Kargil War Thread - V

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Postby John Snow » 03 Oct 2006 02:34

"Do ankhen bara haath "
means for the two eyes of Saurab, a section of the TS Paki army has to give up 12 pairs of hands that perpetuated the crime against a officer of Indian Army.

If we talk of Valor and chivalry what happened to Geneva convention to which TSP is a signatory, and how could they do what they did to Sourab?

Remember their cadet corps is taught to indulge in barbarian crimes...

ShibaPJ
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 20 Oct 2005 21:21

Postby ShibaPJ » 03 Oct 2006 02:51

CPrakash wrote:
ShibaPJ wrote:Anoop & CP,

The idea is not to become 'barbarians' aka Puki Army. India could have taken unofficial posture of 'Taking no prisoners' from Kargil battlefields or strafing the downhill skiing Pukis. Similar postures have been taken before in internal anti-terrorism campaigns.. Why can't they be extended to external battlefields?


First - its against the Geneva conventions.

Second, It will have the same effect as to what RayC has already elaborated. Any Pakistani soldier who had even the slightest inkling of surrendring would now fight to death - what will he lose?

Lastly we can forget about our own chaps returning alive - whether it is nachiketa or the jawans who were captured and released later on .

Geneva conventions, what a joke!!! It only helps the so-called, peace-loving politicians to mouth this in nice photo shoots. Go and try telling this to the guys at the battlefield, who have seen their buddies, friends and families tortured and killed. and show me an army who follows these conventions in letter & spirit?

Do you feel the rats who surrendered at Kragil had anything left to fight with or eat? They would have died of hunger or thirst, if we only had surrounded them for couple of weeks more. The Pukijabis officers were the first to ski backwards anyways and they had left.

The 3rd point is moot, you should still have enough rats left with you to send back and get your own boys in. Essentially, the philosophy I am trying to repeat is "You didn't win, because you died for your country; you won because the other b@st@rd died for his". Valor and bravery is all good, they have to be there, but you also need ruthlessness as well.

CPrakash
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 04 Sep 2000 11:31
Location: Mahboobnagar

Postby CPrakash » 03 Oct 2006 04:16

ShibaPJ wrote: Geneva conventions, what a joke!!! It only helps the so-called, peace-loving politicians to mouth this in nice photo shoots. Go and try telling this to the guys at the battlefield, who have seen their buddies, friends and families tortured and killed. and show me an army who follows these conventions in letter & spirit?


Tell it to Nachiketa, and the two Jawans who were repatriated by the Paks sometime in 1999. I am sure they are certainly thankful that some decency existed with someone that they made it back alive. Whatever you may say wont justify their lives - whic would be the case if an official/unofficial take no POWs practice is in place.


The 3rd point is moot, you should still have enough rats left with you to send back and get your own boys in. Essentially, the philosophy I am trying to repeat is "You didn't win, because you died for your country; you won because the other b@st@rd died for his". Valor and bravery is all good, they have to be there, but you also need ruthlessness as well.


Doesnt reallly explain what you want to communicate.

My gist is this.

Just imagine that this practice of no POWs existed in previous indo pak wars. It would mean that some 3500 more INDIAN lives would have been snuffed because the pakis would not have taken any POWs. It doesnt matter if we killed a 100000paks in this pursuit, for me those 3500 lives are more precious than anything else.

ShibaPJ
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 20 Oct 2005 21:21

Postby ShibaPJ » 03 Oct 2006 04:57

CPrakash wrote:.. Tell it to Nachiketa, and the two Jawans who were repatriated by the Paks sometime in 1999. I am sure they are certainly thankful that some decency existed with someone that they made it back alive. Whatever you may say wont justify their lives - whic would be the case if an official/unofficial take no POWs practice is in place.

May be I was not clear enough. I wasn't talking about a blanket "No PoW" policy. Thats why you have to have some rats left with you to effect a transfer. After the war, you would still have some Pukis with their a$$es up in the air begging for mercy (Remember the 93,000 PoWs in '71 ?)

The 3rd point is moot, you should still have enough rats left with you to send back and get your own boys in. Essentially, the philosophy I am trying to repeat is "You didn't win, because you died for your country; you won because the other b@st@rd died for his". Valor and bravery is all good, they have to be there, but you also need ruthlessness as well.


Doesnt reallly explain what you want to communicate.

My gist is this.

Just imagine that this practice of no POWs existed in previous indo pak wars. It would mean that some 3500 more INDIAN lives would have been snuffed because the pakis would not have taken any POWs. It doesnt matter if we killed a 100000paks in this pursuit, for me those 3500 lives are more precious than anything else.

Precisely my point that our boys lives are most important. We are approaching this from two different directions. I quoted Patton's policy that our boys lives should be one of the most important factors while considering the war scenarios. Certainly we couldn't have indulged in a genocide of killing 93,000 PoWs in '71 when they surrendered, but to let Puki aggressors in Kargil go back unscathed when they were at our mercy is plain stupidity and was a back-stabbing all the martyrs lost in Kargil. & those 3500 PoWs could definitely have been saved, if you sent back equal # of PoWs. You don't have to be gallantly magnanimous to such unworthy, despicable worms.

Rishirishi
BRFite
Posts: 1042
Joined: 12 Mar 2005 02:30

Postby Rishirishi » 03 Oct 2006 06:16

The 93 000 Pwo were taken in Bengal and did commit horrendous crimes. they killed millions of people. I can't understand why we did not hand them over to the Bangladeshis? The Bangla people were the right ones to decide their fate.

Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 324
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Postby Anoop » 03 Oct 2006 07:10

The decision to let the Pakistanis retreat back across the LoC was a political one, not a military one. The military agreed with reservations, as Gen. Malik recounts.

So should the military have disobeyed the civilian directive?

There appears to be three trains of thought:

1. The Indian Army should not appreciate valor among Pakistanis because the Pakistanis are barbaric and we need "total" war on their societies.

It has been explained by real soldiers on this board that they take pride in upholding their own high values; it is what makes them, them. We civilians can complain all we want but we're missing the forest for the trees by ignoring the ethos that prevails in our military; that is the core strength of IA over the PA.

2. We should be brutal towards Pakistani PoWs.

This has already been rejected on the grounds that it will merely cause them to fight like cornered animals and will cause more Indian casualties.

3. We (as a society) should continue to highlight Pakistani atrocities.

There can no disagreement over that, but that's really hard work, isn't it? Much easier to exhort the IA to be equally brutal. Then we, as a society, wouldn't have to shoulder any responsibility....

Ved
BRFite
Posts: 154
Joined: 08 Jul 1999 11:31

Postby Ved » 03 Oct 2006 07:39

CPrakash wrote: surya, Was there a firefight as was the case with nachiketa?

it also beggars the question - why was nachi spared?


Pure luck! The men who got him were restrained by a sensible officer, who just happened to be there - luckily for Nachi!

The main issue about doing unto the enemy what he does to his victims... by following our own code, we continuously maintain our self respect, our sense of superiority, and each instance of barbaric acts by the enemy serves to reinforce that feeling. If we did the same, even once, there would be a feeling of loss after the event, that we were, in the final analysis, no better than them. Feeling a sense of righteousness is very important to the guy on the line. How do you think the Puki soldiers felt about their officers when the IA buried their fallen comrades? Sheer genius, that!

Harry
BRFite
Posts: 365
Joined: 20 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Postby Harry » 03 Oct 2006 07:43

I also wonder what the pukis thought when they saw their officer's head hanging from a tree?

Don't torture but send an appropriate message. But no one can be certain if the result would actually be an increase or decrease of enemy morale.

This has already been rejected on the grounds that it will merely cause them to fight like cornered animals and will cause more Indian casualties.


No additional casualties will occur. You go into battle expecting your enemy to fight like that in the first place and not give up and/or run away, even if the pakis have a history of that.

ShibaPJ
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 20 Oct 2005 21:21

Postby ShibaPJ » 03 Oct 2006 08:03

The decision to let the Pakistanis retreat back across the LoC was a political one, not a military one.

Did anyone claim that this was a military decision?

It has been explained by real soldiers on this board that they take pride in upholding their own high values; it is what makes them, them.

Ohh, I for one thought that Gen Malik was phony!!! How silly of me? :eek: The few others that I have interacted with, who told me that they had fought in Kargil & they were mad with the political leadership for having let the Puki rats go back, they must have been from the Ranchi asylum... Jeez.

We (as a society) should continue to highlight Pakistani atrocities.

There can no disagreement over that, but that's really hard work, isn't it? Much easier to exhort the IA to be equally brutal. Then we, as a society, wouldn't have to shoulder any responsibility....

We civies must tell IA to demonstrate how gallant, magnanimous we are. We should teach Ahimsa to all and sundry so that the IA can turn the other cheek, when they are struck on one & whatever they feel, however much they feel justified to haul Puki a$$es over fire, we should restrain them so that we civies can swagger our fat posteriors in the peace forums & get ourselves some peace prizes.. We can also back-stab them any moment we like, 'se some civie plane has been hijacked and our leaders should usher in the 'Guest of honours' to their comrades-in-arms so as to free some civie souls, all the souls who sacrificed their lives to get the worms behind bars be damned.

Tell me, is it only the IA who is responsible to look after our country? We, our leadership should never display our spines?

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 03 Oct 2006 08:07

The comparison of "the head on a tree" wrt Saurabh Kalia is pointless & unecessary.

The orginal reference to the above was not in a gloating article in India today, but a piece by Barkha Dutt wherein she did her equal- equal @ a peace conference with Pakistani journalists.

Gurkhas knock off heads with their Kukhris- thats battle. Barbaric whatever, but they kill with the same.

The man is anyways dead & the head removal bit counts in pysops- ref: all the jihadi belief in not having their head removed because they will be headless in the afterlife. Apparently prevalent in some sections of the NWFP tribes.

But what was done to Saurabh Kalia & co was when they were alive. He and his men were slowly and methodically tortured to death, not attacked with knives or khukhris in the heat of battle.

I agree with Anoops suggestions in general & what RayC & Ved pointed out:

You torture/kill them & then a) You are no better b) When it comes to CI or anything else, you cannot switch them off.

A professional Army does not engage in such activities. HUman beings are not robots whom you can order to torture/maim one day & then ask them to stop the next.

Having said that. I disagree with:

a) This exaggerated British era sense of "oh well done chaps" and giving them gallantry awards & the like. In fact, every attempt should be made using pys-ops to portray them as incompetent in public, even whilst the internal army documentation/ training etc holds no punches back and does the "whole truth" for internal IA purposes. The aim is to portray a Pak Army which is incompetent & create a schism in Pak society. Instead, with such misguided endeavours, we perpetuate the Pak Armys grip on their own society by playing them up. Whilst some may believe that this had an effect on them, au contraire- all I have seen so far is the Paks bragging about how their men got medals from Indians. Giving them medals is no pysops, its encouragement for their antics. The US AF did not hand out medals to the MiG-25 pilot who shot down Speicher in his F/A-18 saying "oh well done, we admired how you defeated our F-15 CAP and AWACs coverage and took out our F/A-18". The US Army did not decorate the commander of the TawaKhalna division for his attempt to put up a fight at 73 Easting.

b) As regards RayCs beliefs on the Pak Army- he has made his disgust at their antics clear many times over. They have been posted before.

c)The entire attitude of letting the Paks get away with their aggression is under question. Not that the IA should have disobeyed the GOI and attacked the Pakis, but the fact that such a decision was made. The Pakis only understand the language of disproportionate force, and until the GOI gives the IA the wherewithal and means to pound the Pakistanis ten times over for every outrage, these issues will not be resolved.
Every terrorist assault in Kashmir & pound the Pak Army across the LOC 10X over, and then see the fun between the PA & the ISI.

d) The above is related to the GOIs general incompetence & ostrich mentality whenever it comes to dealing with Pakistan. What of BRamans countless pleas for reactivating the RAW ops inside Pak to deter them? Whether it be the strongmen of the BJP or UPA, they all whimpered when faced with the task.

Harry
BRFite
Posts: 365
Joined: 20 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Postby Harry » 03 Oct 2006 08:13

Did anyone read the Sunday Magazine section of the Hindu? For your "Gandhian" principles and ethics to work, both sides have to concur. This aint like Lage Raho Munnabhai.

Similarly, if you "turn the other cheek", the paki will not only slap it but come back later and kick you in the b@lls. Your race will only survive in heaven, not on earth.

1. Morals, Ethics and Values are only applicable for human beings and animals. The Pakis proved that they are neither after their genocide in Bangladesh, their treatment of Somalians during peacekeeping and their latest, rather unimaginable extents of barbarism during Kargil. No other people have such a consistant record of documented barbarism.

2. Did the fair and ethical treatment of 90,000 PoWs have any effect on the future? What did it do to prevent the torture of the Indian PoWs or even the adventurism that cost so many Indian lives?

Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 324
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Postby Anoop » 03 Oct 2006 08:15

Harry wrote:No additional casualties will occur. You go into battle expecting your enemy to fight like that in the first place and not give up and/or run away, even if the pakis have a history of that.


I am inclined to take a combat veteran's statement to the contrary over yours. It is not that hard to understand; sometimes a position becomes untenable and the relevant authority has to make a choice - fight to the last man & last round or surrender. No prizes for guessing which option reduces an attacking force's casualties.

The Pakistanis don't cut and run at the first instance, BRF's beliefs notwithstanding. Why not ask someone who has led his team into their minefield?

Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 324
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Postby Anoop » 03 Oct 2006 08:19

ShibaPJ wrote:.....


You've lost it, man. Get a grip. Then think about how your rant adds value to this discussion in any way. Sad....

CPrakash
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 04 Sep 2000 11:31
Location: Mahboobnagar

Postby CPrakash » 03 Oct 2006 08:21

JCage,

Much before Barkha Dutt wrote the sorry article - India Today Editor Harinder Baweja wrote bout the head in her book. And India today carried excerpts of the book.

Harry,

Consider what would have happened if the 90000 Prisoners had tried to fight to the last man last bullet. How many additional casualities would the indian army have incurred? even one over the absolute minimum is too much. So when the time comes to take POWs - we should.

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Postby John Snow » 03 Oct 2006 08:27

Anoops question is answered by CP.

(apropos pakistanis dont cut and run)

When pakistanis know that IA is serious about chasing them down every gulli and nalla, they will cut and run.

First and foremost the whole IA and the leadership always is in defensive mind set never to win only not to lose.

even today all we hear from IA leadership and the political masters why we can not decisively win a war and how it will end in a stalemate.

even after aar paar bhasahn all we got is troops stranded on the border for one year....

surgical strikes accross the border was never planned even if planned will never be executed period.
Last edited by John Snow on 03 Oct 2006 08:30, edited 1 time in total.

Harry
BRFite
Posts: 365
Joined: 20 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Postby Harry » 03 Oct 2006 08:28

Anoop wrote:
Harry wrote:No additional casualties will occur. You go into battle expecting your enemy to fight like that in the first place and not give up and/or run away, even if the pakis have a history of that.


I am inclined to take a combat veteran's statement to the contrary over yours. It is not that hard to understand; sometimes a position becomes untenable and the relevant authority has to make a choice - fight to the last man & last round or surrender. No prizes for guessing which option reduces an attacking force's casualties.


RayC said that there was a chance that the enemy would surrender if he knew that he would'nt be tortured. He said nothing about casualties (which are just your assumptions). There can no doubt be a chance of tactical advantages if the enemy knows your reputation for ethical treatment (you can never be sure) but you also cannot leave much to chance.

What I'm saying is that you do not go into battle expecting such advantages to exist. You do expect the enemy to fight to the last and give it all he has. Perhaps RayC can make the situation more clear?

The Pakistanis don't cut and run at the first instance, BRF's beliefs notwithstanding. Why not ask someone who has led his team into their minefield?


When we say run away, we don't mean at first instance but a situation where you do not fight to the end. Read Harbaksh Singh's book on the 1965 war (added later : For example, he writes "When a determined attack was made by own troops, PAK infantry invariably abandoned its positions well before our assaulting echelons reached the objective" ) and others.
Last edited by Harry on 03 Oct 2006 08:43, edited 1 time in total.

ShibaPJ
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 20 Oct 2005 21:21

Postby ShibaPJ » 03 Oct 2006 08:31

Anoop wrote:
ShibaPJ wrote:.....


You've lost it, man. Get a grip. Then think about how your rant adds value to this discussion in any way. Sad....

Don't feel sad, maan. Unless you get over your superior, 'holier-than-thou' attitude, no use trying to explain anything to you, isn't it?

It's as if all real soldiers only participate in BRF and all of them have given you the strategic insights.. Jeez
Last edited by ShibaPJ on 03 Oct 2006 10:01, edited 1 time in total.

Harry
BRFite
Posts: 365
Joined: 20 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Postby Harry » 03 Oct 2006 08:33

CPrakash wrote:JCage,

Much before Barkha Dutt wrote the sorry article - India Today Editor Harinder Baweja wrote bout the head in her book. And India today carried excerpts of the book.


Before that, it was mentioned in Srinjoy Choudry's book.

Consider what would have happened if the 90000 Prisoners had tried to fight to the last man last bullet. How many additional casualities would the indian army have incurred? even one over the absolute minimum is too much. So when the time comes to take POWs - we should.


It wasn't about killing them all but about their "ethical" treatment which they seem to have got under Indian hands. The fair, tolerant and ethical treatment of those PoWs, did not have any impact on the future. Neither did Pakistan feel that adventurism was futile nor did it stop them from doing the unimaginable to Saurabh Kalia. Will being ethical prevent any such adventurism or torture in the future?

While one can argue that Pakistanis have indeed, actually been fair to PoWs in a few past cases, it does not undo what was already done.

Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 324
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Postby Anoop » 03 Oct 2006 08:41

Harry wrote: RayC said that there was a chance that the enemy would surrender if he knew that he would'nt be tortured. He said nothing about casualties (which are just your assumptions).


And what would the point of accepting a surrender be, other than saving the lives of your own men who might have otherwise died in battle and getting a chance to interrogate the PoWs to get intelligence?

What I'm saying is that you do not go into battle expecting such advantages to exist. You do expect the enemy to fight to the last and give it all he has.


True, but irrelevant. The point is not what we expect; it is what the enemy expects when it falls prisoner. And what that expectation of his does to our own casualties.

When we say run away, we don't mean at first instance but a situation where you do not fight to the end. Read Harbaksh Singh's book on the 1965 war and others.


Thanks, but I already have. Yes, there have been cases where they have surrendered - Maj. Dayal's ambush on the Pak party at Raja being a case in point. There have also been cases where they have exhibited valor - Col. Akram personally leading a charge to death being an example.

Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 324
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Postby Anoop » 03 Oct 2006 08:45

ShibaPJ wrote: Don't feel sad, maan. Unless you get over your superior, 'holier-than-thou' attitude, no use trying to explain anything to you, isn't it?


But you do make me sad. So much angst, yet so little direction. And yes, it IS so easy to be holier than YOU, in particular.

It's as if all real soldiers pnly participate in BRF and all of them have given you the strategic insights.. Jeez


They've given you their insights (what is strategic about it? Just seemed a fancy term to use, eh?) too, but you haven't been able to grasp it, have you?

Now, back to the real discussion.

Harry
BRFite
Posts: 365
Joined: 20 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Postby Harry » 03 Oct 2006 08:52

And what would the point of accepting a surrender be, other than saving the lives of your own men who might have otherwise died in battle and getting a chance to interrogate the PoWs to get intelligence?


You go into battle with an objective in mind and will do anything to achieve it, be it killing all the enemy or making him surrender. Surrender is one of many desirables but can neither be guaranteed nor be put ahead of your objective.

True, but irrelevant. The point is not what we expect; it is what the enemy expects when it falls prisoner. And what that expectation of his does to our own casualties.


It is completely relevant because your treatment of the situation and conduct of the battle will be the same no matter what the enemy feels. You will expect and train for the worst case scenario in which the enemy fights to the end, fights his best, and does not surrender. If he surrenders, well and good, but I don't expect anyone to bank on such a possibility to great extents.

I will wait for RayC's perspective on this.

Thanks, but I already have. Yes, there have been cases where they have surrendered - Maj. Dayal's ambush on the Pak party at Raja being a case in point. There have also been cases where they have exhibited valor - Col. Akram personally leading a charge to death being an example.


There are instances of both bravery and cowardice but I really refer to a generalised perspective from Harbaksh Singh such as "When a determined attack was made by own troops, PAK infantry invariably abandoned its positions well before our assaulting echelons reached the objective"

ShibaPJ
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 20 Oct 2005 21:21

Postby ShibaPJ » 03 Oct 2006 09:14

Anoop wrote: ..But you do make me sad. So much angst, yet so little direction. And yes, it IS so easy to be holier than YOU, in particular.

I could see that. No wonder my post went through one ear and out the other. :) Anyway, my angst was with the puppet masters, not you.
.. They've given you their insights (what is strategic about it? Just seemed a fancy term to use, eh?) too, but you haven't been able to grasp it, have you?

Call it ethical, as you are so concerned about ethos. I am surprised that you so readily quoted one participating BRfite, but overlooked Gen Malik's observation that we could have pursued the fleeing rats, but for the political decision. Some selective amnesia, huh :roll:

Anyway, I don't want to waste BR and thread bandwidth on this. Back to the theme.

CP,
The 90,000 PoWs in BD surrendered not so much due to the actual fight than the successful psy-ops by IA. It was on a different time & India was not facing so much of Puki-directed terror. To assuage the Indian public atleast, a stinging, painful rebuke to Pukjabi army was needed. Were we able to achieve any of that?

Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 324
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Postby Anoop » 03 Oct 2006 10:28

Harry wrote:You go into battle with an objective in mind and will do anything to achieve it, be it killing all the enemy or making him surrender. Surrender is one of many desirables but can neither be guaranteed nor be put ahead of your objective.


You're knocking down a straw-man. What does one's own battle preparation have to do with optimistic estimates of whether the enemy will surrender? Where have I claimed that? On the other hand, I did repeat the Brig's claim that one's reputation in dealing with PoWs can influence whether the enemy surrenders and takes his chances in captivity or fights to the death. Which, I added, has implications on our own casualties.

It is completely relevant because your treatment of the situation and conduct of the battle will be the same no matter what the enemy feels. You will expect and train for the worst case scenario in which the enemy fights to the end, fights his best, and does not surrender. If he surrenders, well and good, but I don't expect anyone to bank on such a possibility to great extents.


Again, totally irrelevant because it is based on a complete misreading of my posts. Where did I say that we should (or do) bank on the enemy trusting to our kindness and thus, surrendering? My point simply is that a bad reputation hurts. It is a foregone conclusion that one will prepare for the worst. Now try applying this point to the enemy's choices - honorable treatment if taken prisoner or torture or death fighting honorably. Between the first two choices, it is not difficult to see the influence of the IA's reputation for treating PoWs. Now, what implication does that have on our own troops' need to clear bunker after bunker, for instance?

Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 324
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Postby Anoop » 03 Oct 2006 10:38

ShibaPJ wrote:.. but overlooked Gen Malik's observation that we could have pursued the fleeing rats, but for the political decision. Some selective amnesia, huh :roll:


No, but apparently poor reading or comprehension skills, on your part. As a reminder, I'll quote myself:

PostPosted: 02 Oct 2006 08:40 pm Post subject:
The decision to let the Pakistanis retreat back across the LoC was a political one, not a military one. The military agreed with reservations, as Gen. Malik recounts.

So should the military have disobeyed the civilian directive?


Besides, the IA's ire was due to the decision to allow the Pakistanis safe passage and at not forcing them to make a fighting withdrawal. That's a tad different from doing a Kalia on their prisoners.....

That's really the last digression from me. So go ahead, if you wish to have the last word.

Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 324
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Postby Anoop » 03 Oct 2006 10:50

JC,

To your earlier point about not honoring gallantry...

But we don't honor the PA as an institution with a recommendation, we honor a specific individual for a specific act of courage. As a result, his family would know that he died well, something that would otherwise not be known. If he died well, why not honor that moment of sacrifice? We know there are million lies that can be (and are) invented to paint India as an entity that must be destroyed, so it's not as though this is going to tip the scales.

What are the chances that a soldier who shows courage fit to be recognized on the battlefield, is a crazed jihadi? My own feeling is that it's pretty slim, because one needs moral courage to supplement the physical courage. How can an individual who does not abide by a code of honor work up the nerve to conduct himself with valor? I suspect that those types would cut and run but I could, of course, be way off the mark.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 03 Oct 2006 11:01

John Snow wrote:
ramana wrote:Right during Kargil I wrote to Dr. Kalia expressing my condolences. He thanked me and also mailed me a copy of the post morterm report. I will see if I can dig it up.

BTW, One of our members had organized a medical camp in Palampur in Lt. Kalia's memory.


That was a doctor from Florida, who was avery active member of BRF in those days

The good doctor from Florida is till a BRFite, albiet does not post that much and continues to be ever more involved in serving India in many other ways that is beyond the means and energy of ordinary mortals like me.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 03 Oct 2006 11:17

Anoop,

Sorry but thats really wrong.

Honoring someone who belongs to an organization such as the PA which has committed rapes, genocides, murders on account of "personal gallantry", well the Allies should have gone right ahead & awarded medals to the Waffen SS or the Japanese troops who fought them to a standstill.

When these patriots or whatever makes them tick types signed up to join the PA, an organization that routinely protects and succors the jihadi vermin that attack India, that is also responsible for unleashing them on India - they dont get any slack, period.

Writing reccomendations to them for valour & the like out of some misplaced sense of pysops is only for Indians to feel good about, and is a direct slap in the face for people like the parents of Saurabh Kalia or even those who died in the Bombay Bomb blasts to all those who die every other day in terrorist outrages perpetrated by Pakistan.

Pakistan does so, because of the Pakistani Army. Every other act committed by these jihadis is under their orders or can be traced back to them. And we honor them? Because some Pakistani soldier came into Indian territory, and "fought well"?

Even from the POV of pysops this is a poor substitute for the attitude it conveys, one which has dogged us throughout our civilizational history of misplaced chivalry when a more brutal policy was to be adopted in denying the enemy any sort of feeling of success, pyrrhic or otherwise.

The Pakistanis cannot be afforded this "mercy". They have to be disabused of *any* notion of success whatsoever in war against India.

They have to be made to pay and left with a feeling of utter despair that they even attempted this enterprise.


As regards the family of those soldiers on the Pak side- well soon, they'll learn not to enroll their kids in the service of the PA. After their kids who cross the border lie in unmarked, obscure graves and every report worth its salt speaks of the drubbing the Pakistanis received. No more bringing their kids up on glorious tales of the wonderful shaheed so and so who was so brave & scary that the kaffirs themselves awarded him.

As regards soldiers who need to show moral fibre on the battlefield- they can be of many types, including the patriots, to the unwilling but must fight today types, to the resolutely fanatical who believe in the supremacy of Allah over all. And the PA sure has a huge preponderance of the latter.

But that is NOT the point. Any soldier who signed over to the PA and supports it, one way or the other is an enemy of India. Period. Honoring them is NOT the job of the IA or the GOI to make them feel good about themselves or their own chivalry. Soldiers can write their personal memoirs and give them credit. A few academic papers can do likewise. But the institution these Pakistanis served deserves no credit, and once they joined up and commenced their attack on India, they deserve the worst & more besides, as is possible within the constraints of our own ethos and the Geneva convention.

Kill them with PGM's, 155mm shells and make a few disparaging comments about poor sods, "they didnt run away" & send the message across, dont sit and reward them for killing your own people, AFTER they invaded your territory AND continue to act as the backbone of a sponsor of terror and a repository of intense bigotry.

If it STILL hasnt sunk into ordinary Indians that Pakistan deserves NO mercy bar the blade & what we restrict ourselves to (civilized conduct/ no torture etc), then its a sad state of affairs- because it shows that we still dont know how to wage war or defend ourselves.

The US didnt sit around & congratulate the brave soldiers it fought in WW2- it thoroughly destroyed National Socialism/ Nazism as an ideology, demonized it, and held a Nuremberg war tribunal. It had a resolute idea of its national goals and did what it should have to remove a threat from its side. In Japan it ensured that the post war movement was a thoroughly pacifist one and used the war criminals it pardoned for its own ends. Even with our limitations, we cut a sorry figure when it comes to dealing with Pakistan. Talk to them one day, curse them the next- literally like squabbling children, despite years of suffering the worst kind of barbarity under their actions, and we end up being a joke with no national security policy worth its name.
Last edited by JCage on 03 Oct 2006 11:25, edited 1 time in total.

adrian
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 10
Joined: 20 Dec 2002 12:31

Postby adrian » 03 Oct 2006 11:17

As far as the PA goes there are a bunch of decent folk (a rarity) but yes they do exist .....As someone in the thread mentioned Nachi was lucky he fell into sensible hands ..Ahuja and Saurabh were extremely unlucky.....not many know but out of Lt.Kalia's bunch also there were two men who were saved by a Pak officer. In 71' also it was primarily the SSG that was responsible for majority of the atrocities commited in Bangladesh as well as Chamb if one takes the time and effort to sift through the details....

In early 2000 in grad school I had as a classmate a Pakistani Army officer who was a deserter ...the minimal interactions I had with him were stifling to say the very least ..Kargil was fresh in my mind ..his best friend were two bangladeshis ..who incidentally were good friends of mine too ..from what I could make out ...they have not forgiven us for 71' and they never will .....the oath the cadets at PMA Kakul (equivalent of IMA) take is that they will avenge 71'.

That is not to say one should forget things easily (unfortunately as a Nation we have a very short term memory)how can one forgive when one cannot forget....Brig Ray said "incidents like Lt. Kalia "rankle" .I think it was the Officer and the Gentleman in him that spoke. As he mentioned earlier the CO is like a father figure for the whole unit ....So I wonder what the 4 Jat CO felt when he was handed the mutilated bodies of his six "children" ?

No one deserves to die like that ....not even an animal......so I guess the question we should ask ourselves is what or whom exactly are we dealing with here ?

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Postby RayC » 03 Oct 2006 11:29

CPrakash wrote:
RayC wrote: to indicate how disgustingly animal like the Pakistani Army is.


Ray, having fought the packees in two wars (or more?) do you really believe what you wrote or are you saying that to placate the people over here?


I believe in professional circles I do have a reputation of speaking my mind without fear of the consequences. Therefore, if I did not believe in what I write, I would not have written.

That said, I will amplify the issue.

Pakistanis are not reputed to be the type to extend courtesies to the prisoners and are also reputed to be animal like. Since I have not been their prisoner, I cannot say it with the authority of having had the experience. It is hearsay as far as I am concerned, though I have seen their 'handiwork' and heard from those who were afflicted with the misfortune of being their prisoners. I have no reason to disbelieve them since they are persons not prone to falsification.

In so far as being brutal, it is a matter of psychology and societal upbringing. Certain races and tribes are brutal in their psychology. Certain people imbibe brutality by being brainwashed to hate - like the irrational Pakistani hatred for India, Hindus and to a lesser extent, other minorities. Sikhs, however, they hate the most since historically they have been 'taught' many a lesson when they messed with the Sikhs.

Armchair critics rightfully opine from the comfort of their homes of going hell for leather and massacring every single Pakistani soldier on can lay his eyes on. Indeed, it is a 'noble' thought and very 'patriotic'. I appreciate this psychology; though I beg to be left out of such barbarism for many a good reason which I will explain.

I am not holding a brief for Jesus Christ's or Gandhi's philosophy to extending the other cheek. But then, I also do not subscribe to becoming a guttersnipe or a developing a slum dweller attitude or even becoming a madrassa trained maniac who has sold his heart and soul to the Devil, hatred and warped religious justifications or becoming a mere barbarian. I have, will, and shall continue to remain the Master of my Fate and Captain of my Soul.

Those who have not seen bloodshed, the uncertainty of life and death in war, the pains and agony of combat, can without impunity hector, criticise and advise. Those who have been through the gory realities are more philosophical in their workings and more humane, since to use a cliche - been there, done that! To be truthful, the more one sees the devastation of battle and more one sees senseless deaths, the more one becomes a better human being without, of course, becoming a pacifist.

There is no doubt that when one sees or hears of the atrocities by the enemy, the blood boils. But then, one must not lose one's head when others are losing theirs. There are different ways to solve the issue, like let us say, girding up the loins a wee bit stronger and with more resolve to take the next hill and throw the scourge off our land. If one brutally does tit for tat, the anger will wane and will be unproductive. It is better to focus this anger in getting the job with resolve and more importantly, with brains so that while our casualties are lower, the enemy's is more! It is better to have the enemy surrender than butchering the lot. It is better because those who are captured and then returned in droves demoralises not only their Army but also their population. The Pakistanis cannot live down the 93,000 PsW. Had they been butchered, who would know how many were so done to death? It would not have the propaganda value that 93,000 live men marched back to their country with full publicity of the maganimity of the victor! Think that over.

I sincerely believe that if one behave like a human being with their prisoners (and that does not mean mollycoddling), it will help them to surrender faster than if they were treated brutally. Ask the Indian PsW of 1962.

Just some food for thought and I am not in any way criticising those who perfer barbaric ways to deal with the enemy. Who knows, they maybe right and I am wrong.

But come what may, my upbringing in my family, school, the Army, the Regiment makes the idea appear a wee bit revolting for me to practice. My men too share my thoughts.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Postby RayC » 03 Oct 2006 11:34

When one goes into battle, one goes in with the will to win.

Brutal force is not the only input. Stratagem also plays its part.

The worst case scenario is taken and all contingencies to overcome the same is catered for.

Capturing and killing or taking PsW is not the aim. The Aim it to capture the objective, come what may!

Let's not get mixed up to force a point.

What is wrong in acknowledging personal acts of gallantry/ command of the enemy? Even the British acknowledged Tipu Sultan, Dupleix, Rommel as a great warrior/ General and likewise Liddell Hart a mere Captain was recognised by the German as a great thinker.
Last edited by RayC on 03 Oct 2006 11:47, edited 2 times in total.

Raju

Postby Raju » 03 Oct 2006 11:46

Though I am in broad-agreement with RayC's pov. But in a war there also has to a certain fear that the enemy should have of us...bolstered by some unique examples. I have often pondered over the idea of chopping off the head of a Pakistani PoW and playing buzkashi with it and make that a sort of a tradition at least in 'certain' regiments. I know it sounds gory yet...the other's can try their utmost to stick to RayC's general outlines.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 03 Oct 2006 14:28

RayC wrote:When one goes into battle, one goes in with the will to win.

Brutal force is not the only input. Stratagem also plays its part.

The worst case scenario is taken and all contingencies to overcome the same is catered for.

Capturing and killing or taking PsW is not the aim. The Aim it to capture the objective, come what may!

Let's not get mixed up to force a point.


I agree totally.

What is wrong in acknowledging personal acts of gallantry/ command of the enemy? Even the British acknowledged Tipu Sultan, Dupleix, Rommel as a great warrior/ General and likewise Liddell Hart a mere Captain was recognised by the German as a great thinker.


Sir,

The IA can learn lessons in private and make sure it does the needful. I dont disagree there.

But any sort of concession to a bunch of people who belong to what can only be called a depraved organization dedicated to the destruction of India, well -I have to disagree here, sir.

Thing is - we are not the British empire dealing with Tipu here after he was subjugated. Or for that matter dealing with post war history in which we can make a few concessions to a defeated enemy- in the British tradition- "He was pretty good old chaps, but we got him".

We have not achieved that kind of situation to have that luxury. Every other day we suffer terror attacks, and we are in a quasi-war with Pak.

In our case as you note- we are dealing with an irrational lot which relies on pathological religious hatred and indoctrination for "strategy"- I have had a chance to talk to a Rtd Pak type who actually tried to tell me how it was inevitable that India would ultimately face defeat based on the "proven" warfare tactics developed by Muslim Armies & the Prithviraj tale. Please also see member SBajwa's first hand accounts of having interacted with the Pakistani Punjabi's & their, for lack of a better word or words, "understanding of things". Based upon my interaction with several Pakistanis, first hand (not on the www), I can only say its spot on. Its simply the way they are & have been indoctrinated.

The IA is correct in thinking it is being chivalrous, but to their eyes it is not the IA chivalry which they look upon and admire, its merely one more vindication of them being the superior warriors, etc etc. Its the hallmark of their self image. That image has to be broken and shown to them as such if India ever wants these idiots to understand what they are going into. Otherwise, there will be more terror, more "if theres war, we will show them" & similar bluster & bravura. This cycle will never end.

Our war with Pakistan is as much a battle for dominating their heads as well as taking their heads off, so as to speak sir. And here, we have miserably failed. Thanks to a lack of concerted action on our part as well and a reticence in terms of a) showing the reality b) using the same tricks the Pakis have - the Pak Army has got away with a breather for half a century.

They dont appreciate chivalry, as much as they appreciate raw brute power- thats a concept which sir, will take pages for me to write about, and I am unsure whether I will be able to convey what I am saying- no wordsmith, me. And decorating their soldiers who invaded India & are part of an organization which has caused us immense harm is simply doing the wrong thing at the wrong time. It merely gives them the propoganda advantage & thats the last thing we should do or be doing. Musharrafs recent book is one more extension of that "mentality", which for lack of a more subtle word, simply has to be crushed. The Pakistani Muslim, at least the educated one, has to start questioning his so called Islamic Army, not admire them for being glorious Islamic warriors which they are anything, but. Pakistan's self image revolves around their imaginary honor & dignity,...that has to given a few hard knocks.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 03 Oct 2006 14:41

Raju wrote:Though I am in broad-agreement with RayC's pov. But in a war there also has to a certain fear that the enemy should have of us...bolstered by some unique examples. I have often pondered over the idea of chopping off the head of a Pakistani PoW and playing buzkashi with it and make that a sort of a tradition at least in 'certain' regiments. I know it sounds gory yet...the other's can try their utmost to stick to RayC's general outlines.


Then some of their regiments get the tradition of torturing POWs to death...which they anyway are doing, but now we gave them an equal- equal Psyops advantage.

Frankly, we are best served being the way we are in terms of behaviour..

The aim should be to get such overwhelming firepower that they p!ss their pants before the fight. That is something the jackas$es in the GOI have not yet realised, stuck as they are in their one @ a time dictum.

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2154
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Postby merlin » 03 Oct 2006 14:55

What is wrong in acknowledging personal acts of gallantry/ command of the enemy?


RayC, if the enemy is a Paki, acknowledging this will only result in emboldening them to commit more acts not in Indian interest. Surely of all people, you don't want that?

parikh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 77
Joined: 30 Nov 2003 12:31

Postby parikh » 03 Oct 2006 15:02

Raju wrote:I have often pondered over the idea of chopping off the head of a Pakistani PoW and playing buzkashi with it and make that a sort of a tradition at least in 'certain' regiments. I know it sounds gory yet...the other's can try their utmost to stick to RayC's general outlines.


The guys from the Naga regiment did put their dao's to good use and put up a severed head of a Paki ,who gave them a hard time, at their camp

Source :Despatches from Kargil

CPrakash
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 04 Sep 2000 11:31
Location: Mahboobnagar

Postby CPrakash » 03 Oct 2006 18:04

RayC wrote:the idea appear a wee bit revolting for me to practice. My men too share my thoughts.


Thanks - and am I glad that we have had people like you and your men in the army than types like us.
RayC wrote:
Pakistanis are not reputed to be the type to extend courtesies to the prisoners and are also reputed to be animal like. Since I have not been their prisoner, I cannot say it with the authority of having had the experience. It is hearsay as far as I am concerned, though I have seen their 'handiwork' and heard from those who were afflicted with the misfortune of being their prisoners. I have no reason to disbelieve them since they are persons not prone to falsification.


Thanks for that too - an opinion from even one person who was there is what I needed - rather than a dozen personal viewpoints , smudged press reports and what not that i get over here.

Raju,

If i may point out - nobody chopped off the head of a POW, the head if any was probably chopped off in hand to hand combat at the ht of the battle. I am not against that - but we have to be ethical in our treatment of dead bodies of our enemies, however barbaric or animalistic that we may think they might be.


Plus its the wrong thing in the wrong hands of a hostile media - the aussie colonel who loves pakistan made much of the head in his revised edition of his book - almost making us equal-equal - thats not the image we have to convey. Fortunately it was not picked up by the international press till madam barkhaji decided to bring it up in that meeting that jcage was talking about.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13271
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Postby Lalmohan » 03 Oct 2006 18:31

I wonder if the average TSP jawan fully expects to be mistreated by the IA on capture due to what he is brainwashed with all through his life and service career? It would not surprise me that the afsar loge drill this into their heads and so already being somewhat rustic, when they capture a hated kafir enemy who "prays in narrow dark places and rapes kashmiri girls" - what better than to let loose with their baser instincts? I can imagine that RAPE afsars try to prevent such things happening whilst Islamist afsars encourage it.

I recall the interviews on the kargil VCD of the TSP PoW's - they all seemed extremely surprised to be alive and well treated. As for why so few prisoners at kargil, I can only guess that many wounded just died through cold and shock and the difficulty of getting medical care up in the mountains. The small scale actions also either meant a fight to the death or an ability to drop arms and run without adequate pursuit being possible.

there can be no doubt that gradually over the years the TSP army has massively diverged culturally from the ethics and morals of the British Indian Army - a divergence probably caused by the total degeneration of the afsar class as a social strata within a rapidly crumbling pakistani collective cultural identity.

All those urging IA to bring about gory vengeance - please note what RayC has written. We can bring about vengeance through much more conventional means and we do not need to descend into the darkness that the rotten stinking carcass of pakistan has plunged itself into.

We are the forces of good, they are the forces of evil.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 03 Oct 2006 18:33

Madam Barkhaji is always good for morale. "Made" her career thanks to "gritty reporting from the frontlines of Kargil".

After that much much equal- equal. :D

CPrakash, more on how Pakis treat POWs from someone who served and picked up some nuggets over bread and biskoot from peers, fwiw-

- POWs were fed raw salt when they "glared" at a commandant & then left without water
- Broken glass mixed with raw atta for making chapati
- Broken bones which had been set were stamped upon (and had to be broken anew and reset upon repatriation to India)
- Mixing salt with water all too common - just for giggles
- Segregating troops apart, Sikhs from Hindus especially, for "political purposes"
- Usual caste based abuse coupled with specific activities (caste is a very big thing for them)
- Salt/ Chilli powder on wounds...literally jale pe namakh chidhakhna..then when soldier "cooperates", he gets to wash it off...repeat as necessary, a few times just for kicks..

Of course, not all POWs went through this kind of treatment, but have heard enough over the years to kind of get an idea of what our neighbours are like & we'd (better) not be.

CPrakash
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 04 Sep 2000 11:31
Location: Mahboobnagar

Postby CPrakash » 03 Oct 2006 19:56

JCage wrote:

CPrakash, more on how Pakis treat POWs from someone who served and picked up some nuggets over bread and biskoot from peers, fwiw-

- POWs were fed raw salt when they "glared" at a commandant & then left without water
- Broken glass mixed with raw atta for making chapati
- Broken bones which had been set were stamped upon (and had to be broken anew and reset upon repatriation to India)
- Mixing salt with water all too common - just for giggles
- Segregating troops apart, Sikhs from Hindus especially, for "political purposes"
- Usual caste based abuse coupled with specific activities (caste is a very big thing for them)
- Salt/ Chilli powder on wounds...literally jale pe namakh chidhakhna..then when soldier "cooperates", he gets to wash it off...repeat as necessary, a few times just for kicks..

Of course, not all POWs went through this kind of treatment, but have heard enough over the years to kind of get an idea of what our neighbours are like & we'd (better) not be.


There is a danger that information like this will be forgotten and become merely anecdotal in the future. It is of utmost importance to record and chronicle all such experiences - names, locations what not for the benefit of future generations.

Ray, I would request the same from you as well. You can thave guys like me pop up every five years and ask questions that requires the same answers again and again.

CPrakash
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 04 Sep 2000 11:31
Location: Mahboobnagar

Postby CPrakash » 03 Oct 2006 20:12

Ved wrote:
CPrakash wrote: surya, Was there a firefight as was the case with nachiketa?

it also beggars the question - why was nachi spared?


Pure luck! The men who got him were restrained by a sensible officer, who just happened to be there - luckily for Nachi!


Interesting, Ved, can i ask a related question?

One can appreciate Nachi's stand in firing back at his pursuers - but is that the recommended action? What are the IAF's directives to its downed pilots when they are cornered - should they fight, or should they give up? I believe this sort of a situation happened for the first time in kargil? Or where tehre 'shoot outs' in the earlier 71 and 65 wars as well? Whats your take on this?


Return to “The Kargil Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest