducted. For the first time I am uttering these words to somebody.

Q. What are the true figures of the number of Pakistani soldiers killed in the Kargil War?

A. It runs into thousands. The battlefield casualties were more than the combined casualties of the 1965 and 1971 wars. There is no official statement. Some say 2,700 and others say it was more. It was high on both sides.

Q. What was General Musharraf saying during the war?

A. He was telling me that the mujahideen was taking control of these places. But finally we came to know that rather than gaining control they were losing control (laughs).

Q. His briefing wasn't accurate.

A. No, he was hiding these things.

Q. Isn't that serious if your army chief hides all these facts?

A. Of course, that is another major charge against him. It would be part of the overall charge sheet that would be made against him. We will hold an inquiry, inshallah. We have demanded that a commission be appointed to go into the facts of the matter and to come up with a course of action. Our party has taken it up. We owe it to the mothers, wives and the children of the soldiers who lost their lives in Kargil.

Q. Why did you appoint him chief of army staff superseding so many other generals? Didn't you assess his true character?

A. Unfortunately, it was not written on his face for me to read it (laughs). Otherwise, I would not have made such a blunder. He was very submissive to start with. He looked very obedient-appeared to be very pro-democracy-which generals should be when they take their oath to uphold and abide by the Constitution of Pakistan, to obey the orders of the government of Pakistan and also to obey his superiors. He has openly defied his own oath.

Q. When the war was over, did you continue to interact with Musharraf?

A. Even after the war Musharraf used to brief me. I didn't agree with all that he had done-I was tolerating all that-the way he hid the facts. To be honest I took all the blame on myself and I wanted to swallow all this so that Pakistan doesn't get a bad name. I wanted to save the honour of Pakistan and take everything on my shoulders.

Q. Why didn't you just settle it with Vajpayee instead of asking President Clinton to mediate?

A. Good question. I would have to reveal lots of secrets if I tell you that. I can only tell you that I did express my desire to settle the matter directly with Mr Vajpayee. But it was Mr Musharraf who was keen that I meet Mr Clinton and come to a settlement. So that hamara bharam rah jayega (the illusion will be maintained).

Q. What exactly was your conversation with Clinton on July 4, 1999?

A. He said, 'You would have to withdraw troops if you want me to play any role.' I said, 'Please, play a role in resolving the Kashmir issue.' He said he would seriously play a role and he would try to help us or both countries in coming to a settlement. He did mention that it might not be possible for America to play any direct role unless the two sides were willing. And India, he said, was not willing to accept that role, therefore, it might not be possible for him to do so. But he said he would take special interest in finding a solution to the problem of Kashmir. I told him this was very important because I strongly believed in the normalisation of relations between Pakistan and India. Musharraf had, in fact, sabotaged the whole peace process.

Q. How close were you to a solution after the Lahore Declaration?

A. We were discussing various options and considering the best one to adopt. We were not trying to score a point over each other while we were negotiating. We were doing it in a nice, cosy atmosphere and not a hostile one. Mr Vajpayee had agreed that we should try and resolve the matter by 1999. But Kashmir being a very, very complicated issue, I didn't expect a settlement by 1999. We could have made some headway in getting closer.

Q. It is ironical that the proposals of the Lahore agreement are now making headway. Are you happy?

A. I wish that India should have talked to only a democratic set-up in Pakistan. It would have been much better if Vajpayee saab had not taken this matter forward with a government in Pakistan which is headed by a military dictator.

Q. You think Agra was a mistake.

A. At the first instance Mr Vajpayee should not have invited Mr Musharraf to Agra. And Agra turned out to be a disaster. Isn't that right? Once the process had been started by two democratic governments, I think, Mr Vajpayee should have rejected any offer from Mr Musharraf because he was the one who had sabotaged and subverted the whole process of peace between the two countries. Because he toppled my government. Because he was the one who openly declared after taking power that he would sort India out and avenge Kargil. Because Mr Musharraf is a military dictator. Mr Vajpayee should have said, 'No, no, no, we don't want to talk to you, you are the culprit.' He should have stuck to his ground and waited for a time when a democratic set-up came back to Pakistan. He could have then restarted the discussions with that set-up.

Q. Do you think Musharraf will give up wearing his uniform as demanded?

A. He has to. The Constitution says that he would have to give up his post of army chief by December.

Q. But will he do it?

A. Look at the way he ridicules Parliament and parliamentarians. He comes to Parliament in his uniform, sits there and meets them. This is very insulting and humiliating to Parliament and parliamentarians. They must not accept that.

Q. What is your opinion about how General Musharraf is bringing the military into almost every sphere of politics and civil administration?

A. This is not desirable. The military rank and file itself is not very happy with this sort of situation. It would be very wrong to say that the military as an institution is backing these policies these days. We can't blame the military for it is a one-man show that is going on in Pakistan. This one man doesn't have the support of the masses of the country, the people of Pakistan. The National Security Council should be convened to go into the need of legitimising the army in the national decision-making process so as to keep the army out of politics. It is like keeping the army in to keep the army out.

Q. What is your reaction to the removal of prime minister Jamali?

A. Mr Musharraf is turning Pakistan into a laughing stock-a tamasha. Even Jamali doesn't know why he resigned. The nation doesn't know why he has resigned. Look at the other man who has become prime minister for 45 days in the country. And Musharraf calls this a smooth transition. What bloody transition is this? This is an insult not only to the parliament, the politicians but also to the people of Pakistan.

Q. Many of your partymen, who were with you, have now joined him.

A. I am happy that those who deserted me are now with Mr Musharraf. They are the ones who would be the cause of his downfall. They may eventually desert him

Q. What is your opinion of the increased role of America in Pakistan's affairs?

A. I am not very happy with the US policy in Pakistan. Americans should not be supporting a military dictator. For Americans, democracy has been their hallmark. Through their policies in Pakistan they are alienating the political forces in the country and undermining the will of the people. They are providing support to a usurper of democracy which is against all principles of the US.

Q. Were you shocked by the charges against A.Q. Khan for leaking nuclear secrets?

A. Mr Musharraf cannot absolve himself of the charges that have been levelled against A.Q. Khan. Do you think Mr Musharraf, as chief of staff and as chief executive of the country, has been totally ignorant of what has been happening? Everything was being guarded by his own army, by his own people. If at all there was anything going on he is the one to be blamed. A.Q. Khan has been made the scapegoat. This is my conclusion and I can say it with full authority having been prime minister of Pakistan.

Q. Why don't you return?

A. I want to go back. Musharraf hasn't renewed my passport. Look at me, somebody who has been the prime minister of Pakistan not once but twice. I was once the chief minister of Punjab. I am the leader of a major party in Pakistan. Are former Indian prime ministers treated like this?

Q. Why did you agree to go into exile for 10 years in Saudi Arabia?

A. This is not all true. All of a sudden I got a message when I was in jail that 'we have made arrangement to go to Saudi Arabia'. What transpired between the Saudi crown prince and Musharraf is between them. And, well, I am grateful that the Saudi Government thought about us like that and felt we should come here.

Q. There was no deal.

A. I had no deal with Mr Musharraf and I would be the last man to do so. I could have struck a deal the first day when I was arrested from the prime minister's house and brought to an army mess in Rawalpindi. Three senior generals (names them) came to me in the middle of the night. They brought a piece of paper in which was written: I, Nawaz Sharif, hereby advise the President of Pakistan under article such and such of the constitution to dissolve the national assembly and I also resign the office of prime minister of Pakistan. They said 'sign it'. I said, 'Who the hell are you to ask me to sign this declaration?' They said, 'If you sign this paper you will be a free man but if you don't you will be in trouble.' I said 'over my dead body'. If I was to strike a deal with Mr Musharraf I could have struck a deal with them. Why wait so long in solitary confinement where I could not see the light of the day? In that dungeon all I could listen to was the sound of the birds.

Q. Will you soon be returning to Pakistan?

A. Yes, why not? Inshallah.

Q. Even if it means getting arrested and being thrown in jail?

A. I am not scared of being arrested. I had been under arrest for 14 months without rhyme or reason. I now have a role to save my country. I will struggle against this tyranny.

Q. In terms of going back do you have a plan?

A. Things could change tonight and I could go back tomorrow morning. The kind of politics that is being practised in Pakistan is not my cup of tea or Benazir's either. We must bring about a change. That will be our first priority. I am willing to join hands with Benazir (Bhutto). We will restore the Constitution to its original form passed in 1973 and take all the people to task who subverted the Constitution.