Inspiring mujahid in kargill

THis is what happens when iman hits u. Enjoy:-

Karnal Sher Khan (1970 - 1999)
29 yrs, Captain, 12 Northern Light Infantry (NLI), 27 Sind
Nishan-e-Haider (1999)
Pakistan

by Nasir M. Khan

Note: The following account is a well researched work by the author. It is not endorsed by the Governments of either India or Pakistan. Pakistan government denies that it had any involvement in the Kargil Operation, whereas the Indian government denies that any heroic battle took place at Tiger Hill. The reader is to read this article as the work of an individual and not an official citation. The reader also has the right NOT to believe this article. However, the article has been put up primarily becuase in the political game between Pakistan and India, a man who was the epitome of bravery is not getting due respect. The locations in this article are those which are claimed as true by India only.

Background
The background information is reproduced from the story of Lalak Jan since both died in the Kargil Operation
In 1984, India occupied the Pakistani posts at Siachen glacier. These posts had been vacated due to winters and snowing in the northern areas of Pakistan. India had in fact violated the Line of Control (LOC) in order to capture these posts. Pakistan's efforts to take these areas back from Indian possession turned out to be futile, and a war was fought in the worst possible circumstances for 15 years without any significant reward to either side.

The Indians posted an entire Division at Siachen Glacier. The ammunition and food was supplied to this division through the Srinagar-Leh Highway, the road joining the area of Leh (Siachen) with the capital of Jammu and Kashmir, Srinagar. The area surrounding the road was mountainous, with Tiger Hill being the peak that offered the best view of the entire northern area, providing those who were on it with a terrific aerial advantage. The Indian had previously used this peak to attack some defensive positions of Pakistan from time to time. Tiger Hill, located in the associated sectors of Batalik, Kargil and Drass, provided and aerial view of the Srinagar-Leh Highway. In September 1998, the posts had been vacated by India as part of a routine winter exercise, they were to reoccupy them in the summers.

In May 1999, a small sized Indian force of 4 men going along the Srinagar-Leh Highway lost contact with the rest of the army. A section, comprising 12 men was sent on the same road to locate the MIAs (Missing In Action). These 12 men also became MIA.

A small force (1200 men) of the Pakistan Army had occupied the vacated Indian posts, and were planning to hold on for sometime so that the Division at Siachen would have no other option but to retreat, due to the lack of ammunition and food supplies.

The Indians launched a full fledged attack on the small band of Pakistan Army soldiers.

Main Achievement
The Tiger Hill Complex is a set of six strategic posts; the Tiger Hill Top, Western Spur, Eastern Spur, India Gate, Rocky Knob and Helmet. If the Indian account is to be believed, Captain Karnal Sher Khan was responsible for setting up and defending one of these posts. On the other hand, the Pakistani account states that Sher was responsible for setting up forward defensive posts around the Gultari and Mushkoh Valley areas in Kargil, and that he had nothing to do with Tiger Hill. This article is based on the Indian account. In any case, the actual location does not matter as will be seen in the remainder of this article. From Indian readings, it appears that Sher was in fact defending the post on the Western Spur. The truth, however, will never be known. The active participation of the Kashmiri Freedom Fighters in the Tiger Hill battles is, however, a well researched fact.

Tiger Hill Top was the most strategic post at Kargil. This was the highest peak overlooking the Srinagar-Leh Highway. Although there were other active posts from where the Indian supply lines to Siachen glacier could be cut as well, Tiger Hill Top was the most effective. For the protection of Tiger Hill Top, the Pakistani soldiers and Kashmiri Freedom Fighters occupied the five other posts in the Tiger Hill complex. The most important was the Western Spur post, which had to be neutralized in order to launch any sort of infantry offensive on the Tiger Hill Top post.

The task of isolating the Western Spur post was given to the Indian 8 Sikh Regiment (800 - 1000 men). Later on, this regiment also participated in the capture of Tiger Hill Top. The task of bombarding this post was given to the Indian 41 Field regiment (a full field unit with massive heavy artillery capability).

Manning the Western Spur post was Captain Karnal Sher Khan with 21 ORs (Other Ranks, men who are ordinary sepoys and do not hold any specific rank).

From 26th June to 27th June, the 41 Field Regiment excessively shelled the Western Spur post with no less than 19 Howitzers, while the Indian Air Force Mirage 2000 jets flew sorties over the post and pounded the bunkers with laser guided bombs. Under these circumstances some infantrymen from 8 Sikh also fired at the posts held by Sher and his men, and 'dared them to recite the Kalima, for it will be their final one'. Obviously, the Pakistanis and the Kashmiris did not get any sleep during this time.

It was around 9:00 PM on the 27th of June 1999 that the 8 Sikh launched a fierce attack on the Western Spur post. The tired 'intruders' tried to fight back, but the sheer number of the Indians (450 - 500 men) along with the IAF and Artillery support made it impossible for them to hold on. There were not many casualties on either side, but as far as Karnal Sher's men were concerned, there didn't have to be many, as they were not great in number to start with.

Karnal Sher finally retreated from the post, going to a point of lower elevation. The Indians had gotten hold of the Western Spur post. They were in a terrific position to launch the final offensive on the other posts, especially the Tiger Hill Top.

Karnal Sher was in a terrible spot. The Indians were now at an elevated position; they were much greater in number and had the support of a much bigger artillery. Unlike Sher's men they were well rested, as the enemy did not subject them to intense fire and they also had no shortage of ammunition or food.

One of Sher's men had died during the attack. Most of the others were wounded. To top it all, some Sikh soldiers were still daring them to come out and recite their final Kalima.

One of Karnal Sher's men asked him about what they were supposed to do next.

"Counter Attack", replied Sher

The stunned man gazed at Sher. Counter Attack under the circumstances was suicidal. The Indians had an advantage in every thinkable manner. They had also been fortifying their defense ever since they had taken the Western Spur.

"Counter Attack?", the man asked Sher again.

"Yes counter attack. The Indians attacked my post at night, with heavy artillery and air support. I will attack them in broad daylight with the men that I have left."

Sher had been operational in the area since November 1998. He knew the Drass Sector area inside out. He had a good idea of the positions that could be taken for an attack on the Western Spur. The 8 Sikh Regiment had not utilized any of those areas in their attack, hence Sher took the chance they were not well aware of their existence. During the night he placed his men in those positions, strategically placing the compact artillery that they had in the optimum areas.

The counter attack, with 21 men, was launched on the Indians occupying the Western Spur. Sher's men were told never to stay in on position while attacking, and the positions that every man was to move to and from during the attack were also identified. Every one of Sher's men was changing position to no less than 8 places.

This was the shortest battle of the entire Kargil operation, taking no more than one hour. There were many reasons for its success. First of all was the deployment. As an Indian soldier would be killed, the others would direct fire towards the area from where the fire came from. In the mean time however, the Pakistani/ Kashmiri would have changed his position to another area where he was safe from the Indian firing but still could see them.

Secondly, the Indians were not expecting an attack from the positions where Karnal Sher had deployed his men. Had they known about them in advance, they would have placed their own men over there as a defensive measure.

The third was the timing of the attack. It came at the most unexpected time, only 7 or 8 hours after the Indian offensive.

Finally, there was the sheer ferocity of the attack. Sher's men knew before going into the attack that they are going in for an impossible task. They had no fear of death, and that itself makes a better fighter during any battle.

As the 8 Sikh regiment began to retreat, Kernal Sher left his position and came out in the open. He started reciting the Kalima aloud. Picking up his machine gun he started charging towards the retreating forces.

"Cowards!" he said, "Where are you running off to? I will not let you run away like this."

Sher's remaining men, having suffered some casualties while they were ascending the Western Spur post, finally managed to reach on top. They replaced the Indian Flag with the Pakistani one and started chanting slogans of 'Allah O Akbar'. Sher, on the other hand, was obsessed with the retreating forces.

"I am reciting the Kalima as you had dared me to." he shouted, "Where are you running off to? Stop and fight. Make this my last Kalima if you can". While saying this he was seen running after the retreating troops, firing at will, with little or no opposition except from the ongoing artillery shelling. 10 or 12 of Sher's men, who had taken up positions on the Western Spur, also opened havoc wreaking fire on the retreating troops to add to their woes.

Captain Karnal Sher followed the Indian troops until he reached the proximity of the 8 Sikh Regiment base camp.

Most of the men who had retreated from the Western Spur had come back to the base camp. The base camp already had around 300 to 400 soldiers. When the commanding officer was given the news of the counter attack at the Western Spur post, he radioed back to the Indian intelligence and cursed them for letting him believe that there were only 20 odd men in the area. He told them that at least a company strength (150 men) of militants had just attacked and retaken the Western Spur post.

One of the soldiers told the Commanding officer that the enemy commander was following them down. The CO told the man not to worry as one man would not dare enter the base camp. However, he was anticipating that a much larger party of militants would attack the base camp. He ordered his men to take the necessary defensive positions.

While the 8 Sikh soldiers were taking their defensive positions, they were greeted with the sound of 'Allah O Akbar' followed by intense machine gun fire on those areas where any movement was taking place.

Anticipating a company sized attack, the CO was stunned to see one man, reciting the Kalima aloud, charging towards the center of the camp.

"Come out cowards!" Captain Sher shouted having reached the center, "I will show you how to fight a battle".

Angered by the dare inside their own camp, two Sikh soldiers tried to attack Sher. Their attack was of no avail; the captain, who had started firing in their direction the moment they tried to move, killed both.

It was apparent that this was not an attack by a complete company, but by only one man. "You are surrounded from all sides " the CO shouted to Sher, "There are no men with you. You cannot possibly kill us all. There does not have to be any unnecessary bloodshed. Lay down your weapon and Surrender".

Sher fired in the direction of the Commanding Officer's voice. "I would rather die than to surrender to you" he said. While trying to continue firing, Sher realized that the ammunition in his machine gun had finished.

Seeing that he no longer had any ammunition, the Indian soldiers, including their CO, came out in the open and showed Sher that he was indeed surrounded from all sides. They started moving closer and closer to him, tightening their circle around him.

"Look around yourself" he said to Sher, "There is nothing more that you can do".

Sher looked around. There were more than fifty men who had surrounded him and could shoot him at point blank range. Instead of giving up, he started reciting the Kalima aloud once again. Seeing that the closest to him was the CO, he charged him and pushed him back by hitting him on the head with his empty machine gun. Seeing that Sher was not surrendering, and was in fact going to attack him for the second time, the 8 Sikh regiment Commanding Officer told his men to open fire on the militant.

The 8 Sikh regiment soldiers opened fire on Captain Sher. Hit many times, he tried to attack the CO for the third time, but of no avail.

Sher had always believed in not dying at the enemy's feet. He was about five feet away from the CO, who could see the desperate attempt Sher was making in not to fall down. Finally, Sher sat down, with his knees bent and touching the ground, and his machine gun still in his hand. The Kalima that he had been reciting so far became lower and lower in volume until it finally stopped. Captain Karnal Sher Khan had died.

Some of the Sikh soldiers became ecstatic that they had indeed made the 'intruder' recite his final Kalima. Two of them ran to Sher Khan's body to kick it from a sitting position into a one where his head was touching the ground.

Seeing the intent of his men, the CO ordered them to stop. He told them that this was a brave man and his body should not be desecrated at any cost. He ordered that Sher's body be brought back to Srinagar rather than being left at Tiger Hill. Upon finding out that Sher was a Pakistani Captain, he made sure that Sher gets a proper military treatment from the Indians. It was he who wrote the citation of Captain Sher, recommending him for the highest gallantry award in Pakistan. The citation can be found at Captain Sher Khan's residence in Fajounabad Charbagh, Swabi.

The government of Pakistan awarded Captain Karnal Sher Khan with Nishan-e-Haider, the country's highest gallantry award.

Further Developments
The 8 Sikh Regiment launched a massive attack at the Western Spur on the night of 3rd and 4th of July 1999. The Indians used eight 155mm Bofors howitzers and one MBRL (multi-barrel rocket launcher) at Western Spur in a direct firing role. No less than 5321 rounds were fired at the massive mountain in the next 10 hours. Milan anti-tank missiles were also pressed into the operation. The 8 Sikh soldiers advanced only after they were sure that the bunkers had been completely cleared. This time there was no 'Last Kalima' dare. Expecting to find some 100 or so bodies of the 'company' that had attacked them a week ago but seeing only 10 bodies on the post, the Indians assumed that all the others had ran away!.

Wow, what a man...Karnal Sher Khan

May Allah grant him the highest place in Jannah! Ameen

I just cry inside when I think of the cowardly acts done by Indians i.e. when Pak soldiers were retreating, (after Int'l prewssure was applied on Pak govt to pull back the army, due to the hue and cry of the Indian govt), they killed numerous Pak soldiers by shooting them from the back

In the mean while, all those soldiers were doing was retreating back, something that they (Indians) had asked for to begin with

Inna Lillahi Wa Inna Illahi Rajiyoon

And what of the people who sent these people into combat in the first place ? As usual the poor soldier gets it in the neck and the Generals who pulled the strings sit in their homes !

If Pak politicians and General had any real courage, it wouldnt take the Indian CO to deliver a citation to a courageous Pakistani Mujahid !

I suggest before saying stuff about Indian soldiers, we first appreciate why the Pak Govt to this day finds it hard to accept that our troops did fight in that war.

very impressive story, that's called bravery

if only Nawaz Sharif had the b***$ of Sher Khan then
and our military comanders could have used their peanut sized brains better

we could have finished off the Indians in Kashmir with guys like Lollak Jan and Sher Khan

What an amazing and truely inspirational story that was!!

May Allah reward him with a place in Paradise. Ameen

excellent, it was exciting as well as sad... thi has made me evev more firm to join the pakistan army, and fight for my religion and pakistan

An absolutely inspiring story, the amount of courage and bravery he showed was a testament to his faith.

May Allah reward him with a place in Paradise. Ameen

Is it worse to think that you are superior to your fellow man because you worship a different god or is it worse to think that you're better than your fellow man because you are a different race/colour.

I think that both are both are equally vile. Are humans not supposed to be humble and believe in equality of all mankind unconditionally??? I have met very very few people during my life that believe in true equality....the majority are very prejudiced based on religous, racial and national grounds.

uh????

i think Appoclypse you are in the wrong thread

Muslims should always support Jihad and Mujahadeen fighting the correct cause... This is part of islam


There is a big difference between extremists and Mujahadeen.


ALSO and this is important, WE the muslims should identify who is the extremist and who is the true Mujahadeen fighting in the name of Jihad, NOT the non-muslims, not the americans, not the west


Too many people are making blanket statements about Jihad and muslims fighting in many parts of ythe world.

Even in iraq, you have different groups, everyone from real Mujahadeen to militia's to extremists and criminals +americans

Support the good, condemn the bad

Truely Inspiring to say the least. and he wasnt a terrorist coz he was fighting against opponents army. he didnt bombed himself in a Masjid/building and kill innocent.

I admire how you know the exact details of the conduct of soldiers when in fact your own government denied its own involvement in the movement. And talk about being coward... who is the one instigating a guerilla warfare? You lost, or rather you indecisive and fragmented government lost. get over it.

lets move into the next millennium without the ghosts of the past. War never really solves a problem. infact, look at what the Kargil war did to your country... abolished democracy, destroyed your economy and denied you billions in foreign investment.

who lost the kargil one???

ah... pakistan. in numbers, in outcome, in public opinion, economic outcome, national moral... must i carry on?

true, but lets refrain from war! it wont solve anything as both sides have too much to lose.

with those kind of reasons, you can practically write your own "Trial" ;)

what?

deserved a seperate thread.

no dude, the matter is settled, lets fudging move on.

no harm, in discussing now is there ? ;) and its not like we are going to be making a movie (LOC does that ring a bell) !!!

you wouldn't get it.

go to the thread titled 25 Most controversial movies and read my thoughts about LOC. But if you want to discuss the Kargil War, and its repercussions on the two countries, please by all means start a new thread, but i assure you, a quick search on the net will give you all the results you seek.

Public opinion dont mean didly squat in a war. Specially the world opinion. I dont know what numbers you are talking about but if you are talking about soilders then India lost a lot more then Paksitan. I dont know how you are compairing economic outcome and national moral. It actually cost India a lot more since they had to mobilise alot of troops on a short notice. So how was it a victory for India again.

Nawaz Shareef Lost everything

good one mate... if you really wish to argue this, start a new thread and substantiate everything you state or claim with authentic sources, i.e. independent news agencies or reputable databases. hence, for the purpose of maintaining objectivity, avoid the use of blogs; newspapers bases either in india, pakistan or the middle east though the khaleej times and al jazeera would be exceptions.

Umm okay you were the one who made the claim yet I should be the one providing the proof. I dont understand how that works?

for the last time... if you really want to debate it, start a new thread and make a bloody post then ill respond with a counterargument, if neccesary with substantiation. as for me, i know what happened, understood it, and witnessed parts of it and am quite secure about i believe to the universal truth; it is you whose vision and objectivity is being obscured by chauvanism. i dont blame you for that, but if you want the truth, be prepared to swallow a bitter pill.

we all know that we pakistanis and the mujahidin were in a really good position, and that indian pm vajpaye went and begged american to ask pakistan to withdraw their forces........

if that is what you believe... then i guess the earth is flat is not too much of a stretch.

mian saab was not at fault for kargil

do u mean general musharaff or prime minister shariff?

there is only one mian saab

pm sharif

ye aya chamcha...

thats is the only way it orks with a_r. a manufacturing fault

Some people here assumed that this akram was an indian muslim in the namaz thread. So i ask u directly, r u muslim akram?

the endless supply of Pakistani bravery and valour continues but where has it gotten us? since 1947 we have actually shrunk! after world war 2 europe realized war doesn't have any winners...can't we be friends now?

friends is probably little pre-mature..but atleast we try not be foes!

how can we stop being enemies, leave alone become friends, when India flatly refuses to resolve the Kashmir dispute (the main bone of contention between us).

It is like a divorced husband and wife fighting a bitter custody battle over kids and one of them going 'let's forget about the past and be friends' but ultimately how can they be friends when one of them is refusing to negotiate or compromise about the main bone of contention between them (custody of the kid)?

jesus, is that it? take the kid then , biatch

You apparently dont know the difference between Mian Shareef and Musharaf and you lived through Kargil eh. Its easy to repeat rehtoric buddy.
My vision is not blurred by anything. Please do tell me this, How many wars have India faught (proxy or non-proxy) since its creation? India has problems /wars/proxy wars with almost all its neighbours. Pakistan, China, Bangladesh(if you ask which war then go read the newspaper for the past 5-10 years). In almost every case its the big bad neighbour thats messing with India. Never India's fault. How can India be aggressive or wrong, for the love of God man Gandhi lived there. Gandhi I tell ya. Take off your rose tinted glasses homeboy and think before you start believing. Just because its written it does'nt have to be the truth.

well yeah i did not know who is was being referred to by "mian", i do know the difference between nawaz shariff and pervez musharaff. as for the bit about proxy wars... there is a much more complex reason for that. for one, the proxy war being waged in kashmir which began out of a concern for non-transparent democracy (and its clinical breakdown in the 1987 election), it has now intrinsically become a problem of religion. while the general opinion of the masses or at least most of the muslim population living in the cities is separatist, and not aligning with pakistan. their economy has been destroyed by the insurgency and to add to their plight a solution is not on the horizon. as for the minority hindu and bhuddhist population, they are also borderline separatist or aligned towards india as they fear a loss of autonomy under a regime in independent kashmir where the majority muslim population (and democratically rightfully so) would call the shots. whereas the situation at the border towns is quite surprising. since the insurgency is weak in the border towns such as kargil, they are however victims of the frequent border clashes between the respective security forces. hence, they view pakistan as an aggressor who often bombs their villages and are hence strongly aligned towards india, just as their counterparts across the LOC are aligned towards Pakistan. the human rights conditions are apauling on both sides of the LOC though the southern half of Jammu does enjoy substantial civil liberties.

as for proxy wars with China, there are none. Both China and India are battling a Maoist rebellion which has now taken strong roots in Nepal. The cause of these rebellions has been age old dominance of the economy by money lenders and land owners, a problem that is rampant in virtually all of South Asia. As for Bangladesh, the soft border provides for easy diffusion of smugglers, rebels and arms dealers. Whereas the problems in the North East territories are rooted in a cultural difference. That part of India is culturally closer to Myanmar and Laos rather than India, and worse yet, corrupt politicians have been profiting of funds initially intended for public works spending. Similarly the LTTE which is operational in Sri Lanka is culturally closer to the Tamilians of Tamil Nadu in South India rather than the christian or bhuddhist population of the southern half of the island. Infact, a number of problems in parts of frontier india are due to the resemblance of the local cultures to cultures beyond the borders, and this problem was compounded by the definition of state boundaries along cultural lines. hence, isolating the states from each other, avoiding a mixture of cultures and eventually creating ministates within the state.

Now as for the Kargil conflict, true no ground was gained or lost in the conflict and though there is a disparity in the body count claimed by either nations, independent observers such as Janus Intelligence has placed the count at about 600 Pakistani and 500-550 India (not counting for the civilian losses to India). Hence, in terms of human losses, the war was rather indecisive. Monetarily, India spent at least 10000% (100 times) more resources on the battle as compared to Pakistan, a figure increased by the loss of two MIG 21 jets and a high altitude supply helicopter. Moreover, the deployment of the air force and use of guidance weapons further punctuating the monetary cost.

The conflict ended not because of global pressure for withdrawl but because the infiltration was doomed to fail from day one since the infiltrators were operating on limited resources, did not receive aerial support from pakistan and of course a massive disparity in numbers. though some might contend themselves with the fact that pakistani soldiers fought with immense bravery and i am sure they did, war is however not won by personal bravado. today the warring parties aim to establish complete dominance by either overwhelming the opponent or use of superior technology or even forcing the enemy into withdrawl due to lack of supplies. while the tiger hill top might have been occupied by 25 soldiers, india sent no less than a thousand troops in offence since you cannot take the peak with 25 soldiers who are just as brave if not braver. you dont match punch for punch, you aim to match a punch with a barrage of punches till you knockout the opponent. my condolences to the shaheed in the battle (on both sides).

The outcome of the war was however, where the difference lies. While Pakistan became an overnight pariah and received the long end of the stick (even though the entire operation though approved by Nawaz Shariff was however the creation of few rogue generals with overzealous ambitions of victory against the long standing enemy). Hence, while the world shunned Pakistan, not the entire nation was to blame. India however used its disadvantages to its advantage. while pursuing retreating troops would have been the ideal policy, it would have required a greater mobilization of troops, resources and increased duration of the conflict which would have resulted in declining global support. though this could have restored greater territory to India, the local population would have fiercely opposed the change in control. Hence, India decided not to pursue the retreating forces and the move was labeled as "restrain and maturity". This further increased global support for india and further isolated pakistan. add to this, the media coverage was rather extensive and thanks to a more independent and larger indian media succeeded is broadcasting its message further. PTV on the other hand suffered from a lack of reporters, a convolution of reports and above all ambiguity from the higher echelons of pakistani military.

eventually after the dust settled on the war and though there was fear of renewed conflicts following the downing of a pakistani reconnaissance plane in the thar desert, both states restrained from all out conflict; the war had varied impacts on both nations. while the general consensus in india was that of an overwhelming victory (and while this is true, it was not because of the greater valor of the indian soldier, it was due to the use of greater resources, much better technology and far superior numbers) and a jubilation from defeating an invader, pakistan's masses were confused. the lack of the complete truth about who infact was involved in the war left them wanting and while they felt that their soldiers had fallen short of the task and their politicians were cowards for retreating, their soldiers had infact served their nation to their very best and their politicians were trying to resolve a rather messy situation. at times, retreat is the best strategy... retreat today to fight another day. however, retreat is unglamorous and hence not so desirable.

furthermore, the political instability that resulted though for the better as mushraff is a much more responsible leader, caused an instability in the local market in pakistan. the stock index plunged and foreign investment dropped excessively. the nation was so devoid of resources that in an admission to a reporter, shariff stated that pakistan was left with oil resources adequate for only another 7 days of economic operation. india on the other hand had succeeded in impressing to the world that it was more "mature" and the "restrain" shown by its troops was an indication of its greater control over the various satellites of the government and forces. this stimulated global investment, which peaked in 2000, a year after the conflict. the stock market responding to the upbeat moral was bullish and rose to 6000 (a record then). infact, the conflict ushered in a period of bullish growth that has lasted till today.

i do not wish to question the bravado of pakistani soldiers or evoke any more pain. the conflict was indecisive, but the repercussions of the war were rather partisan. i have tried to be as objective as possible in this post and my previous posts and i really would do not appreciate pathetic attempts to question my spirituality and allegiances.

Let me start by saying this "All conflicts can be explained away". However fact remians that India had a war with China. The conflict still remains. Just because they are fighting a common enemy right now does not mean jack. India has issues with Tamil Tigers and with Bangladesh(Border skirmishes). Already faught 3 wars with Pakistan. So India at one time or another has/had "issues" with all its neighbouring countries yet has this wholesome image of "peace loving" nation. Dont want to get into details of each and every one of them since those would require separate threads. The point was if everyone has issues with India then India might be the issue.
Lets move to Kargil. The point of the conflict was never to gain land. If it was then only a handful of soilders with no supply lines or airial support would be left out to defend themselves. You dont gain land by dropping off a couple of soilders. The whole point of the exercise was to create a small managable conflict to turn world's attention towards Kashmir. The issues was on the back burner for a while. It needed to be highlighted in a way that would engage the world. "A war" or "getting to the brink of war" always catches the world's attention. Given the differences in size, economy and military strength of India and Pakistan, a war with India is not an option. The only option Pakistan had was to create a managble war. A war which would get the attention of the world yet be managble so it does not get out of hand.
Its already established that India spent way more then Pakistan. Lets move on to the life spent. Its a well known fact that Pakistan's military was backed by the Freedom fighters. So the numbers of dead Pakistani also includes these fighters hence the numbers are inflated on Pakistani side. On a side note if you want to get the right idea about the number of dead on the Indian side go read the scandal that happened in India right after Kargil where one of the ministers was caught accepting a bribe over the number of coffins ordered. Check out the numbers of coffins purchased by the Indian government. You will see a huge discrepency in the number of coffins purchased and the numbers claimed dead.
Lets be clear on something here. Pakistan's image in the world is no where near to India. It always was and is considered to be one of those rogue shady state. So this whole Pakistan loosing out the media battle is nothing new. Pakistan never had an image to protect in the first place. So kudos to India on that one. Pakistan's economy was in shambles before and dont tell me India's economic progress had anything to do with Kargil. Thats a slap in the face of every Indian government since the 90's.
No one questioned your spirituality or allegiance or your date of birth or the size of your dohtee or anything of that nature. Stop taking things personal that are not meant to be personal.

to begin with, india was never the aggressor in either wars. not in 1947, 1961, 1965 or 1971. Though in 1971 we did broaden the conflict, we did not start the war. The wars of 1947, 1961 and 1965 were all due to border disputes. In 1947 with the issue of the kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir and its defence against infiltrators and army personnel after the kingdom ceded to india; in 1961 over the border in Arunachal Pradesh and China's demand that the state be ceded to it; and in 1961, again Kashmir when Pakistan attempted to exploit a weakened india (following the defeat of 1961) to gain territory. In 1965 and 1971, while the aggressor was pakistan the conflict was broadened by India. In 1965, a counter offensive launched through the desert and Kachh while hitherto the conflict was limited to Kashmir and in 1971 the isolation of the erstwhile East Pakistan and then its subsequent sudjugation while broadening the conflict in the west.

Border skirmishes with Bangladesh have been very low key and due to the lack of a buffer zone. As for the Tamil concern, you really dont know much about it do you? the LTTE is operational in Sri Lanka not india. and in 1987 when Rajiv Gandhi, then prime minister made the grievous mistake of sending a peace keeping contingent to act as an intermediatory in the conflict, the troops were targeted by the LTTE which did not welcome the third party intervention. As a result the conflict shifted between the LTTE and the indian forces and though the LTTE were forced to surrender the Jaffa peninsula, the army's oppressive conduct in the peninsula and reprisals against the local tamils brought them notoriety. hence, on the call of the sri lankan government the troops withdrew in 1990. and though Rajiv gandhi was assassinated in 1991, another conflict between the LTTE and India never occurred.

True india's economy is not booming thanks to the Kargil war, but in fact thanks to the economic reform introduced in the 11th hour of desperation in 1991-92 by then finance minister and current Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh. however, the war did stimulate greater market spending and higher foreign investment. notice that i did not say that the foreign investment began in india thanks to the war or ended in pakistan, i said it increased in india, and declined in pakistan.

finally, India received a 2 -3 rating on political freedoms and civil liberties respectively from the Freedom House's Freedom in World 2006 edition report, classifying it as a Free country. In fact, after Taiwan (1-1), South Korea and Japan (both scored 1 - 2) it was the third highest rated country in all of asia. Pakistan received a 6 - 5 score which classified it as a Not Free nation (1 being the best score, 10 being the worst score). i am sure you will question the validity of this test, after all how dare an independent, third party, unbiased organization with a board of members from an assortment of nations pass a judgement on Pakistan.

i love the explanation you have provided for the infiltration in Kargil. to bring global attention to the conflict eh? well you did not succeed in that either as the world was busy focusing on Kosovo. and really, who are you trying to satisfy with that justification? the objective was to occupy the outposts, secure a line of sight and shelling capacity on National Highway 1 and then subsequently force the indian forces in Siachen to retreat. eventually gain massive territory and creating a new frontier. at the same time, the architects of the infiltration expected the local militancy to up the ante and step up its activities. unfortunately for them, they again did not succeed, thanks in part however, due to an oppressive peace enforcement by the indian troops. above all, the local residents of the frontier towns such as Kargil went above and beyond and supported the indian troops, informing them of enemy movement; suspicious activities etc. If Pakistan planned the infiltration just to bring international attention, did they not know about an invention called television, or better yet, news agencies. maybe a call to christian amanpore to do an op-ed piece on Kashmir; or maybe call mark tully and ask him to visit Kashmir; maybe talk to amnesty international and have them publish their report on Kashmir which documents violations by the indian army? (but then again that would have been counter productive considering the abysmal state of affairs in the purpoted azad kashmir)

finally, as for the personal attacks, scroll up and there is this malicious post from a pathetic little bi*** nadeem (my apologies to the moderators but he had it coming). my last comment in the previous post was for his benefit.

your pHD material my man, go on!

mr phd material, a request if i may ...
please explain the (lack of) indian aggression in hyderabad.
please explain the (lack of) indian aggression in siachin.

i can go on, ofcourse, but since we're being 'objective', i'd like to hear what you think on the matters above. thank you.

Hyderabad 1947: India attacked the princely state of hyderabad and repatriotized the territory to the mainland. the attack was marked by a staged attack of several hundreds of wild buffalos with lit torches tied to their backs, in the middle of the night to give the impression of an invading army. as the hyderabadi troops, few as they were moved to intercept them, they were outflanked and forced to surrender. the nawab, who had accepted the state of "protectorate" was an absent ruler. he could not maintain an army, could not collect taxes and could not even hold court without a british monitor's presence. he at the time of independence desired to hold onto a notion of maintaining his autonomy and securing his rule at the expense of his own people (hyderabad had suffered from a famine less than ten years ago). in fact at the time of independence there were over 530 princely states that peppered the two states of india and pakistan and were subsequently repatriotized into either nation either by force or by policy. other than the state of hyderabad and kashmir which eventually ceded to india, neither princely state was repatriotized without firing a single bullet (i.e. nawab of junagarh, raja of ujjain etc). hence, indeed india was the aggresor, but there was no loss of life and the move was parralel to the general consensus.

1984 Siachen: India pulled the original Kargil, in fact the Kargil operation was designed as a response to the 1984 annexation of Siachen and was first intended for 1987 but dismissed by general zial haq, but later activated when under pervez musharaff's governance of the military. as the pakistani forces were in retreat during the winter period, indian forces scaled the peaks in the buffer zone and occupied the siachen glacier, previously deemed uninhabitable and therefore overlooked. but when pakistani soldiers returned, they were faced with a new enemy forward outpost with several strategic advantages of altitude and resupply line. again india was the aggresor, but the territory occupied was in a buffer zone and in disputed territory, hence either side's claim claim to the land is controversial.

objective enough for you? or should i start talking about baluchistan, northwest provinces etc? lets keep the debate on kargil. face it, it was brilliantly planned, well executed in the initial stages and then completed goofed.

india is causing problems in balochistan,

and waziristan problem, y dont those foreigners go and fight in their own country , y come to pakistan and cause all these problems.

thank you. thats better now. after the previous post where somehow india was never the aggressor, we seem to be getting somewhere. ofcourse, those caveats are great (noone was killed / territory was disputed etc.)

why stick to kargil now after you went through the whole history of indian non aggression?

Love caviar! small little things that can always be slipped in

as long as there is general consensus on those slippery caviars, we're all good.

Am I the only one here or is akram mians English a little OTT ? Bhai - I remember asking you to not post in sms type language but now you have moved to the other side of the spectrum

i hate caviar. once tried on the tip of a spoon and couldnt eat anything properly for the next 2-3 days. ok, it's a delicacy but i would prefer dal chawal!

Robo has a point there.

and no gasher, there will 'never' be a consensus on those little slippery things

;)

Nonsense. It is in Pakistan's interest to move past the Kashmir issue and tackle problems that matter and can be resolved. Pakistan 'first' remember, not second.

marooned perhaps theres also the small qs of water?

We've done with our bit for 58 years and done alright (a dam or two would help). Kashmir stays as it is but it is about time we move on to other things.

not sure yar, the water issue in decades to come will be under serious considertion.

It will be. But, realistically, will we ever set foot on the Indian occupied part?

I am not saying we give up our part just that it is, at this point in time with many other issues aboard, best on the backburner.

Perhaps the situation changes in 40 years and we can bring it up. For now deal with the pressing issues that can actually be resolved.

We've bled quite a bit over Kashmir over the past few decades and for what?

so long as its on the backburner and not the coffin, I agree with you

I wonder whether the good man (on whom this thread is) now sits back and wonders whether it was all even worth it.

what water issue?

I think heaven is a worthwhile reward, don't you?

From a personal perspective, yes. Perhaps not as much as far as (worldly) purpose of the act is concerned.

after the soldier is dead, there is no worthwhile reward of war.

and who did not see that coming from more than ten miles away? indeed, india is causing the baluchistan trouble. pray tell what benefit is that? does india have ambitions of adding baluchistan to its territories? it is just so convenient for pakistan to blame all its problems on India or the RAW, when in fact, save for some partisan rags not even the better newspapers of pakistan do not buy into that propaganda. baluchistan is suffering due to the exploitation of its natural resources by other provinces without making any remarkable investment in the state for the later's development. rather astonishing that you fail to see that but took the convenient and rather pathetic path of "blame india". and since pakistan has not exactly learnt this lesson from the past, let me reiterate... bangladesh seeked independence in protest against the very same exploitation of which baluchistan is now the victim. the punjabi dominance of the politics and other sectors of the government and economy and a pseudo apartheid against other communities and minorities is the cause of the destability.

as for waziristan yeah foreign presence is causing some destabalization, but then again why was the same argument not offered to the al queda when they set up their bases there and in afghanistan? was the region stable and administered by pakistan prior to the invasion of Afghanistan and the ouster of the taliban? what about the massive opium farms and the gun factories? are they the product of recent foreign intervention or the conscious decision of the local population to adhere to the convenient existence that results from the illegal farming of opium and gun culture.

Akram I love your rosey views. India bechara gundon mai phasa hoa hai. Pakistan is the aggressor, China is the aggressor Tamil Tigers assasinate Rajiv but thats because India wanted peace in Srilanka and crazy tamils dont want that. They are war mongers. Or was it because India was helping the Srilankan army? Poking its nose where it does not belong And Tamil Tigers retaliated?
You honestly believe that load of bull you unloaded on here. Pakistan has a rating of 6 and India 2. Let me ask you this do you actually care about that buddy? Who cares about the ratings. India is a democracy and Pakistan is not whats new about that? You think that makes you better? Have you compaired the living stadards of the people of the two countries? I could care less about the ratings and before you go ranting about human rights records UN and Amnesty International read their reports and resolutions on Kashmir. You cannot pick and choose stuff you like. Stop believing India Times.
Pakistan blames India for all its troubles eh. Every time a baby farts in India you guys blame Pakistan. Like all the internal conflicts in India from Kashmir to the Khalsa Movement to Assam were somehow manufactured by Pakistan. Right buddy. All the riots, bombings, thefts, rapes all happen because of ISI. Because Indians are so peaceful they just simply cannot have internal conflicts or commit crimes. Gimme a break because if you believe all that then might as well believe in the tooth-fairy too.
Bnagladesh was not created because of punjabis. I dont wanna repeat what happened but it had alot to do with Bhutto wanting power and some coruupt army generals. Balochistan is the victim of its Sardars and that problem too is being sorted out. Let me tell you a little about Wazirstan. It had no goverment presence before 9/11. It was essentially a no man's land.
You are right about RAW though. Its a pathetic excuse of an agency.

well i guess if you were to sell you brain, a little handy chum change would be the best offer a buyer would make. go back, after of course you pull your head out from between your legs, and read my previous post about the LTTE. infact, i ll make it easier, this is what i wrote:

"As for the Tamil concern, you really dont know much about it do you? the LTTE is operational in Sri Lanka not india. and in 1987 when Rajiv Gandhi, then prime minister made the grievous mistake of sending a peace keeping contingent to act as an intermediatory in the conflict, the troops were targeted by the LTTE which did not welcome the third party intervention. As a result the conflict shifted between the LTTE and the indian forces and though the LTTE were forced to surrender the Jaffa peninsula, the army's oppressive conduct in the peninsula and reprisals against the local tamils brought them notoriety. hence, on the call of the sri lankan government the troops withdrew in 1990. and though Rajiv gandhi was assassinated in 1991, another conflict between the LTTE and India never occurred. "
now explain to me where in that previous paragraph did i state that the "crazy tamils" did not want peace in sri lanka. and really do you give two hoots about sri lanka or do you mention it simply because it can be, after a certain degree of misinterpretation, be used as ammunition against india.

then go back and read what i wrote about the conflict in nagaland (and not assam, but then again you dont really care, its just a talking point that you seek), the conflict is not being aided by ISI to the best of my knowledge, just as the RAW is not assisting in the Baluchistan province. Both problems are quite identical, political monopolists who are not distributing public spending in proportion to the resources being harvested from the said regions. add to that the cultural isolation of these regions highten the call for seperation.

similarly in the indo china war, the chinese argued that parts of arunachal pradesh were culturally closer to mainland china and hence ought to be alligned with them, and this was the cause of the war. moreover, china had a keen eye on arunachal pradesh due to its close proximity to assam, an oil rich state. hence, the economic and jingoistic aspirations on both sides lead to war. however, take a look at indo-china relations today. in fact, save for pakistan, india enjoys positive trade and diplomatic relations with all its instant neighbors from bangladesh, nepal, bhutan, china, sri lanka and maldives.

and of course you dont care about the civil rights liberties or political freedoms enjoyed in either states, why must you? they indicate that india enjoys greater freedom and hence that denys you a talking point, therefore you "dont care". while we are at it, the rating for political freedom and civil liberties for the Indian administered Kashmir were 5 - 5 respectively, giving it the rating of "partially free", a rating that still edged past mainland pakistan's 6 - 5 "not free" rating. and as for the Pakistan administered Kashmir, it was given a rating of 7 - 5 hence, "not free". in fact the worst ratings given were 7 - 7 to cuba and north korea.

i guess now would be a good time for you to "not care" about the patriarcal society that has impermeated the law and order situation of pakistan violating the civil liberties of women, or the fact that waziristan is growing a majority of the entire world's opium, polluting the rest of the world with its poison, and "not care" about the reasons that lead to the creation of bangladesh.

finally, i believe that economic prosperity cannot occur without equality, democracy and civil liberties. moreover, a nation cannot progress if its neighbors are repressed or poor. as for the RAW, well thanks for your input, though i dont recall saying that about them. But as for the ISI, i will give them credit for being rather successful at what it is that they are good at... hate breeding and engineering political destabalization. Dont particularly like President Bush and his wasteful spending on war, but i do admire him for going about and cleaning up the mess the ISI and Taliban made in Afghanistan.

I guess you suffer from selective listening. I guess I was giving you the benefit of doubt for no reason. Everyone knows where Tamil Tigers operate. Hell I live in Canada I know their stories personally not from the newpapers.
Regarding the whole Srilanka issue I said:
"Or was it because India was helping the Srilankan army? Poking its nose where it does not belong And Tamil Tigers retaliated?"
And You said:
"Rajiv Gandhi, then prime minister made the grievous mistake of sending a peace keeping contingent to act as an intermediatory in the conflict, the troops were targeted by the LTTE which did not welcome the third party intervention. As a result the conflict shifted between the LTTE and the indian forces and though the LTTE were forced to surrender the Jaffa peninsula, the army's oppressive conduct in the peninsula and reprisals against the local tamils brought them notoriety".

Now so according to you India was not interferring in Srilankan issues. India sent its troops on a "peace keeping" mission right. It was a peace keeping mission yet the LTTE targeted it. What does that imply. You choose to assign "peace keeping mission" to the Indian army. How is it a peace keeping mission when one of the parties in the conflict does not like your presence. You are clearly siding with one party if the other party dont want you there. There are literal meanings and then there are implied meanings. If you dont know the difference then you need to learn to write. In a conflict between two parties where one party did not like/permit/wanted its presence India went ahead with the "peace keeping mission". Are we clear on that or do I need to send you fun with phonics to help you out there buddy. What part of that was so hard to comprehend for you. Maybe you dont like the wordings. You can use all the euphemisms you want it does not change the facts.

Lets talk about Balochistan. Firstly there is no separatist movement. Balochistan has a long history. Much longer then Pakistan's history. The conflict is complex and has its roots in tradition, culture, changing times and power struggle. Nothing like Nagaland or Assam. Again you need to stop believing everything India Time says.

The indo china issue. Again you use language to imply that China was the aggressor:
"the chinese argued that parts of arunachal pradesh were culturally closer to mainland china and hence ought to be alligned with them, and this was the cause of the war. moreover, china had a keen eye on arunachal pradesh due to its close proximity to assam, an oil rich state. hence, the economic and jingoistic aspirations on both sides lead to war"

This implies that China thought that hey let me just go over and take over Indian land because of my greed. . Like before the second world war that part of India did'nt belong to China. Like when China was fighting with the Japanese the British army did'nt take over that land. While we are on the subject India has this long tridition of taking over land. Hyderabad, Kashmir and Goa. Indian army just conveniently takes over foreign land and its always someone else's fault.

Okay so you are telling me that according to a survey Indian kashmir has more freedom then Pakistan's Kashmir. Right. How many Indian army personnel are stationed in Kashmir(Indian) again. Just look up the numbers. And please also explain the criteria this "survey" employs to assign these numbers to nations. Because as long as I can remember there is a bloody freedom movement going on in the Indian Kashmir. A movement recognized by the U.N. However the rulings of U.N. to this day been ignorant by India. Yet Kashmir is free to make that choice right just the means wont be provided. But Pakistan's Kashmir has a lower rating because....? Um I dunno oh yeah because the survey said so. Good one. Pakistan is "partially free" thats a joke. What does that even mean. I've been to India. The only difference between the two countries "freedom" wise is this. In India the government is rich while in Pakistan its the people.

Waziristan is not growing the majority of world's opium. Its Afghanistan. There is a difference. One is a small region the other is a country. And just to make it clear its only the northern waziristan region closer to afghanistan that has issues. The civil liberties of woman are mutilated in India too buddy. When was "Sati" banned in India again. Its the same culture homeboy. We have the same issues. Its almost the same culture. The same social issue faced by Pakistan are faced by India. If you dont know that then you are just a poser.

The reasons for the creation of Bangladesh are the same as the creation of Pakistan. Mistakes were made but India took advantage. I have the balls to admit our mistakes. But India saw an opportunity and struck. So dont get all high and mighty with me. Have you ever been to Cuba? Everyone I know that went to Cuba comes back saying this " Cubans are happy". Can you say that about your "free" India?

Again you go on with rhetoric. Economic prosperity? whats that free markets, capitalism. Thats suppose to be good for me. I know capitalism isnt going to make me happy neither and the idea of "democracy". There is no such thing. But thats another debate. Dont worry about Pakistan we will be alright. And if you think Bush is cleaning up anything then you are more ignorant then I thought. ISI does what it needs to. If it was'nt for Indian aggression that took over Hyderabad and Kashmir ISI would'nt be what it is today.

You act all high and mighty like India is this angel. Thats the problem buddy. No one is an angle. Indian hands are as dirty as Pakistan's. You guys dont have the balls to admit that.

Ok Gents - just a small reminder - as heated as this discussion is getting, pls refrain from any personal insults - this is just a polite request at the moment.

Hey I always keep it PG-13.

Indulge me for a final time Miggy, i shall revert to more acceptable conduct after this post...

you dont listen do you? nor are you able to do a little research, but then again with you head between your legs, that must be awfully tedious. India sent a peacekeeping force to sri lanka on the invitation of the democratically installed, globally recognized, government of Sri Lanka. LTTE was and i quote Reuters on this (by the way, i dont refer to "India times" or if there is any newspaper by that name for my news, but reputated sources such as BBC, Reuters and Amy Waldman's Democracy Now, but then again you would not know who she, a hazard of having blinders on), "LTTE was suspicious of the Indian army's presence". India intervened with a Peace Keeping charter but defended themselves only after they were attacked, and later in collaboration with the sri lankan forces, they hit back to capture Jaffna. If you think that their intervention, if you must call that in ignorance of the charter, and invitation, then i guess Pakistan's participation and assistance to the Taliban or Kashmiri seperatists and the Khalistanis of old ages was akin to having their noses up the ***** of every opportunity to intervene in their neighbors.

As for the occupation of territories that did not belong, hell you could reason that with every country that was once kingdom or part of another empire. Goa, Pondicherry, Hyderabad were ordered by the departing British to allign themselves with India as they, i.e. Mountbatten and his board of diplomats who defined the national boundaries of India and Pakistan refused to recognize the sovereignity of the princely states. In fact when the Nizam of Hyderabad seeked the apporval of the United States president: Harry Truman to form an independent state, he was sent back with a rebuke. So now every time a Tom Dick or Harry controls a village against the desire of the local population, and declares that he is an independent country against the global opinion, sending in troops to dispose the boombastic moron would be "occupying land"?

Kashmir initially refused to be alligned to either India or Pakistan. Though Mountbatten suggested that Kashmir allign itself to either nation as opposed to maintaing its sovereignity, Raja Hari Singh who had complete control over the region thanks to the Treaty of 1846 between his predecessor Gulab Singh and the British; refused and maintained his sovereignity but an intent to preserve his raj. However, and i doubt you know this as it is rarely ever discussed in Pakistan or partisan media that you are subjected to, Pakistan invaded Kashmir to annex the territory (talk about occupying land). Under a threat of losing his empire, Raja Hari Singh turned to India for support. India offered to help at the condition that the territory be ceded to India. A treat of accesion was signed and India sent in its troops to push back the invading Pakistanis.

True United Nations passed a resolution which recommended a solution via a plebicite, but this is the same United Nations that criticized General Musharaff's regime, or the imposition of Shariya law in certain districts of Pakistan, or the involvement and support given by Pakistan to the Taliban. but convinient as it was, Pakistan chose to ignore the U.N. when it was not convinient but rants about its resolutions where its to its most benefit. Heck i say lets have a plebicite, after however the displaced population that was forced to either desert or was brutalized by the so called freedom fighters is restored. Lets try this, and it was even suggested by the Indian government. Maintain a 24 month (or maybe it was 12 month) period of ceasefire and then hold a plebicite. However, sensing the calm and the possibility of declining support of Pakistan the militancy tossed the ceasefire out of the window.

and what hole did you pull the arunachal pradesh argument from? Arunachal pradesh was a part of China prior to the second world war??? Now i have heard looney stuff, and i have heard stuff people say when they are about as literate as a dog flea. what you said is somewhere in between the two. China did not even share a border with India till it annexed Tibet. the Indo-Tibet border marked in 1914 by the McMahon Line by an aggrement between India and Tibet placed Arunachal Pradesh within British India's border. It was only after China took over Tibet in 1950 did it begin to stake a claim to Arunachal Pradesh. It argued that Tibet, a protectorate of China was not authorized to sign any treaties, and hence the McMahon line was dismissed by China after it had in fact been respected for over 35 odd years. Infact China wished to renegotiate the entire border with India and staked claims to several regions such as Sikim, Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin, pretty much territory where ever the two nations had a common boundary. India desired to continue acknowledging the McMahon Line, China did not, simple as that. War, if you may call it that considering the small percentage of total troops mobilized by either nation and the non involvement of any air force or navy or even severance of diplomatic ties (both India and China maintained their embassies in each other through the skirmish) ended soon after in a stalemate, with China withdrawing from all occupied territory in the northeast but maintained hold over Aksai Chin (as it linked Xijiang province to Tibet). end history lesson, go ahead replace the blinders.

and finally on the issue of civil liberties, here is the breakdown about how the ratings are assigned:

the country's classification is described by the sum total of its score in the field of Political Freedom and Civil Liberties. Scores a rated on a 1 to 7 scale where 1 being the best score and 7 being the least. Hence, if a nation scored 5 on political freedom, and another scored 4, then the later (the one with the 4 score) enjoys greater political freedom than the former. Similarly for civil liberties.

the political rights score is assigned on the basis of the answer of 10 basic political rights questions grouped into three sub categories. For each of these questions a score from 0 to 4 is assigned to give the country a raw score, where 0 represents the least score and 4 represents the highest score, i.e. highest degree of freedom. hence the highest raw score a country can get on the issue of political rights is 40 (4 for each of the 10 questions). This raw score is then used to determine a scaled score from a scale of 1 to 7. Where:

Raw Points Scaled Score
36- 40 7
30-35 6
24-29 5
18-23 4
12-17 3
6-11 2
0-5 1

similarly the civil rights liberty score is achieved on the basis of answers to 15 questions where again points are awarded from 0 to 4. hence the highest score a country can obtain is 60 (4 x 15) and the least, a 0 (0 x 15). Again as was the case of Political Rights, the raw sum total of the 15 question's answers is used to determine a 1 - 7 scaled score. The raw points to scaled score is similar to the previous one shown, just that this one ranges from 0 to 60.

the questions that are asked to gauge the political freedom of the nation can be summarized as:
1. transparency in the democracy (existance of an opposition, equal campaigning opportunities, election of the head of the state is via a democratic process or not etc).
2. political pluralism (how frequent the elections occur, are all the people equally franchised, is the people's choice free of pressure exerted by an armed force or armed community etc).
3. functioning of the government (how free is the government free from corruption, is the government transparent and accountable etc).

the questions that are asked to guage the civil liberties of the nation can be summarized as:
1. freedom of expression and belief
2. associational and organizational rights
3. rule of law
4. personal autonomy and individual rights.

finally, Pakistan received a down arrow judgement (i.e. rights were on the decline), a score of 6 and 5 on political rights and civil liberties respectively, and hence an average score of 5.5 which just fell short of the 5.0 score that seperates a partially free country from a not free country. india received an up arrow judgement (i.e. rights were on the rise), a score of 2 and 3 on political rights and civil liberties respectively, and hence an average of 2.5, which classified it as a free country. Kashmir under indian control received a score of 5 and 5 on PR and CL respectively, an average of 5 and hence a partially free state. Kashmir under Pakistan control received a score of 7 - 5 on PR and CL respectively, an average of 6, and hence a not free state. judgements on the scores were made by an international board of judges from partisan states and considerable knowledge in the field of civil liberties and political rights.

i am glad that you assure me that pakistan will be ok. good, honestly i dont really care too much for pakistan, but i am concerned about the repercussions of a poor, undemocratic, economically inferior neighbor in the clutches of a religious-political party now sitting atop a nuclear arsenal! thats all that i am concered about. and yeah your comment that Cuba is happy, well thats just precious. worth its weight in gold, or must i say a page out of the "bizzaro world"? a world where up is down, down is up, in is out, out is in...

cuba is happy... what are you? fidel castro's public relations man? maybe your good friend does not know about the millions rotting in the prisons without charges being brought against them, the forced redistribution of land and property skewed in the favor of government officials etc.

cuba is happy... testament of your knowledge (or lack there of) or just your ignorance. go read about the Varela Project and how 20 yeard long sentences were given out to over 75 journalist and political activists through trials that often lasted under an hour, for collecting signatures in support of a democratic referendum.

lets drop this debate here... we are not achieving much. you do not provide any tangible reasons or explaination, nor do you quote non partisan news sources, or heck present the bleeding facts. add to that, you dont read my posts completely or maybe you just dont understand them... and finally there is the small matter of your head between your legs...

thanks miggy.

Akram's stealing the show here folks!

i assure you mate that i will be abstaining from ungentleman like conduct. you have my word on that.

Yaar - it will take about 10 days to digest what he has written !

you read all that?

Tupac has been to school ya know....