Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 03:17, 11 December 2024

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Kargil War. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Kargil War at the Reference desk.

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Kargil War is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 10, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 18, 2006 Peer review Reviewed February 22, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted October 20, 2008 Featured article review Demoted Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 26, 2009, and July 26, 2010. Current status: Former featured article

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Spoken Misplaced Pages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages India: History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as High-importance). This article is a selected article on the India portal, which means that it was selected as a high quality India-related article. This article was last assessed in May 2012. International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Asian / Indian / South Asia / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Indian military history task force South Asian military history task force Post-Cold War task force Pakistan Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Pakistani history.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is within the scope of the Indian and Pakistani Wikipedians cooperation board. Please see the project page for more details, to request intervention on the notification board or peruse other tasks.

Archives

Archive 1 (Dec 2004–Oct 2009) Archive 2 (Nov 2009–Dec 2017)

Beware of the plagiarists

I found this unsourced passage in the article, which has apparently been there since 2008 in some form:

During the winter season, due to extreme cold in the snow-capped mountainous areas of Kashmir, it was a common practice for both the Indian and Pakistan Armies to abandon some forward posts on their respective sides of the LOC and to reduce patrolling of areas that may be avenues of infiltration. When weather conditions became less severe, forward posts would be reoccupied and patrolling resumed.

When I look for sources, I find very much the same passage in two places:

During the winter season, due to extreme cold in the snow-capped mountainous areas of Kashmir, it was a common practice for both the Indian and Pakistan armies to abandon some forward posts on their respective sides of the Line of Control (LOC) and to reduce patrolling of areas that may be avenues of infiltration. When weather conditions became less severe, forward posts would be reoccupied and patrolling resumed.

and

During the winter season, due to extreme cold in the snow-capped mountainous areas of Kashmir, it was a common practice for both the Indian and Pakistan Armies to abandon some forward posts on their respective sides of the LoC and to reduce patrolling of areas that may be avenues of infiltration.

I am getting rid of the unsourced passage. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

References

1. Jha, Dr U C; Ratnabali, Dr K (2017), The Law of Armed Conflict: An Introduction, Vij Books India Pvt Ltd, pp. 48–, ISBN 978-93-85563-92-8
2. Chandar, Col Y Udaya (2018), Independent India's All the Seven Wars, Notion Press, pp. 535–, ISBN 978-1-948473-22-4

Result in infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Y . Consensus for change.∯WBG 13:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

As a part of my current focus to accurately reflect the correct results on "list of wars" articles, I was thinking of changing the results of this page but later I thought of notifying/discussing first. The war ended as Indian victory. I will try discovering more sources. These sources are probably enough for such inclusion and there is no support for the contrary. Sdmarathe (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sdmarathe: Reiterating here what I said on Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. Please let the discussion play out. I will need some time to look at this and respond back. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The two sources above are excellent and comply with WP:RS when it comes to the inclusion of results as an Indian victory. I note that sources also mention that India "registered a decisive victory in Kargil." --RaviC (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support The third party neutral sources look good to me. I support the proposal by User:Sdmarathe--DBigXray 14:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I am back now with more sources. Like I said, there are a substantial number of reliable sources that support the fact that India won the Kargil war hands down—there's no two ways about it. Some of these I will mention:

• MacDonald, Myra (2017). Defeat is an Orphan: How Pakistan Lost the Great South Asian War. Oxford University Press. pp. 27, 53, 64, 66. ISBN 978-1-84904-858-3. p. 27: It was not so much that India won the Great South Asian War but that Pakistan lost it.p. 53: The story of the Kargil War—Pakistan's biggest defeat by India since 1971 —is one that goes to the heart of why it lost the Great South Asian War.p. 64: Afterwards, Musharraf and his supporters would claim that Pakistan won the war militarily and lost it diplomatically. In reality, the military and diplomatic tides turned against Pakistan in tandem.p. 66: For all its bravado, Pakistan had failed to secure even one inch of land. Less than a year after declaring itself a nuclear-armed power, Pakistan had been humiliated diplomatically and militarily.
• Lavoy, Peter René, ed. (2009). Asymmetric Warfare in South Asia: The Causes and Consequences of the Kargil Conflict. Cambridge University Press. p. 180. ISBN 978-0-521-76721-7. The false optimism of the architects of the Kargil intrusion, colored by the illusion of a cheap victory, was not only the main driver of the operation, and hence the crisis, it also was the cause of Pakistan's most damaging military defeat since the loss of East Pakistan in December 1971.
• Tellis, Ashley J.; Fair, C. Christine; Medby, Jamison Jo (2002). Limited Conflicts Under the Nuclear Umbrella: Indian and Pakistani Lessons from the Kargil Crisis. Rand Corporation. p. 51. ISBN 978-0-8330-3229-4. policymakers were of the opinion that Pakistan's defeat at Kargil did not imply the abdication of its traditional objective of weakening India. Rather, the defeat at Kargil was only likely to catalyze the Pakistani imagination in more fervid ways and precipitate a search for more novel means of attacking Indian interests.
• Reiter, Erich; Hazdra, Peter (2013). The Impact of Asian Powers on Global Developments. Springer. p. 9. ISBN 978-3-662-13172-5. Diethelm Weidemann in his analysis of the recent Kargil conflict between India and Pakistan. As one of the reasons for Pakistan's defeat, Weidemann accentuates the erroneous Pakistani assumption of the inherent superiority of Pakistani soldiers over Indian ones.
• Dettman, Paul R. (2001). India Changes Course: Golden Jubilee to Millennium. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 130, 131, 140, 177. ISBN 978-0-275-97308-7. p. 130: the BJP could go to the people as the party that had undergirded India's victory over Pakistan in the Kargil 'war'.p. 131: Another of India's institutions that had benefited from India's victory in the Kargil war was its military establishment.p. 140: He went on to take credit for the conduct of a "war" effort that had led to a diplomatic as well as a military victory.p. 177: For India, Vajpayee had led the military and diplomatic effort that had won the Kargil "war." For the world, he had done so while keeping India's armed forces on their own side of the LOC in Kashmir and he had prevented the outbreak of a multi-front general war with Pakistan.
• Cohen, Stephen P.; Dasgupta, Sunil (2013). Arming without Aiming: India's Military Modernization. Brookings Institution Press. p. 42. ISBN 978-0-8157-2492-6. It is noteworthy that the Indian Army moved robustly toward raising its close air-support assets following Kargil. India won the battle, but then victory should never have been in question.
• Carranza, Mario Esteban (2013). South Asian Security and International Nuclear Order: Creating a Robust Indo-Pakistani Nuclear Arms Control Regime. Routledge. p. 82. ISBN 978-1-317-05226-5. India was not deterred from launching a successful counteroffensive on its side of the LOC by the possibility of a Pakistani first use of nuclear weapons; and won the Kargil war both at the military and diplomatic fronts. India could have won the war much faster and less bloodily by attacking the intruders' supply lines in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir.
• Conley, Jerome M. (2001). Indo-Russian Military and Nuclear Cooperation: Lessons and Options for U.S. Policy in South Asia. Lexington Books. p. 74. ISBN 978-0-7391-0217-6. While the end state of the conflict appeared to point to an Indian victory over Pakistani aggression, the nature of the combat operations in Kargil highlighted numerous shortcomings in the combat readiness of India's conventional forces in the post-Pokhran II era.
• Perkovich, George (2002). India's Nuclear Bomb: The Impact on Global Proliferation. University of California Press. p. 479. ISBN 978-0-520-23210-5. The Kargil war ended as had previous wars, with an Indian victory.
• Baxter, Craig, ed. (2004). Pakistan on the Brink: Politics, Economics, and Society. Lexington Books. p. 23. ISBN 978-0-7391-0498-9. While the Indians had suffered heavy casualties, their military and political victory at Kargil was a galvanizing factor for Indian pride and determination not to yield to Pakistani pressure.
• Murphy, Eamon (2013). The Making of Terrorism in Pakistan: Historical and Social Roots of Extremism. Routledge. p. 128. ISBN 978-0-415-56526-4. Pakistan had been humiliated. The military defeat was compounded by the diplomatic isolation of Pakistan, which was now viewed internationally as the aggressor....In any event, Kargil was a military and diplomatic disaster for Pakistan and for democracy and led to the military coup that deposed Sharif. Benazir Bhutto claimed, with some exaggeration, that: 'Kargil was Pakistan's biggest blunder. Most objective analysts agree that the Kargil incident was a failure, although Musharraf adamantly continued to claim that it was a success.
• Kapur, S. Paul (2009). Dangerous Deterrent: Nuclear Weapons Proliferation and Conflict in South Asia. NUS Press. p. 131. ISBN 978-9971-69-443-2. The Kargil operation's failure was costly for Pakistan from both a political and a military standpoint. The adventure contributed to Pakistan's reputation as a revisionist, irresponsible state. In addition, Pakistan lost hundreds of soldiers, it was diplomatically isolated, and it experienced increased civil— military tension, which contributed to the October 1999 coup. And as we have seen, in the end, Pakistani forces withdrew from the area.
• Davis, Z. (ed.). The India-Pakistan Military Standoff: Crisis and Escalation in South Asia. Springer. ISBN 978-0-230-11876-8. p. 4: The Indians hoped to capitalize on both their military victory at Kargil and the subsequent coup that deposed Nawaz Sharif and thrust Pervez Musharraf into power in order to prevail over Pakistan in the larger Kashmir dispute. p. 5: despite its victory in the Kargil war, the Indian government could not crush the Kashmir insurgency, and could not even prevent attacks in the heart of the Indian state.p. 20: more specifically, Pakistan's willingness to escalate violence in Jammu and Kashmir to dangerous and possibly war-inducing levels, despite its recent defeat in Kargil. Sdmarathe (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support Sdmarathe has a done a commendable job in compiling all the reliable source about the Kargil war result. After having a careful look at the sources, It is clear that the result section should state "Indian Victory".

Per Template:Infobox military conflict, the result parameter should accurately describe the outcome, it should accurately reflect what the sources say to comply with neutrality. I would also like to add that a number of sources describe the result as "decisive" Indian victory. Razer(talk) 07:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• I also support Indian victory or decisive Indian victory giving the large amount of high quality sources supporting such. Not to point that Pakistani politicians such as Nawaz Sharif also agreed that war was defeat for Pakistan. My Lord (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

"As two prime ministers of Pakistan later acknowledged, 'Kargil war was Pakistan's biggest blunder and disaster." "He also admitted that Pakistan was defeated in Kargil" , "He argued that had he accepted defeat then.." Sharif gave a lengthy interview to India Today about this. My Lord (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support Indian victory per policy supporting comments above and heavy number of reliable sources. Satpal Dandiwal (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The conflict ended with status quo ante bellum. An invasion of one side over the other was repelled, pre-war land control and leadership was restored, there were no "war winners" or "war losers", no peace treaties, war reparations, etc. It is even technically incorrect to call this a war (even though sources use this word) as it was actually a minor conflict, almost can be called a border skirmish (temporary occupation of some uninhabited land by a few hundred troops). It was not a declared war in the legal sense. — kashmīrī  08:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Come on, Kashmiri. You have been here long enough to know that that doesn't wash. Are you saying that all the reliable sources given here have no clue and you know better? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I think I should have clarified better that there is a distinction between being defeated in a military operation (which is what the majorirty of above quotes say) and being the side that legally lost the war. One concerns military technique, the other concerns legal proceedings. The legal re-establishment of status quo ante is the doubtless indicator that neither side was to be legally recognised as winner or loser. Similarly, continuing encroachments and repels on many borders (Armenia-Azerbaijan, Iraq-Turkey, the two Sudans, etc.) do not mean that the repelling side "won the war". — kashmīrī  10:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I would like to read some reliable sources that would lend support to your overview. Remember that this war was more than just skirmishes and was different in each aspect than any other war. There was status quo, was Pakistan was defeated given their failure to annex Kargil district. Orientls (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support: Reliable sources appear to overwhelmingly state that India decisively won the Kargil War. If a small number of sources say otherwise, we could briefly note that in the article body, but not the infobox. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Thus far, a number of editors have supported that the results should state "Decisive Indian victory", in accordance with the sources, so there is a clear consensus on this. I've also found another reliable source for this and have made changes in the infobox accordingly. --RaviC (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support change to "Indian victory". Thanks to Sdmarathe once again, for a good job of culling the sources. I would also like to note that this was a war between two nuclear powers under a nuclear umbrella. The norms for gauging such a thing are quite different from traditional wars. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

"temperate" and "-54 degrees F" do not go together

This article says that Kargil enjoys a "temperate" climate: cool summers with frigid nights, and long cold winters where the temperature often reaches -54° F. That is NOT a "temperate" climate. In a temperate climate, a temperature of -25° F is extremely cold, and is a rare event. This article describes a cold, alpine climate, colder than a continental climate. --Ed Rigdon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erigdon (talk • contribs) 20:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, @Erigdon:, I do get your point, what is your suggestion , do you have a proposal to change some X to Y ? --DBigXray 15:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it can be classified as alpine climate too, since the range of temperatures is −48 to +35 °C. —Gazoth (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Classifying it as continental climate seems to be fine, as Kargil district#Climate puts the highest temperature of the coldest month (January) at −4.3 °C. I've made the change to the page. —Gazoth (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Related to Brigadier Surinder Singh

Which exact section and paragraph of the Kargil Review Committee report mentions Brigadier Surinder Singh by name? I will go through the original report for his name more carefully but if someone else can find out faster than that would be of great help. The current news sources in the article where he is mentioned in the KRC section do not address this specific question and hence I am asking this here for clarification. Was it only a separate army inquiry that named him, or even the KRC report? And if so, where is here mentioned in the report? If it was only a separate army inquiry, than the current wordings in the article are misleading. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

US blocks GPS signal for this conflict, no mention in article

https://m.timesofindia.com/home/science/How-Kargil-spurred-India-to-design-own-GPS/articleshow/33254691.cms

Does anybody else have an idea how to integrate this info? I'm not sure where it should go, but it certainly seems important enough to be included Ninjalectual (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

That is not what the source says. It says that "GPS data" was denied, more accurately, it would have been satellite data, perhaps even fine-resolution satellite images. The need for these was pressed by Brig. Surinder Singh long before the Kargil war, but the army and the political leadership gave a cold shoulder to it:

In order to address the emerging situation, the briefing note continued, a spectrum of new weapons, mainly heavy artillery and missiles, was urgently needed. In addition, the briefing note called for the use of 'one air OP (Observation) fl(igh)t for obs(ervatio)n and dir(ection) of fire /casevac (casualty evacuation) to be loc(ated) at Kargil'. It also demanded the deployment of a remotely piloted vehicle, among other things, and a regular supply of aerial photos and satellite images. All these, it is worth noting, were indeed used, once the 1999 war broke out.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

References

1. Rao, H. S. Gururaja (2002), Legal Aspects of the Kashmir Problem, Minerva Press, p. 277, ISBN 978-81-7662-197-7

DiplomatTesterMan, Kautilya3, Ninjalectual I think the aftermath section at Kargil_War#India seems to be the most reasonable option to add this information about "denial of GPS data" and development of indigenous SATNAV. The idea may have existed before but this event was made it a reality, I don't see any solid reason not to mention this. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, good plan. See the IRNSS page and these articles:

• India completes its GPS alternative, for the second time, The Register, 13 April 2018.
• Gurbir Singh, How India built NavIC, the country's own GPS network, Plantery Society, 17 July 2018.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• It has been mentioned by me in Operation Safed Sagar. Please read https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/ This article explains the difference between civilian and military modes of the US GPS. It made little difference to the IAF. The MiG-21 and 27 had no navigation equipment of note and were employed for area bombing rather than pinpoit bombing, the latter task being allotted to the Mirage 2000 when it joined battle. The GPS was not required for LGBs or for carpet bombing with 4 or 6 x 250 kg dumb bombs. The US Govt did deny India the military version of the GPS, but the civilian version was adequate for high-level navigation.
• The Indian Army probably needed the military version, as they were trekking through areas which could have fallen in zones not accessible to one frequency of the GPS, at times both, due terrain. The Military version was not available.
• Moitranaak (talk)10:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Related to the point made in "Result" section

The editor who edited this 2 hours ago, has blatantly ignored the fact and edited this to satisfy his and his country people's ego.His name happens to be younis chandio. I s h u17 (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Independent estimates of losses

@Shashank5988: Routledge is a publisher and reliability is primarily determined by the author and their sources. Leaving that aside, the two sources are not even comparable in this case. Your new source quotes an estimate without attributing it to anybody, while the older source explicitly attributes it to United States Department of State which demonstrates that it is an independent estimate. The author Ravi Kalia could have been quoting anybody's estimates and there is nothing in the source to show that it is an independent estimate. —Gazoth (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable references which also treat those US department figures as "independent"? Shashank5988 (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The cited source itself does. —Gazoth (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Respected Sir/Madame, I request you to allow me to edit this web page because a few claims made by Nawaz Sharref have to be removed. Nawaz Sharref has been declared corrupt and a liar by the supreme court of Pakistan. ( https://www.dawn.com/news/1401362 )This link is for reference. A person's opinion has no value if he has been declared a liar according to article 62. I suggest you allow me to change the number of Pakistani casualties told by Nawaz Sharref . I hope you accept my request. Yours sincerely Global Reporter100 Global reporter100 (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 19:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Alucard 16, this is a ridiculous reply to a ridiculous question. ∯WBG 18:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Rework Air Effort under a separate heading

--Moitraanak (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC) The section India attacks Pakistani positions needs reworking. The Air Effort needs to be written as a stand alone topic. It could be re-integrated with the main body subsequently. I will do so next week.

--Moitraanak (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)My online link to Misplaced Pages was disconnected halfway through my proposal. That is a lot of work gone waste.

KARGIL WAR: Section --India attacks Pakistani positions

The section referred to above is an unhappy mix of Indian Army and Air Force efforts. I propose to bifurcate the two as shown below. I will wait until March 31 for comments.

India attacks Pakistani positions

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

The terrain of Kashmir is mountainous and at high altitudes; even the best roads, such as National Highway 1D from Leh to Srinagar, are only two lanes. The rough terrain and narrow roads slowed down traffic, and the high altitude, which affected the ability of aircraft to carry loads, made control of NH 1D (the actual stretch of the highway which was under Pakistani fire) a priority for India. From their observation posts, the Pakistani forces had a clear line-of-sight to lay down indirect artillery fire on NH 1D, inflicting heavy casualties on the Indians. This was a serious problem for the Indian Army as the highway was the main logistical and supply route. The Pakistani shelling of the arterial road posed the threat of Leh being cut off, though an alternative (and longer) road to Leh existed via Himachal Pradesh.

The infiltrators, apart from being equipped with small arms and grenade launchers, were also armed with mortars, artillery and anti-aircraft guns. Many posts were also heavily mined, with India later stating to have recovered more than 8,000 anti-personnel mines according to an ICBL report. Pakistan's reconnaissance was done through unmanned aerial vehicles and AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder radars supplied by the US. The initial Indian attacks were aimed at controlling the hills overlooking NH 1D, with high priority being given to the stretches of the highway near the town of Kargil. The majority of posts along the Line of Control were adjacent to the highway, and therefore the recapture of nearly every infiltrated post increased both the territorial gains and the security of the highway. The protection of this route and the recapture of the forward posts were thus ongoing objectives throughout the war.

The Indian Army's first priority was to recapture peaks that were in the immediate vicinity of NH 1D. This resulted in Indian troops first targeting the Tiger Hill and Tololing complex in Dras, which dominated the Srinagar-Leh route. This was soon followed by the Batalik-Turtok sub-sector which provided access to Siachen Glacier. Some of the peaks that were of vital strategic importance to the Pakistani defensive troops were Point 4590 and Point 5353. While 4590 was the nearest point that had a view of NH 1D, point 5353 was the highest feature in the Dras sector, allowing the Pakistani troops to observe NH 1D. The recapture of Point 4590 by Indian troops on 14 June was significant, notwithstanding the fact that it resulted in the Indian Army suffering the most casualties in a single battle during the conflict. Though most of the posts in the vicinity of the highway were cleared by mid-June, some parts of the highway near Drass witnessed sporadic shelling until the end of the war.

Once India regained control of the hills overlooking NH 1D, the Indian Army turned to driving the invading force back across the Line of Control. The Battle of Tololing, amongst other assaults, slowly tilted the combat in India's favour. The Pakistani troops at Tololing were aided by Pakistani fighters from Kashmir. Some of the posts put up a stiff resistance, including Tiger Hill (Point 5140) that fell only later in the war. Indian troops found well-entrenched Pakistani soldiers at Tiger Hill, and both sides suffered heavy casualties. After a final assault on the peak in which ten Pakistani soldiers and five Indian soldiers were killed, Tiger Hill finally fell. A few of the assaults occurred atop hitherto unheard of peaks – most of them unnamed with only Point numbers to differentiate them – which witnessed fierce hand to hand combat.

As the operation was fully underway, about 250 artillery guns were brought in to clear the infiltrators in the posts that were in the line-of-sight. The Bofors FH-77B field howitzer played a vital role, with Indian gunners making maximum use of the terrain. However, its success was limited elsewhere due to the lack of space and depth to deploy it.

In many vital points, neither artillery nor air power could dislodge the outposts manned by the Pakistani soldiers, who were out of visible range. The Indian Army mounted some direct frontal ground assaults which were slow and took a heavy toll given the steep ascent that had to be made on peaks as high as 5,500 metres (18,000 ft). Since any daylight attack would be suicidal, all the advances had to be made under the cover of darkness, escalating the risk of freezing. Accounting for the wind chill factor, the temperatures were often as low as −15 to −11 °C (5 to 12 °F) near the mountain tops. Based on military tactics, much of the costly frontal assaults by the Indians could have been avoided if the Indian Military had chosen to blockade the supply route of the opposing force, creating a siege. Such a move would have involved the Indian troops crossing the LOC as well as initiating aerial attacks on Pakistani soil, a manoeuvre India was not willing to exercise fearing an expansion of the theatre of war and reduced international support for its cause.

The Air War

It was in this type of terrain that aerial attacks were called for. The Indian Govt cleared use of offensive Air Power only on May 25, with the caveat that IAF fighter jets were not to cross the Line of Control under any circumstance, for fear of undesirable escalation. Surprisingly, there was no opposition at all by the Pakistan Air Force (PAF), leaving the IAF free to carry out its attacks with total freedom.

The Indian Air Force (IAF) flew its first air support missions on 26 May, operating from the Indian airfields of Srinagar, Awantipora and Adampur, with MiG-21s, MiG-23s, MiG-27s, SEPECAT Jaguars and helicopter gunships striking insurgent positions. On 27 May, a MiG-27 strike aircraft, piloted by Flt. Lt. Nachiketa was lost to engine failure, and its escorting MiG-21 fighter, which circled the area to locate Nachiketa, was shot down by a shoulder-fired Stinger missile. Nachiketa was captured but the MiG-21 pilot, Sqn Ldr Ajay Ahuja, was killed by his captors and his body returned with two close-quarter bullet wounds. The next day, an Indian Mi-17 helicopter with four crew was also lost to Stinger SAMs. Tactics were changed immediately to preclude similar losses.

The LGB capable Mirage 2000 fleet was inducted on 30 May, and used extensively, armed initially with 250 kg "dumb" bombs, as technical problems had to be resolved to permit use of Litening laser designators and Paveway kits for Laser-guided bombs (LGBs). Moreover, aiming index solutions had to be found by all aircraft of the IAF to cater to reduced air density and concomitant variation in ballistic trajectory when hitting targets at heights 6,000’ to 18,000’ AMSL and keeping outside any MANPADS launch range. The receding snowline in June laid bare the hitherto camouflaged Pakistani positions, opening them up to non-stop day and night attacks by the Mirage 2000 and, subsequently, all aircraft.

On June 17, Mirage 2000s destroyed the enemy’s main administrative and logistics depot at Muntho Dhalo in the Batalik sector using 1,000-pound dumb bombs with both demoralising and paralysing results. Through the last weeks of June, the Mirages, armed with LGBs as well as with "dumbs", repeatedly struck the heavily defended Tiger Hill. Interestingly, only 9 LGBs were used in this war, 8 by the Mirage to take out command and control bunkers, and one by a Jaguar, as the dumb bombs proved highly effective. The Mirage 2000 proved its worth in this war, albeit without enemy opposition.

Moitraanak (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

References

1. "Indian general praises Pakistani valour at Kargil". Daily Times. 5 May 2003. Archived from the original on 16 January 2009. Retrieved 20 May 2009. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
2. Kashmir in the Shadow of War By Robert Wirsing Published by M.E. Sharpe, 2003 ISBN 0-7656-1090-6 p. 36
3. INDIA’S MAJOR MILITARY & RESCUE OPERATIONS By Dr. Hemant Kumar Pandey & Manish Raj Singh Published by Horizon Books, 2017 ISBN 9386369397|p.191
4. "Landmine monitor – India". Icbl.org. Retrieved 15 June 2012.
5. "Indian Army gets hostile weapon locating capability". webindia123.com.
6. INDIA'S BORDERLAND DISPUTES China, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal By Anna Orton Epitome Books, 2010 ISBN 9789380297156|
7. Adekeye Adebajo and Chandra Lekha Sriram, ed. (2001). Managing Armed Conflicts in the 21st Century. London: Frank Cass Publishers. pp. 192–193. ISBN 0714681369.
8. Swami, Praveen (30 June 2004). "Commander ordered capture of Point 5353 in Kargil war". The Hindu. Chennai, India. Retrieved 20 May 2009.
9. Barua, Pradeep P. (2005). The State at War in South Asia. University of Nebraska Press. p. 261. ISBN 978-0-8032-1344-9.
10. WORLD FAMOUS MILITARY OPERATIONS By Vikas Khatri Published by Pustak Mahal, 2011 ISBN 978-81-223-1250-8 pp. 62-71
11. "WORLD FAMOUS MILITARY OPERATIONS". Pustak Mahal. Retrieved Mar 15, 2019.
12. WORLD FAMOUS MILITARY OPERATIONS By Vikas Khatri Published by Pustak Mahal, 2011 ISBN 978-81-223-1250-8 pp. 62-71
13. "IAF planned to bomb targets in Pakistan during Kargil War". The Economic Times.
14. "HOW THE IAF DOMINATED THE SKIES DURING KARGIL WAR". Indian Defence News.
15. "PAF Role in Kargil War by PAF Officer". Pakistan Defence.
16. India launches Kashmir air attack. BBC News. May 26 1999
17. ^ Air Forces Monthly (136). Stamford, Lincolnshire, UK: Key Publishing Limited: Pages 74–75. July 1999. ISSN 0955-7091.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: untitled periodical (link)
18. Tribune News Service (30 May 1999). "Ahuja was shot at point-blank range: report". The Tribune. Retrieved 7 January 2012.
19. "1999 Kargil Conflict". GlobalSecurity.org. Retrieved 20 May 2009.
20. https://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/history/kargil/1056-pcamp.html
21. "The Mirage 2000 in Kargil". Bharat Rakshak.
22. "Airpower at 18,000': The Indian Air Force in the Kargil War". CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE.
23. https://carnegieendowment.org/2012/09/20/airpower-at-18-000-indian-air-force-in-kargil-war/dvc4
24. http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/history/kargil/1056-pcamp.html

Biased Article Does Not Reflect Ground Realities

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Why is there no mention mention of the several peaks Pakistan captured in 1999 and continue to hold on to this day? Recapturing one peak (Tiger Hill) and claiming overall victory is ridiculous, but then again so are imaginary surgical strikes. It seems like this was initially reported in the Indian media but then hushed up to avoid embarrassment.

The Hindu wrote this in August 2000: "Pakistan soldiers perched at peak 5353 metres, on the strategic Marpo La Ridge had a grandstand view of this year's Vijay Diwas celebrations, marking the official end of the Kargil war. At least some of them must had wry smiles on their faces, for although peak 5,353 metres is inside the Indian side of the Line of Control (LoC), Pakistani troops held the mountain through the Kargil war and continue to do so today."

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Qwerfjkltalk 21:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Peaks captured by Pakistan in 1999

• Point 5353
• Point Aftab-I
• Point Saddle Ridge
• Point Bunker Ridge
• Shangruti
• Dhalunag
• Tiger Hill

Peaks recaptured by India in 1999

• Tiger Hill

Peaks still under Pakistan control as of 2019

• Point 5353
• Point Aftab-I
• Point Saddle Ridge
• Point Bunker Ridge
• Shangruti
• Dhalunag

Quotes

• "Pakistan is occupying at least six strategically located Indian peaks in the Kargil sector along the Line of Control" - Rajya Sabha member & senior criminal advocate R K Anand. (30 August 2000)

• "Point 5353 is very strategic. In 1992-93, the then corps commander (of India) decided to make a shift pocket on this point and sent personnel there by helicopter. The officers posted there successfully cut off the entire supply to the Pakistani pockets along the LoC for nearly two months."...he said the Indian Army then claimed that point 5353 is "within our LoC and that we have every right to patrol the area." - Rajya Sabha member & senior criminal advocate R K Anand. (30 August 2000)

• "Indian troops had tried to capture Point 5353 on May 18, 1999 when army operations were beginning in Operation Vijay in Kargil last year. But it failed...the operation was carried out by a team of soldiers led by Major Navneet Mehta."..."It is not possible to carry out an assault from the northwestern, western and south western approaches,"..."attack on 5353 called off due to bad weather" and that "13 OR (other ranks) injured in Maj Navneet's Pl (platoon) due to difficult trn (terrain)". - Rajya Sabha member & senior criminal advocate R K Anand. (30 August 2000)

• "If the army's argument that Point 5353 was never India's is to be accepted, then why did they launch the attack?" - Rajya Sabha member & senior criminal advocate R K Anand. (30 August 2000)

• "It looks like our army commanders are wrongly briefing the defence minister," he said when Fernandes' statement was pointed out. "The defence minister mislead Parliament on the basis of the briefing by army officers," Anand said, while demanding action against senior army commanders. - Rajya Sabha member & senior criminal advocate R K Anand. (30 August 2000)

Sources

1. 'Commander ordered capture of Point 5353 in Kargil war', By Praveen Swami. NEW DELHI, 29 June 2000 - THE HINDU

1. 'Pakistan still occupies key Drass point', by Praveen Swami. DRASS, 10 August 2000 - THE HINDU

1. 'Fact and fiction on Point 5353; The defence establishment's response to the controversy over Point 5353 plumbs new depths' by Praveen Swami. 30 September 2000 - FRONTLINE

1. ‘6 Kargil heights in Pak control’. NEW DELHI, 30 August 2000 - Tribune India

1. 'Pakistan occupying six Indian peaks, claims MP' by Josy Joseph. NEW DELHI, 30 August 2000 - REDIFF

1. 'Not convinced we won Kargil: Lt Gen Kishan Pal to NDTV' by Nitin Gokhale. NEW DELHI 31 May 2010 00:36 IST - NDTV

1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/904482.stm

1. http://www.ipcs.org/event-report/3rd-ipcs-round-table-discussion-on-the-kargil-crisis-524.html#http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/with-pakistans-determination-to-prolong-kargil-offensive-india-revises-time-frame-of-war/1/254326.html

1. https://www.telegraphindia.com/1020828/asp/frontpage/story_1144073.asp

--99.244.148.132 (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you wish to compose that in the form of edit request (change X to Y) ? El_C 00:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could you change the security settings so that nobody except the Misplaced Pages officials can edit pages. This will play a big role in making Misplaced Pages a more reliable site as it is currently banned in many institutions. 103.198.166.28 (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

One of Misplaced Pages's fundamental principles is that anyone can edit almost every page. If there are specific pages you feel need protection under Misplaced Pages's protection policy, you can request they be protected at WP:RFPP. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 12:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the word "killed" to either "casualties" or "killed or injured" at citation no. 11 as the source of this citation uses the word 'casualties' which refers to people killed or injured in a war or accident according to all of the major dictionaries including Oxford, Cambridge, Merriam-Webster and Collins. Helloabc1234 (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Melmann 17:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2409:4052:2E1D:C617:0:0:1A4B:5003 (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DBigXrayᗙ 15:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Kargil conflict in 1999 was generally portrayed as one of the big events in the relation of two neighboring but hostile countries_ Pakistan and India. For Pakistan, it was a defensive strategy, which ultimately went towards a permanent conflict. This conflict erupted along the Line of Control (LOC) in Kashmir. Many agreements related to borders were signed between both countries like Cease Fire Line in 1948 and Simla Agreement and Line of Control (LOC) in 1972. All these agreements failed to meet the desired results because India was persistently violating every agreement and considered them of no value. She violated the agreement of LOC. It showed aggression in Siachen, Nellum Valley and finally in Kargil. There were multiple factors, which led Pakistan and India to war in Kargil. Pakistan’s army won Kargil war militarily but did not win it diplomatically as well as politically. Indian diplomats exploited the conflict and went to get support from America, in which they succeeded. Repercussions of this conflict had been damaging for Pakistan internationally and domestically.it proved that there was a huge communication gap between army and the government.

Kargil conflict has its root in the past, when two agreements were signed between India and Pakistan. First military exchange between India and Pakistan over Kashmir established in 1948 having the name of Cease Fire Line. It was considered international border line between both the countries. In 1972 another agreement was signed namely as Simla Agreement with little modification of what was Cease Line Fire and became Line Of Control (LOC) . In this agreement both countries come to the settlement that both were to be remained in their own dominions within the area of LOC. First violation of LOC was done by India in 1984, when attack had been initiated by Indian army on Siachen and occupied 10 sq Km area across the line. Indian military showed aggression and it was a first challenge to Simla Agreement. A serious conflict was started between both countries. About six talks took place between both rivalries, in which Pakistan was at the point of view that India had to withdraw from the Siachen but Pakistan did not get fruitful results of these talks. Once again in 1988 Indian troops attacked on Qamar Sector, Pakistan’s army did respond but Indian managed to hold 10 posts within Pakistan’s territory. This was accompanied by an Indian attack on Nellum Valley route in Pakistan’s side. These consecutive conflicts proved to be an eye opener for Pakistan because all the agreement failed to prevent an Indian aggression.

For Pakistan things were going wrong and she started to realize that this is the time to deter the Indian bellicosity. India attacked Nellum Valley on regular basis and for that Pakistan responded and started to attack Dras-Kargil road, Where India faced much difficulty because Indian supply route was blocked. Pakistan army had subjugated the kargil and some posts which came under the dominions of India and the height advantage also went to Pakistan. Indian leader L.K Advani and many other leaders condemned this act of Pakistan. India also started to deploy its army on these areas. A mission was started having the name Vijay Operation, in which about 200,000 soldiers were mobilized by India. A serious conflict was started and many innocent people along with the LOC were killed. India attacked on Pakistan army equipped with many weapons like small guns, anti-aircraft guns and grenade launcher and air force of India also got involved. The only motive which Indian army had at that time was to remove, the Pakistan army posts, which had clearly height advantage. For that, Indian firstly targeted the Tiger Hill with full power, in this operation India managed to recapture some of the important territories. Both countries had lost many soldiers in this area. Then clash was started in Dras Sector, where India simply damaged the Pakistan army and this post was also recaptured by Indian. India faced a lot of problem from the Mujahedeen of Kashmir in every step of their planning. Many Indian soldiers had been killed by Mujahedeen. India initiated its final attack on Pakistan army on every occupied area and got about 80% of its territory back in their pockets.

At the end, Pakistan withdrew from Kargil because of the pressure of America. American role in this conflict was an obvious fact. It looks like that America was playing neutral role in this conflict but the reality stands somewhere else. American adopted a unilateral approach and that was Pakistan must withdraw from Kargil. Indian diplomats were completely exploiting the existed conditions during Kargil conflict. The image of Pakistan came in international community as a hostile and terrorist country. On the other hand, America was not happy of Pakistan nuclear program. Another most important factor was Nawaz Sharif’s unprecedented tour to America and unscheduled meeting with American president Clinton. This made Pakistan a culpable state and it also played a role to tilt American towards unilateral approach.

Kargil War ended up with a lot of casualties from both sides. About 587 soldiers were killed of India and roundabout 387 soldiers were killed of Pakistan. Repercussions of this conflict were devastating for Pakistan than India. Inability of politicians can be seen during the war and the result was that in same year Nawaz Sharif’s government had to depart. Weak and nominal communication between military and civilian government came in front of the picture. Even Pakistan nation had no idea that what was going on in Kargil? This war affected the image of Pakistan in international level. Pakistan was about to face many problems from international community and international community started to tilt towards India more sympathetically than Pakistan. Even international media exposed its biasness and started to publish against Pakistan and Nawaz-Clinton meeting depicted as “Pakistan will withdraw from Kashmir”. Mujahedeen took complete advantage from this situation and started to target Indian military. This conflict gave the chance of freedom fighter of Kashmir to act more organized and properly.

To conclude, Kargil war for Pakistan was a Defensive-offensive approach but it failed in both. A clearly won battle on military basis ultimately was lost badly on diplomatic level. Pakistan had to pay the price of this both, internationally and domestically. 110.36.239.174 (talk) 08:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Unsourced and too poorly-written, sorry. El_C 09:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Kargil war.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

UNDUE obsolete content

A2kb2r, it is not appropriate to cherry pick content from old newspaper reports about events that happened two decades ago. Note also that the article does not make synthesized statements like those that you added. Please use books and scholarly sources, which indicate the WP:WEIGHT to be given to various aspects. See WP:HISTRS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Infobox very inaccurate

The infobox says that Pakistan withdrew from all positions on the LoC, while this has been proven wrong by not only independent and Pakistani sources, but also Indian sources. This has also been discussed by users before me, who have cited those many sources. Interestingly, I have already written about this here but it seems an Indian user has reverted this page claiming that what I said did not count as improving the artice. If the infobox and result are factually wrong, is suggesting to fix them not an improvement to the article? I am willing to believe it was a mistake while they were cleaning up previous un-neccessary topics, so I will paste a short excerpt of my message:

A solution. Fix the results in the infobox to reflect the reality: That Pakistan withdrew from all captured areas except those mentioned above, and that India remained in posession of Kargil. The victor could be disputed, similar to Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, or not mentioned at all, similar to Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948.

The infobox (and parts of the article) are flat out wrong at the moment, and must be corrected as quickly as possible. However, I will refrain from making any edit while others reply to this section. If there are no suggestions/objections, I will go ahead and fix the infobox as soon as possible.

If any Indian editors have objections with this, I encourage them to respond here and not engage in edit warring (what is the point of a talk page?)

SpicyBiryani (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It has almost been 2 days and it seems that the community has no objections to correcting the infobox. I will still wait a third day to address any objections and then will correct the infobox with relevant sources, since this level of inaccuracy on such an important conflict should be corrected ASAP.

SpicyBiryani (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You should substantiate your arguments with reliable sources than assess outcome per your own understanding. See WP:OR. Aman Kumar Goel 12:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned that previously users had written detailed pieces on this with sources and I did not want to repeat what they said and clutter the talk page up. These are a good place to start. I will use these along with other sources such as this, this, this, this, and this. SpicyBiryani (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

You keep making obscure references to "users" but all you've linked to so far is to an old post by a chronic sockpuppeter. We do not entertain socks' posts. They have no credibility here. You seem to be just obfuscating an issue regarding how exactly are the "sources" you have used here relevant to this particular article? This article isn't about Point 5353 - a mountain feature on the LoC or its concomitant controversies -- they've been dealt with in that article. The BBC article has to do with Pakistan's formal denial to an Indian opposition party member's unsubstantiated charge of occupying border peaks. So what are you on about? Aman Kumar Goel 03:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The BBC article is one of the multiple sources provided and shows and Indian confirmation that Pakistan did not withdraw from all areas it captured on the other side of the LoC and is supported by the numerous other sources mentioned. The article, specifically the infobox, which is the first thing a reader sees and considers to be a summary of the whole event, contradicts reality. There is a whole article on point 5353, for example, that states it is under Pakistani control. Pakistan did not withdraw from all areas across the LoC and in fact gained a valuable strategic area. So not only is this article factually wrong when it comes to claiming Pakistan withdrew from all the areas it occupied, but it is also incorrect in over excitedly claiming India won a decisive victory because as a result of this war, attacking Kashmir is a whole lot easier for Pakistan (but that is an issue to deal with later). And so what if Pakistan denies controlling those areas? Pakistan denies ever sending their army into the war and says that everyone was a freedom fighter. Why would they release a statement that contradicts their own narrative? And is there any evidence that the user is a sockpuppeter? Even so, does that change the credibility and content of his/her sources? Hitler drank water, does that mean we can't drink it? SpicyBiryani (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

It is easy to once-over the veracity of what you're saying by just glancing at the articles. And neither the BBC article nor the Misplaced Pages's article show what you're claiming.  A random politician's "accusations" don't tantamount to statement of facts. Your reply shows you are ignoring the major points, which in turn import problems on your part. The Misplaced Pages's entry on Point 5353 describes it as a "mountain on the Line of Control", and not "across the LoC" as you falsely claim. As far as the result in the infobox of the article is concerned, it's drawn from reliable scholarly sources and is backed by a unanimous consensus of editors. By repeatedly resorting to WP:OR and arguments which smack of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to get rid of something that's reliably sourced. You still haven't explained why you pluralized "users" when you were in reality really alluding the banned sockpuppeter's arguments using non-scholarly military-history sources. Aman Kumar Goel 03:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages article says: 'Today, Point 5353 remains in Pakistani military possession. The peak became a subject of controversy after the Kargil War. Soon after the war had ended The Hindu correspondent Praveen Swami and an Indian opposition party leader, Ram Kumar Anand claimed that the peak was inside the Indian side of the Line of Control (LoC) and it was captured by the Pakistan Army during the Kargil War.' The point was attacked by the Indian army because Pakistan had taken control of it from India and they wanted it back, along with all the other areas mentioned above (CITED IN THE ARTICLE). Additionally, that is the conclusion that the whole article comes to, it is not an isolated sentence just there to inform readers about a random claim by one side. Are you claiming that I travelled back in time and submitted my 'original' research to Praveen Swami? Since providing more and more sources and repeating their credibility is pointless considering your replies are ignoring all of that, I will state what I am saying again in very simple words: The territorial changes as a result of the war are not 'none'. Point 5353 is just one example of that. Reliable sources including Lt. Generals and analysts support this, it isn't just my opinion. I am still waiting for proof of that user's sockpuppetry. So far, you are the only one who has objected to this correction and a 'consensus' doesn't really mean much anyway considering that India who has the largest internet presence in the world, the most fake news in the world, and IT Cells who actively spread propaganda in organised brigades for the government, even against opposition parties. If you still insist on keeping the current territorial changes result, then the least that can be done is separating the claims into two, like Indian official/army claim = no changes, xxx claims yyy change etc. SpicyBiryani (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Repeating your thoroughly debunked comments, while engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT will do you no good. You're not going to convince me or anyone of your edits with this attitude. You would do well to read my above comments again, then read your own quotes again and if you don't get it still, you should get off the page altogether. It's also not a good idea to brush aside a unanimous consensus of editors with rhetoric and go on to personally attack other, fellow editors, and by labelling them as "it cell" working for "government" to "spread propoganda". As far as the banned sock is concerned, it says on his userpage that he is banned from the English Misplaced Pages and hence nothing related to him is to be entertained. Surely you checked it given how overzealous you were concerning him that you even pluralized him as "users" and his only post which was never entertained by anyone as "discussions" and stuff... Aman Kumar Goel 11:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Aman.Kumar.Goel. And can we stop with the narrow and disproportionately undue focus on Point 5353 already? Point 5353 is not even on the Indian's side, it's the peak through which the LoC passes near the Dras area. Pakistan's occupation thereof does not mean an encroachment upon the other party's territory. Just like India's possession of Point 5240, the very next mountain peak south-east to Point 5353, along the same ridgeline in the area, and also on the LoC, doesn't mean to an encroachment upon the Pakistani territory.

But Point 5310 is a mountain peak, a kilometer inside the Pakistani side of the LoC as the crow flies in Chorbat La and is controlled by India since the Kargil times. South of Turtuk, a strategically located mounting peak, also inside the Pakistani administered part of the Kashmir, is under India's possession, as also a feature adjacent to the Kupwara sector. FWIW, the Indian occupation of these features caused a discernible territorial change because India continues to have possession over them. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

There you go, another example of why the territorial changes were not 'none'. I am not trying to engage in chest thumping for the Pakistani military if you believe chest thumping is the purpouse of these discussions. The article on Point 5310 says, 'Some analysts see it as an Indian retaliation for the capture of Point 5353 on the LoC by Pakistani troops.'. And Point 5353 is on the Indian side of the LoC as well, So both countries have gained and lost territory. Aman.kumar.goel, I have not targeted a single editor but given a reason to doubt the validity of any quantity based decisions made involving India on the internet, supported with reliable sources. In fact, your repeated allegations and claim of 'thourougly debunking' are yet to be validated, considering that I am saying that there were territorial changes after the war and Capankajsmilyo has confirmed that as well. Here is yet another Indian source saying that re capturing point 5353 was an objective of the Indian military. Moreover, it seems you ignored the fact that a well known Indian analyst had verified my claims and resorted to calling R. K. Anand a 'random politician'. And I am yet to see any indication of that editor being a banned sockpuppeter. Their IP address indicates they are Canadian, a neutral nationality in this, eliminating any Indo-Pakistani bias. Their userpage does not say anything about being banned, so attacking them with baseless allegations isn't helping your case. SpicyBiryani (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

You can't lend more credibility to sockmaster by speculating his nationality. Can you find any military history sources backing your claims. Cobbling up various claims for creating an argument isn't going to work. Aman Kumar Goel 02:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that I am quoting a 'sockmaster'? All their userpage(s) has told me is that they are a Canadian and that's it. No indication of any ban. Plenty of sources already. I'll find more if you really want.SpicyBiryani (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

What solely matters is the legal situation - whether both sides agree that the LoC delineation contained in the Simla Agreement still holds, or that any territorial changes took place. For now, both parties – their respective ministries (MFAs) – are adamant in saying that no territorial changes took place in 1999 and the Simla Agreement still holds with no need to update it. Trying to prove otherwise based on (very imprecise!) Google Maps and a handful of media articles is precisely what we call here original research. — kashmīrī  08:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Addition or objection in Failure of both the armies

Any objection or contribution under the heading of failure of the army can be discussed hereTruthwins018 (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Conflict Events Section Is Not Neutral

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Conflict Events Section is not neutral at all it has a neutral source cited to it but what the neutral source says is not in the section. The section mentions the content which is on this website , isn't this a primary source? It should mention the content which is on this neutral source -NomanPK44 (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95:The Conflict Events Section which is under War progress especially the table it is totally based on a primary source. The neutral source is already cited but nothing from it is mentioned in the section. NomanPK44 (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

NomanPK44, first wikipdia works on RS, not "neutral", something which is neutral to you can be biased to other and if there is any dispute it's sorted out with discussion. Now enlighten please which specific information you think cannot be backed by RS, keep in mind the table is a summary of whole event. Drat8sub (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Drat8sub It shows the summary of the whole event but what it is based on an Indian website i.e so it should be considered a Primary Source rather than a reliable source. NomanPK44 (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is an Indian newspaper. That does not automatically make it non-neutral. Is there any content from it that you are disputing? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

NomanPK44 Are these events disputed by Pakistan or any other sources? If so, we can attribute the events as "according to Indian sources" and present the Pakistani version alongside it per WP:NPOV.VR _talk 02:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Not neutral

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This article is not at all neutral and a disrespect to wikipedia overall and its neutrality policy. I see many indians trying to defend this undermining the neutrality policy and only putting the indian side and not the pakistani version, e.g war is also remembered each year in pakistan and many newspapers quoted pakistan victory too. So i propose result of the war be changed from decisive indian victory to Disputed Truthwins018 (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I removed the {{request edit}} because I doubt that you have a conflict of interest with war. Thanks!  Darth Flappy  21:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

Per Template:Infobox military conflict, the result field should not include terms such as "decisive", this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive", then Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Ordinarily I would just be bold, but since this has been discussed above thought it sensible to start a new discussion first. FDW777 (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing myself. Almost every other article on past military conflicts also follow this standard so I don't think this is really up for debate if the answer is this obvious. Zeex.rice (talk) 01:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I was just in the process of returning here to implement the change. As there was an Rfc at #Result in infobox above I thought it better to start this discussion than potentially edit against consensus, but as there has been no reply it seems consensus is for the change. FDW777 (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

New image for introductory infobox

Given the fact that the other Indo-Pakistani Wars articles just have a map of Kashmir on them with the exception of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, I was wondering if it would be more appropriate to show this image (of the Kargil district in Indian-administered Kashmir) in the introductory infobox:

Zeex.rice (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

There is already a map called "Location of the conflict" on the page. Why do we need a new proposal?

In any case, this map is inappropriate because the conflict was not in the entire district. Secondly, the fighting was not limited to the Kargil district either. (There are some mentions of Chorbat La and Turtuk etc. on the page.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change-

Operation Talwar to Operation Talwar

(In Naval Action section, 3.3.1) SenatorLEVI (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done, SenatorLEVI. Pahunkat (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. SenatorLEVI (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Peak 5353

I am surprised that the article has no mention of point 5353 which remains in Pakistan's control, and still it is mentioned of indian victory in the info box. As a user mentioned already in the talk page, but he received no replies,

Why is there no mention mention of the several peaks Pakistan captured in 1999 and continue to hold on to this day? Recapturing one peak (Tiger Hill) and claiming overall victory is ridiculous. It seems like this was initially reported in the Indian media but then hushed up to avoid embarrassment.

The Hindu wrote this in August 2000: "Pakistan soldiers perched at peak 5353 metres, on the strategic Marpo La Ridge had a grandstand view of this year's Vijay Diwas celebrations, marking the official end of the Kargil war. At least some of them must had wry smiles on their faces, for although peak 5,353 metres is inside the Indian side of the Line of Control (LoC), Pakistani troops held the mountain through the Kargil war and continue to do so today."

Peaks captured by Pakistan in 1999

• Point 5353
• Point Aftab-I
• Point Saddle Ridge
• Point Bunker Ridge
• Shangruti
• Dhalunag
• Tiger Hill

Peaks recaptured by India in 1999

• Tiger Hill
• Peaks still under Pakistan control as of 2019
• Point 5353
• Point Aftab-I
• Point Saddle Ridge
• Point Bunker Ridge
• Shangruti
• Dhalunag

Quotes "Pakistan is occupying at least six strategically located Indian peaks in the Kargil sector along the Line of Control" - Rajya Sabha member & senior criminal advocate R K Anand. (30 August 2000) "Point 5353 is very strategic. In 1992-93, the then corps commander (of India) decided to make a shift pocket on this point and sent personnel there by helicopter. The officers posted there successfully cut off the entire supply to the Pakistani pockets along the LoC for nearly two months."...he said the Indian Army then claimed that point 5353 is "within our LoC and that we have every right to patrol the area." - Rajya Sabha member & senior criminal advocate R K Anand. (30 August 2000)

"Indian troops had tried to capture Point 5353 on May 18, 1999 when army operations were beginning in Operation Vijay in Kargil last year. But it failed...the operation was carried out by a team of soldiers led by Major Navneet Mehta."..."It is not possible to carry out an assault from the northwestern, western and south western approaches,"..."attack on 5353 called off due to bad weather" and that "13 OR (other ranks) injured in Maj Navneet's Pl (platoon) due to difficult trn (terrain)". - Rajya Sabha member & senior criminal advocate R K Anand. (30 August 2000)

"If the army's argument that Point 5353 was never India's is to be accepted, then why did they launch the attack?" - Rajya Sabha member & senior criminal advocate R K Anand. (30 August 2000) "It looks like our army commanders are wrongly briefing the defence minister," he said when Fernandes' statement was pointed out. "The defence minister mislead Parliament on the basis of the briefing by army officers," Anand said, while demanding action against senior army commanders. - Rajya Sabha member & senior criminal advocate R K Anand. (30 August 2000)

Sources

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

'Pakistan still occupies key Drass point', by Praveen Swami. DRASS, 10 August 2000 - THE HINDU ‘6 Kargil heights in Pak control’. NEW DELHI, 30 August 2000 - Tribune India 'Pakistan occupying six Indian peaks, claims MP' by Josy Joseph. NEW DELHI, 30 August 2000 - REDIFF 'Not convinced we won Kargil: Lt Gen Kishan Pal to NDTV' by Nitin Gokhale. NEW DELHI 31 May 2010 00:36 IST - NDTV http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/904482.stm Truthwins018 (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/todays-paper/tp-others/article29070458.ece. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
2. https://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000831/main4.htm
3. https://www.rediff.com/news/2000/aug/30josy.htm
4. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/not-convinced-we-won-kargil-lt-gen-kishan-pal-to-ndtv-419433
5. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/904482.stm

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Amadeus 🙋 🔔 18:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Infobox again

I'm confused by two contradictory pieces of information in the infobox. Under result we have "India regains possession of Kargil", yet under territorial changes we have "No territorial changes". If the former is correct, "India regains possession of Kargil" should be moved into the territorial changes field. If the latter is correct, "India regains possession of Kargil" should be removed entirely. Which is it? FDW777 (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not see anything inconsistent in the two sentences. India regains possession of Kargil constitutes a return to the status quo ante. It's the same as saying that no territorial changes took place as a result of the war. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 August 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Indian soldiers fought with bravery and recapture the posts which result the Pakistan forces to move back.

Though the PM of Pakistan Nawaj Sharif declared withdrawal of his forces at Conference with Bill Clinton, but the ground reality was not according to his declaration.

Pakistani forces were forced to disengage by the Indian soldiers.

The Indian Government strictly followed The Shimla Agreement of 1972 at its end and not crossed the Line Of Control(LOC). 157.41.170.116 (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ––Sirdog9002 (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Result chance to Strategic Pakistani victory. India failed to recover all of the land it lost to Pakistan when Pakistan first instigated the conflict. India captures 90 percent leaving Pakistan with 10 percent more than they started war with H10khxn (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done No references provided. FDW777 (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

what a joke. Aryanjaiswal1234 (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Requesting edits in Subsection:Aftermath on crucial detail

SubSection:Aftermath Heading: Pakistan

You can find this line in the article "Responding to this, Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf said, "It hurts me when an ex-premier undermines his own forces", and claimed that Indian casualties were more than that of Pakistan. "

According to the article Pakistan Prime Minister was Nawaz Sharif while Army Chief was Pervez Musharraf during Kargil. But the above line contracts the facts by calling Musharraf as Prime Minister.

Humble request to please check on this and modify if needed.

203.115.84.180 (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Ekta

Requesting edits in Subsection:Aftermath on crucial detail

Subsection: Aftermath Heading: Pakistan

You can find a sentence "Responding to this, Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf said, "It hurts me when an ex-premier undermines his own forces", and claimed that Indian casualties were more than that of Pakistan."

According to Article, during the Kargil war the Pakistan Prime Minister was Nawaz Sharif and Army Chief was Pervez Musharraf, but above it reads that Pervez Musharraf was Prime Minister which is confusing.

Humble request to please verify and update accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EktaGambhir (talk • contribs) 18:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done, EktaGambhir.❯❯❯Pravega 10:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Artillery ( units that participated)

Request to add 286 Medium Regiment (KARGIL) that participated in the conflict and also has been awarded with many unit citations and personnel decorations during the period of conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.208.99.80 (talk) 09:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

A lot of the citations and references from indian sources.

Fairly describe both sides of the conflict. 2400:ADC5:131:C600:1126:92D5:BB61:38B7 (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Request addition of citation to support infiltration https://www.britannica.com/event/Kargil-War

Add citation https://www.britannica.com/event/Kargil-War 122.106.100.12 (talk) 03:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 July 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the following sentence:

Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif officially announces the Pakistan Army's withdrawal from Kargil following a meeting with POTUS Bill Clinton. Indian forces subsequently take control of Dras.

Use hyperlink for Nawaz Sharif . Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/Nawaz_Sharif WriterPankajRai (talk) 09:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

 DoneRegentsPark (comment) 13:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Heading :Gallantry Awards; Link to Naik Ao and Capt Suri Missing

The above information is available at : https://www.gallantryawards.gov.in/awardee/1509 https://www.gallantryawards.gov.in/awardee/1510 Please include details in Link Glenmenezes (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Who won? Who lost?

It's not clear from the article. 223.19.227.203 (talk) 10:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The result is clearly states in the infobox SKAG123 (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

you still have this question in 2024..? ADWikiax (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not Indian victory

It is not Pakistan victory either. In the infobox it is better to point it to "see aftermath section", like done with Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 article. There was no territorial changes in the end in this Kargil war. It did not damage Pakistan greatly either. In the end it was a status quo. It was India victory in 1971, where pakistan got divided, but not in 1948, nor in 1965, nor in this 1999 Kargil war. All these wars were status quo or stalemate or ceasefire. I'm saying all this as an Indian myself. Crashed greek (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

As an Indian or Pakistani or Whatever nationality, it does not matter. What matters is what WP:RS say, and what is consensus among WP editors. As per Talk:Kargil_War#Result_in_infobox last discussion, where extensive sources are put forth in favour of Indian Victory. Putting a comment on the talk page does not mean bypassing previously established consensus and creating a de-facto one. If you want to change from 2018 consensus, do an RfC, and challenge on WP:RS and Consensus. Not personal whims. But also in 1965 article... Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 05:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I felt Crashed greek could see Talk:Kargil_War#Result_in_infobox but nevertheless it has been linked right above now. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merge of Kargil Air War into Kargil War

There was no "Kargil Air War", the air combat was not notable enough to be included as standalone. Further, I did not find any RS calling it "Kargil Air War". WP:REDUNDANTFORK Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 06:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah it'd seem more suitable as kargil air operations, and 3 aircraft lost and 1 damaged is pretty much of an air combat M Waleed (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• Opppose both are notable topics and due the article's size WP:SPLIT is the correct way to handle such situations.

2A01:E0A:274:4420:E553:3AB4:B5BC:EBCA (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support as per proposal, lack of WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG should be enough reasonings for merger. Garudam 20:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merge of Operation Safed Sagar into Kargil War

WP:REDUNDANTFORK Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 06:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Opppose:That's a singular operation, the involvement of the airforce so I don't think it should be M Waleed (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Closing, given the uncontested objection and no support with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merge of Operation Talwar into Kargil War

WP:REDUNDANTFORK Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 06:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a naval blockade, a singular operation Again Oppose M Waleed (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Closing, given the uncontested objection and no support with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use Indian English
• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• B-Class India articles
• High-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of High-importance
• B-Class Indian history articles
• High-importance Indian history articles
• B-Class Indian history articles of High-importance
• WikiProject Indian history articles
• India portal selected articles
• WikiProject India articles
• B-Class International relations articles
• Mid-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• B-Class Indian military history articles
• Indian military history task force articles
• B-Class South Asian military history articles
• South Asian military history task force articles
• B-Class Post-Cold War articles
• Post-Cold War task force articles
• B-Class Pakistan articles
• Mid-importance Pakistan articles
• WikiProject Pakistani history articles
• WikiProject Pakistan articles
• Indian and Pakistani Wikipedians cooperation board