Kargil War Thread - VI

[manjgu]

jimmy... u r right. further, this figure is from which date to which date? nobody ever states that... these official 522 casualties occured between which 2 dates? if you guys remember, there was a spike in no of terrorist strikes in kashmir valley when the operations were on since many CI units were denuded from the valley and redirectd to kargil. Would the govt consider those casualties as well?

govt is always clever and a half. You have to see it to beleive how ministries craft answers to parliamentary questions. the minister never answers a question... the question is sent to the concerned ministries and a senior IAS babu drafts repies. all the possible means of obfuscation and deceit are used ... to answer the question and yet not provide any answer.

[Lalmohan]

why did more paks die?
1. artillery
2. muntho dalo logistics camp bombing by IAF (and other air strikes)
3. choke off of supplies, leading to starvation, lack of medical attention

IA took most casualties i think during the early days when they underestimated the strength of the pak fortifications

[HariC]

govt is always clever and a half. You have to see it to beleive how ministries craft answers to parliamentary questions. the minister never answers a question... the question is sent to the concerned ministries and a senior IAS babu drafts repies. all the possible means of obfuscation and deceit are used ... to answer the question and yet not provide any answer.

On the contrary my friend, the parliamentary questions are the best source of information. You are accusing your Defence Minister of lies and obfuscation when its not the case. Thats what a Paki expects from his government. Not an indian.

And are you saying that the casuality figure of 530 odd is a lie? just say yes, and I am happy to make you eat crow soup.

Who cares if more pakis died or less pakis died. they didnt even care to take back their bodies. while we have done every bit to remember and commemorate our heroes.

[manjgu]

best source of information...))

there was a question in parliament... How many people have died of starvation in Orissa ? and the govt's answered

There have been no deaths on account of starvation but xx people have died due to the following diseases X, Y and Z . ( only that diseases X, Y and Z are caused by malnoursisment and non availability of food).

Parliamentary questions are very good source of information only when there is nothing embarrasing in the answers. Yes, not only def min but many others are blatantly telling lies to this nation on many things. and if it is about casualties in a operation like Kargil , I am more than certain that it is the case. I have spoken to quite a few a people in uniform ( many of them from unit of Lt Kalia ..whose family are very close friend) and they say the no of casualties ( dead/injured ) was much more than reported. Maybe the ex-services here on the forum can shed some light.

eat crow i am ready !!

what pakis have done or not done is a seperate question. I have nothing to say on that... its their call.
remember and cemmemorate ..... ) ask some of the kargil vetrans and you will get a better answer.

[HariC]

Parliamentary questions are very good source of information only when there is nothing embarrasing in the answers. Yes, not only def min but many others are blatantly telling lies to this nation on many things. and if it is about casualties in a operation like Kargil , I am more than certain that it is the case. I have spoken to quite a few a people in uniform ( many of them from unit of Lt Kalia ..whose family are very close friend) and they say the no of casualties ( dead/injured ) was much more than reported. Maybe the ex-services here on the forum can shed some light.

If you are questionning the casuality figures given by the DM in Parliament, then you should live in paki-land.

do us a favour - take some antibiotics, go visit a doctor. read this link and stop making paki statements saying indian army is covering up its casualities.

[ramana]

manjugu, Please stop your posts. Will lead to ban. During Kargil the whole forum was shut down for a similar line of posts.

[manjgu]

HariC.... i am sure you remember the old dictum 'the first casualty in war is truth'.

army/govt always underreport casualties ... for a variety of reasons. anybody from the services will corroborate this.

sorry boss ... the babus have to do it on the bidding of the govt. if you are not familiar with the workings of govt then here is a snapshot...

so this casualty question comes up in parliament... the Q is sent by def min to def secy.. the it reaches AHQ though proper channels and after a flurry of activity ... the report reaches the def secy in MoD... he jumps on seeing the figures... phones def min.. def min says kuch karo bhai nahi to hum mar jayenga.. a meeting is called in MoD... the babus will come up with brilliant suggestions... Sir, while we cant fudge the officer casualties sure we can underreport OR casualties... kisko pata chalega ki 3 Ram Singhs were killed.... we can easily say 2 Ram Singhs were killed... another alec will say Sir, why not reduce the duration of kargil war from 7 weeks to 4 weeks ... this way numbers can be reduced. Another, will say Kargil war casualties means only those killed between position R and Position U and not from Position M to Position Z ..there will be hazaar such creative solutions to the problem of ensuring that the Def Min and govt does not become a 'casualty'. !!

and I can say this full confidence having heard such conversations ( not about kagil casualties but many similar matters)...

what happended to yur crow masala or crow manchurain?.

[HariC]

So you are saying the Indian Army is lying now? Did you read the frikkin link? You will be a hero in paki forums "The Indian Army is fudging its casuality figures" - wah wah!

[RayC]

jimmy... u r right. further, this figure is from which date to which date? nobody ever states that... these official 522 casualties occured between which 2 dates? if you guys remember, there was a spike in no of terrorist strikes in kashmir valley when the operations were on since many CI units were denuded from the valley and redirectd to kargil. Would the govt consider those casualties as well?

govt is always clever and a half. You have to see it to beleive how ministries craft answers to parliamentary questions. the minister never answers a question... the question is sent to the concerned ministries and a senior IAS babu drafts repies. all the possible means of obfuscation and deceit are used ... to answer the question and yet not provide any answer.

It would be interesting for me at least to know if there was a spike in the terrorist activites in Kashmir when 8 Div was deployed in Op Vijay.

I would only like to state that if the Govt was falsifying the casualty figures, the first people whose morale would have been affected would be the Army, and more so, those who fought in Op Vijay.

I have not heard any complaints or cribs.

[dnivas]

dnivas... vow... thats so clever. You look like a very capable attorney. BR members will be happy to use your services.

srivastava .... i will never go by what the def min is saying ( they are hired to lie for the govt ...dont we know that??). i would rather believe a independent source ( if it exists at all).

manjgu, Yes you are right, the US lost 300,000 Soldiers in Iraq and the Russians lost 3 million In Afghanistan.

the pukis meanwhile using downhill skiing and rapelling only lost 72 mujahids. I got this info from my local madrassah, it is 400 percent correct. I dont believe the Indian govt or the Indian army as well.

You know the same thing happened when Alexander with his 30000 strong phalanx attacked a million strong persian army. he lost 120,000 soldiers thgh, because you know defenders always have a 3:1 advantage.

[manjgu]

Heeding the mods request, I will desist from making any further comments but would like RayC ( since he was closest to action) to comment on the following..

a) without going into numbers whats your assessment of relative casualties ( deaths/wounded) during the conflict ? i recognize that what finally matters is wether objectives are achieved or not.

b) where there casualties post the official cessation of the war ? ( i know the casualties happen all the time.. what i mean were there casualties more the normal peace time no.. on any account)

c) whats your assessment on casualties caused by IAF ?


Just for the 'more loyal then the king' members ..questioning / dissent is not a paki trait my dear .

[RayC]

Heeding the mods request, I will desist from making any further comments but would like RayC ( since he was closest to action) to comment on the following..

a) without going into numbers whats your assessment of relative casualties ( deaths/wounded) during the conflict ? i recognize that what finally matters is wether objectives are achieved or not.

b) where there casualties post the official cessation of the war ? ( i know the casualties happen all the time.. what i mean were there casualties more the normal peace time no.. on any account)

c) whats your assessment on casualties caused by IAF ?


Just for the 'more loyal then the king' members ..questioning / dissent is not a paki trait my dear .

Those who know me would hardly feel I am more loyal than the King himself!

One has to understand the nitty gritties of war and how minor tactics is conducted to understand the cause of casualties. I have ad infintum written on this very forum what are the issues involved when conducting an attack in HAA and that too, in a terrain as barren as the Kargil sector! Just in passing I would again state in general that to attack in HAA, the ratio has to be 11:1. How many attacks were put in? Therefore, calculate the casualties that would be there theoretically, even if you using a template of your own choosing. War means casualties and to feel that in HAA, it would be a cakewalk is ridiculous. And if someone feels that the GOI can cook up figures, then again it is wrong since today's youth and soldiers are not the Dulce et Decorum est, pro patria mori type! They question and they don't take things lying down.

Kargil was a specific operation in a specific area and so those participating were in the know of what is happening. It is not like the CI where things are happening all the time and over a very long period with no light at the end of the tunnel and where the GOI could be in error with the figures for their own political purposes. I assure you that the Army has no reason to downplay the sacrifices since it would do disservice to their dead, their organisation and they were hardly delighted that the war was thrust on them owing to intelligence and other failures and their effort be made a mockery of! At least those who fought this war would hardly be in cahoots with anyone who downplay the sacrifices done! Independent authors like Lt Gen Bami and Capt Amarinder Singh have gone to each battalion and units to get their account. They have gone through the sitraps at different levels also. Would they put their reputation at stake to be called frauds and fudgers?

Drawing room gossip, conspiracy theories and 'in the know' artists would be many, more so, amongst those who were not there to bear the brunt. That is but natural since all love to pretend they were where the action was or would love to draw the remotest of connection to the 'show' to be speaking as an 'authority'. If one remembers, a whole lot of 'VIPs' descended on the scene from time to time, even those who had not the remotest connection with the event for a grandstand view and to claim in posterity that 'Kilroy was there'!!

Were the objectives achieved? I presume they were, unless you are in the know of the objectives that were not achieved and would surely love to know of them.

What are the casualties caused by the IAF? On whom? On us or the enemy? And in the casualties on the Pakistanis who can say which casualty was caused by the IAF and which by the Army? In areas wher4 the Army did not operate and the IAF operated, it can be said what casualties and damage the IAF caused. For example, on Tiger Hill, the IAF operated and so did the Army. Can anyone, except the enemy say, who caused what? The enemy is not speaking!!

On the LC, the war never ends. It is ongoing. The war has an official dateline for the start and for the end and the casualties given are what occured during those datelines.

The Mods are not requesting you for anything unusual. Neither have they an inclination to gag or suppress the truth. All they are stating is that let us not have the 'a little bird told me' type of 'in the know' stories.

[manjgu]

RayC ....

the point i am making is that a) there is no credible way to asscertain casualties on either side ... both sides will tend to downplay their casualties and inflate figures on the other side ... in the initial days of Kargil, the govt controlled radio was announcing the heavy casualties on the paki sides at a time when we did not even know the magnitude of intrusions, etc b) without going into numbers , one can reasonably expect that a when a 11:1 force is required in a difficult terrain as you mentioned , where would you expect larger casualties? c) my quible with some was the argument that because we used IAF and artillery we caused more casualties on the enemy ... what kind of evidence do we have to substantiate that. Did not the pakis use artillery... and how effective was the IAF really on the groun d) you got me wrong on the objective thing -- what i was trying to say is that achievment of objectives is more important ( which was achieved in Kargil)... rather than no of casualties( though this is also important ..) .

When the Kargil war officially ended the govt said all intrusions have been cleared.. and there was persistent doubts about a particular feature ..some point XYZ which it seems was still under Paki occupation and was reportedly cleared afterwards. ( though i admit, i am not sure what the real situation was??)..

i have nothing against the mods as well... have been a member from donkey years though under a different handle....

[Sanku]

@above

Mods can the previous poster be constrained appropriately so as to not let the forum become a place for needless quibbling discussions?

[Rahul M]

sanku ji, the above could have been said politely too.
in spite of our strong disagreement with his views, can we please not be rude ?
request you to edit the post.

there is no credible way to asscertain casualties on either side

how is that so ? it stands somewhat for the other side but you do know your own casualty figures !!

[Sanku]

request you to edit the post.

Done Sir, its not about views, its about creating an argument for the sake of it.

[RayC]

RayC ....

the point i am making is that a) there is no credible way to asscertain casualties on either side ... both sides will tend to downplay their casualties and inflate figures on the other side ... in the initial days of Kargil, the govt controlled radio was announcing the heavy casualties on the paki sides at a time when we did not even know the magnitude of intrusions, etc b) without going into numbers , one can reasonably expect that a when a 11:1 force is required in a difficult terrain as you mentioned , where would you expect larger casualties? c) my quible with some was the argument that because we used IAF and artillery we caused more casualties on the enemy ... what kind of evidence do we have to substantiate that. Did not the pakis use artillery... and how effective was the IAF really on the groun d) you got me wrong on the objective thing -- what i was trying to say is that achievment of objectives is more important ( which was achieved in Kargil)... rather than no of casualties( though this is also important ..) .

When the Kargil war officially ended the govt said all intrusions have been cleared.. and there was persistent doubts about a particular feature ..some point XYZ which it seems was still under Paki occupation and was reportedly cleared afterwards. ( though i admit, i am not sure what the real situation was??)..

i have nothing against the mods as well... have been a member from donkey years though under a different handle....

To be frank, I am not aware that the Govt radio was stating that there was heavy casualties on the Pak side in the early days. That is news to me.

In the early days, we were groping in the dark and going through what is known as feeling the flanks and fixing the enemy!

Having done that, we went into the offensive to clear the area. I daresay we disappointed the nation, or did we?

Downplaying of casualties would not be possible since the Sitreps (Situation Reports) give day's event which include casualties.

The IAF caused casualties in Mantho Dalo and did a good job there. One PGM got Toger Hill. They were new to HAA warfare.

The arty was effective most in the direct role (not the usual way the arty is used). Lakhwinder is to be given credit for this.

Who cares how the casualties were inflicted on the enemy. The end result is what matters.

[ramana]

And its the NLI that got disbanded by the TSPA as the casualties were too high to keep it going.

manjugu, I find it offensive that under the guise of free speech you are abusing the Indian military and the GOI on a matter of national honor. Veracity on this matter is not a matter for debate. Even after I warned you you are still making the same arguements.
I am banning you for one month as you seem to not understand.

[Jagan]

And its the NLI that got disbanded by the TSPA as the casualties were too high to keep it going.

.

I dont think the NLI got disbanded. Infact it got 'regularised' as full fledged regiment within the PA.

http://www.pakistanarmy.gov.pk/AWPRevie ... 62&rnd=462

the entire force was re-organized into 10 infantry units, 3 mountain batteries and a regimental centre with effect from 1 November 1975.

After outstanding performance in the Kargil conflict of 1999, the entire Northern Light Infantry Regiment was given the status of regular infantry.

[vavinash]

Wasn't it sharif who said that most of the 2700 strength NLI got wiped out? He may be exaggerating to put the heat on mushrraf but even 60 % casuality would easily put the paki dead at 1600 +.

[rohitvats]

ramana, Jagan is right wrt the NLI. The NLI was converted or 'regularized' into a Infantry Regiment from its earlier status which was similar to the Ladakh Scouts. Unless you are referring to the certain battalions of NLI having suffered so many casualties that they siezed to exist as effective fighting force in the battle and had to be disbanded. The regularization was done not as recognition of bravery and honor but to quell the unrest in NLI battalions in particular and Northern Areas in general owing to poor handling of NLI battalions (especially the PBORs) and disowning of the dead.

For any doubting thomases, please read the account of treatment of NLI and its soldiers at this link: http://orbat.com/site/history/historica ... l1999.html

As for the the 'skewed' ratio of casualties, allow me to quote this excerpt from the above link:

The NLI suffered heavier losses than the Indian attackers even though the latter were fighting upmountain because:

NLI posts were isolated and not cross-supported due to the need to grab the maximum territory. Indian forces were able to concentrate against each in turn and overwhelm them. The analogy with the Sino-India War 1962 is obvious.

To avoid alerting the Indians, Pakistan did not improve its communications in this remote area. Consequently, it was unable to adequately resupply its posts. In the absence of proper roads, a large number of porters are required, but because the area is so thinly populated, and because Pakistan did not expect India to retaliate, few porters would have been available.

To avoid escalating the war, Pakistan did not reinforce NLI posts to the extent it could have, either with NLI battalions or regular army battalions.

Most important, India used firepower to an extent unprecedented in South Asia. In just one operation to seize three posts in the Dras area, for example, Indian guns fired over 4000 rounds. This may be quite routine in western armies, but is an unheard of ammunition expenditure in South Asia. Pakistan artillery, which works to a high standard and was a big reason the Indians did not do better in 1965, could not operate effectively once the NLI was pushed off the high piquets and it lost its forward observers.

[ramana]

Unless you are referring to the certain battalions of NLI having suffered so many casualties that they siezed to exist as effective fighting force in the battle and had to be disbanded. The regularization was done not as recognition of bravery and honor but to quell the unrest in NLI battalions in particular and Northern Areas in general owing to poor handling of NLI battalions (especially the PBORs) and disowning of the dead.

yes I was referring ot this. Should have worded it better.

Thanks,

[rohitvats]

Welcome saar...

[Rahul M]

sanku ji thanks. even so, for the sake of decency on BRF and so forth.

[Jagan]

While on the subject of the NLI - The following is the 'unofficial - official NLI killed' from Pakistan

Code: Select all

	Total
3 NLI	5
4 NLI	11
5 NLI	34
6 NLI	35
7 NLI	33
8 NLI	25
9 NLI	1
10 NLI	6
11 NLI	19
12 NLI	58
13 NLI	6
451 Bty	1
Total	234

The source is not the Pak Army but some news publication that tried to find out on its own. The numbers do not reflect Officers, nor other regiments and units involved in the operation - whether the scouts, artillery, regular army etc. So its a starting point.

Indian Army casualties have been so openly documented that it doesnt merit any discussion here on their validity

[kancha]

ramana, Jagan is right wrt the NLI. The NLI was converted or 'regularized' into a Infantry Regiment from its earlier status which was similar to the Ladakh Scouts.

The regularization was done not as recognition of bravery and honor but to quell the unrest in NLI battalions in particular and Northern Areas in general owing to poor handling of NLI battalions (especially the PBORs) and disowning of the dead.

As an aside, their is another similarity between the NLI and the Ladakh Scouts - The Ladakh Scouts was also converted into a regular regiment of the Indian Army, but unlike the NLI, this was for their exemplary in the Kargil War thanks to Maj Sonam Wangchuk and his likes

[Mahendra]

E-mail from Shaheed Nayakuddin







Kaiser Taufel's piece on Kargil in Vayu

[Samay]

HariC.... i am sure you remember the old dictum 'the first casualty in war is truth'.

army/govt always underreport casualties ... for a variety of reasons. anybody from the services will corroborate this.

sorry boss ... the babus have to do it on the bidding of the govt. if you are not familiar with the workings of govt then here is a snapshot...

....

manju ji I accept that you now a lot about babu system and about casualty reporting, but even if we go by your reasoning your good points cannot be validated in this case, because you are rejecting the basic idea what this war was all about, and entering your own fictional ideas,
lets start to cook the soup you should take for good mental health:here are some facts...
1.) There is a proxy war that is being fought between India and baki land since 1990s or even earlier in JnK
2.)India has deployed troops for COIN ops in JK and in other parts as well
3.)Kargil war is said so because it represents Op. Vijay.
please note that op vijay is diff from proxy war and other coin ops in India.
4.)Kargil war was fought in area around kargil-drass sector., and not in rest of the country.,and was not represented by coin ops in rest of the country at that period of time.
5.) As per reports ,casualties on Indian side in 'this' war was 533.
6.) As per reports, casualities on porki side is unknown because of the lying/decieving nature or porkiland,who could not accept the bodies of its own soldiers just in case that its lie will be bursted, or in other way, was trying to make its lie seem true to its citizens and the army for sometime.
7.)Proper /funeral/burial was provided to each Indian soldier martyred in kargil war, first time for any army till 1999.
8.) IA cannot hide the casualty figures because it did not wanted to.

Now, as you claim that babus wanted to hide the details, the possibility in this war was that it cannot happen, as per the procedure initiated(in media as well) was correctly reporting, the casualty reporting was timely,transparent and hence can be calculated.

Secondly the kargil as mentioned above does not represents, ingrates into/ neither is part of the whole proxy war/coin operations that is continued till date, even if it was , your claims of IA hiding the casualty figures doesn't fits beacuse the proxy war casualties we also know,.
also the IA was the defending force ,defending its territory,
logically the baki casualties should be more because their kabutars and f-solah were helpless.

even if all this is wrong ,can you provide any link or documentation other than what has been done to prove your point, other than making your rhetoric and crap statements the way bakis do all the time,.

Any documentation from baki side would be most welcome as they are very professional in documenting other's losses, the way they did 1965 air war (which is still , self propanganda and not true from western acoounts as well).

[Anujan]

There are repeated statements to the effect that the Jags were not so effective as the Mirages in the Kargil campaign (Safedsagar). Is there any truth to this ? If so why ? Are the upgrades to the Jags going to address these issues ?

[Lalmohan]

the jags were then capable of iron bombing mostly, although i have read that 1 was suited up with litening for a pgm mission. mirages i expect were more compatible with litening and pgm combo. iron bombing was altogether unsuccesfull in the mountains due to difficulty of spotting targets, small area to hit and extreme problems due to steep slopes and high altitude aerodynamics on weapon characteristics

[Samay]

the jags were then capable of iron bombing mostly, although i have read that 1 was suited up with litening for a pgm mission. mirages i expect were more compatible with litening and pgm combo. iron bombing was altogether unsuccesfull in the mountains due to difficulty of spotting targets, small area to hit and extreme problems due to steep slopes and high altitude aerodynamics on weapon characteristics

that means all sorts of problems arise on high altitude warfare,
guess how much effort it would take to get back tibet ??

[Luxtor]

^^^

Tibet is a plateau as opposed to the steep Himalayan mountain chains in the Kargil area, so it may not be that difficult if we can manage the logistics. But in reality you get back Tibet by bombing to hell out of Beijing and Shanghai.

[Anujan]

the jags were then capable of iron bombing mostly, although i have read that 1 was suited up with litening for a pgm mission. mirages i expect were more compatible with litening and pgm combo. iron bombing was altogether unsuccesfull in the mountains due to difficulty of spotting targets, small area to hit and extreme problems due to steep slopes and high altitude aerodynamics on weapon characteristics

Lalmohan saar
This is what confuses me. It was claimed in the article "The Mirage 2000 in Kargil" (By Philip Camp) in the IAF history pages of BRF that

Only 9 LGB’s were dropped during the whole war, 8 by the Mirage fleet and one by a Jaguar

The other article also claims that bulk of the attacks were from dumb bomb attacks. Is it the case that
(a) The jags were somehow not compatible with the Laser Kits ?
(b) Unable to operate at that altitude and/or the operation range/weapons capacity at that altitude was low ?
(c) Bombing runs were inaccurate ?

If it is something to do with the targetting system, are the Jag upgrades going to fix this ?

[Lalmohan]

Well Anujan, in my capacity as Chief Engineer (Weapons Branch) IAF, I can assure you that we have done a JV/TOT with Star Fleet Command and from next year all Jaguars will be fitted with Photon Torpedos and will be sequenced by a Death Star onto pak targets. its all downhill from there on

[Rahul M]

from Rupak :

They used 454kg bombs kitted out with paveway kits. The Jaguar strike failed to have the desired effect. The Jaguars were called away since it was felt that the terrain did not allow optimal use of the aircraft (the pilot had to aim and fly in difficult terrain) and because the aircraft were weak on countermeasures and loitering was to be avoided. All subsequent Jag sorties were recce only.

Yes, they carried ATLIS.

[RayC]

Well Anujan, in my capacity as Chief Engineer (Weapons Branch) IAF, I can assure you that we have done a JV/TOT with Star Fleet Command and from next year all Jaguars will be fitted with Photon Torpedos and will be sequenced by a Death Star onto pak targets. its all downhill from there on

Could you amplify for folks like me?

What is Photon and Death Star and what can it achieve?

What is Star Fleet Command?

[vavinash]

If you follow Startrek series you would know. I am surprised he left out Klingon cloaking devices for the jags.

[RayC]

If you follow Startrek series you would know. I am surprised he left out Klingon cloaking devices for the jags.

I have very little time for fiction.

Could you educate?

[Lalmohan]

If you follow Startrek series you would know. I am surprised he left out Klingon cloaking devices for the jags.

I have very little time for fiction.

Could you educate?

very off topic, but just for the Brigadier's benefit
Star Trek

and

Death Star

no more to be said

[HariC]

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... l-kind-069

THIS past week the Commando, and his sidekick the Private Banker, or shall we say Tweedledum and Tweedledee, were interviewed by a private TV channel in London, where they live in the lap of luxury after shoving the country into the pit it is in. By gad, do they have brass, the both of them!
The most interesting part of the Commando’s interview was the Kargil misadventure. As usual, he stood the matter on its head and, again as usual, fibbed away to glory with panache, and flair that only the very brazen have, and asserted that he never advised Nawaz Sharif that we should withdraw from Kargil.

On the July 3, 1999, the Commando tells us, he briefed the defence committee of the cabinet on the ‘military aspects’ of Kargil. He says he told the DCC that of the five ‘places’ (whatever the term means), the Indians had only taken one back; had taken two or three posts in one, and that three were completely ‘untouched’ because they did not even know we were there — ‘un ko pataa hee nahin tha’.

He also ‘analysed a limited war with India in Kashmir’, whatever that means, as also the air and naval aspects of a ‘total war’ with India. According to himself, he told Nawaz Sharif and 15 others present there, including the air and navy chiefs, that ‘we were militarily alright’ and that the Indians were on a ‘very, very weak wicket’. They were ‘weak’ said the Commando because they had ‘moved all their forces to Kargil as also all their artillery’. ALL their forces; ALL their artillery?! Little wonder that we got ourselves in the sort of trouble that we did under his able command, what?

Throughout the briefing, says the Commando, Nawaz Sharif kept asking him if we should withdraw from Kargil to which he replied that he had given his ‘military assessment’ and that it was now for the prime minister to take the ‘political decision’.

Then he goes into the details of how, a day later, he was called back from a weekend in Murree with his family — this weekend at a time that our poorly equipped and poorly fed soldiers were dying in Kargil please note — to meet Nawaz Sharif at the Islamabad airport where the PM told him he was off to Washington, and asked him yet again if we should withdraw from Kargil. To which he answered as theretofore.

Of course, the Commando conveniently forgot to tell us poor Pakistanis who were witness to the Kargil disaster these many years ago, and who were now listening agog to this nonsense, that his tight buddy Marine Gen Anthony Zinni, then commander US Central Command, had visited Pakistan in the third week of June and had met him first and then the PM.

In Gen Zinni’s own words in his book Battle Ready (GP Putnam’s Sons): ‘I was … directed by the administration to head a presidential mission to Pakistan to convince Prime Minister Sharif and General Musharraf to withdraw their forces from Kargil. I met with the Pakistani leaders in Islamabad on June 24 and 25 and put forth a simple rationale for withdrawing: ‘If you don’t pull back, you’re going to bring war and nuclear annihilation down on your country. That’s going to be very bad news for everybody’.

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

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

Again, exactly a year later (June 20, 2000) this is what Gen Zinni said in Abu Dhabi: ‘I talked to Mr Sharif and the chief of staff and convinced them to take steps to ease tensions and to withdraw from Kargil. They agreed. There was no interest I found in the Pakistanis to see the situation escalate beyond control from either side and they cooperated, making the decision on their own,’ he said.

If this doesn’t prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the Commando played fast and free with his office and the authority flowing from it then nothing will; from first starting Kargil, and then lying about how well we were doing. Nor was this the only misstatement of facts indulged in by him during the interview which the interviewer should have pointed out. In the matter of the mayhem in Swat, and the delayed action of the security establishment, he has tried to put the main blame on the elected government that was nowhere on the scene when he and his cohorts were making a mess of things.