Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Modi and Kargil

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • lemontree
    replied
    ....documents surfaced in Washington which pointed to a hitherto unknown role played by Modi in securing the withdrawal of Pakistani forces from Kargil at the heavy prodding of then US President Bill Clinton.
    Modi’s role in the turn of events, it is now revealed, was critical.
    One can only laugh at the pathetic attempts of Modi and his spin doctors to take credit for the 1999 Kargil victory.
    The blood of our troops earned that victory - let them not forget that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Originally posted by antimony View Post
    What is disappointing is that I have heard a respected talk show host refer to this, presumably without doing the basic check that we did
    Why did they even print it is my question.

    The biggest irony here is being missed. This is a man who was denied a US visa, going over to the US representing the country and wants to EXPAND relations.

    Originally posted by popillol View Post
    Apologies for not researching before.
    That is ok, its the author, K.P. Nayar that needs to do the work.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 02 Oct 14,, 06:52.

    Leave a comment:


  • antimony
    replied
    No problem,

    Most of us have come to realize that on this board some extra background research helps. your absence will not lead to a deactivation, as far as I know. All the best with the college final years. Don't spend too much time on this board during the final year, it sucks you in. Look at me. Instead of responding to my official emails, I am responding to your post :)

    Leave a comment:


  • popillol
    replied
    Originally posted by antimony View Post
    What is disappointing is that I have heard a respected talk show host refer to this, presumably without doing the basic check that we did

    And the OP has gone mysteriously missing from this thread too
    Yeah, I checked it too later. Found there was nothing much in it. Though I had started the thread as I had just realized that I could create one! Apologies for not researching before.
    As for my disappearance, well college's final year pains, projects, etc. :( I won't be posting much, I hope my account doesn't get deactivated.

    Leave a comment:


  • antimony
    replied
    What is disappointing is that I have heard a respected talk show host refer to this, presumably without doing the basic check that we did

    And the OP has gone mysteriously missing from this thread too

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Originally posted by antimony View Post
    The only place where the amendment is mentioned is the Telegraph article. I would love this to be true, but need some actual proof before that.
    This so called modi inspired amendment supposed to have been passed in Jul 1 (but wasn't) is what forced a Pak withdrawal according to the telegraph article.
    In part, Ackerman’s amendment read: the US “President should consider all alternatives, including instructing the US representatives to various international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank to oppose any loan applications from Pakistan, except for food or humanitarian assistance, until it withdraws its forces from the Indian side of the Line of Control.”
    Modi’s visit took place five days before Nawaz Sharif flew into Washington
    Sharif said he was coming and would be there on (July) the 4th”.
    if you read Bruce Riedel's account of the kargil war, posted by a member here.

    pg. 4

    One well-informed assessment concluded that a Pakistani strike on just one Indian city, Bombay, with a small bomb would kill between 150,000 and 850,000 alone. Given these consequences for escalation, the U.S. was quick to make known our view that Pakistan should withdraw its forces back behind the Line of Control immediately.

    At first Rick Inderfurth and Undersecretary Thomas Pickering conveyed this view privately to the Pakistani and Indian ambassadors in Washington in late May. Secretary Albright then called Sharif two days later and General Tony Zinni, who had a very close relationship with his Pakistani counterparts, also called Chief of Army Staff General Musharraf. These messages did not work. So we went public and called upon Pakistan to respect the LOC. I laid out our position in an on the record interview at the Foreign Press Center in Washington. The President then called both leaders in mid-June and sent letters to each pressing for a Pakistani withdrawal and Indian restraint.

    The Pakistanis and Indians were both surprised by the U.S. position: Pakistan because Islamabad assumed the U.S. would always back them against India and India because they could not believe the U.S. would judge the crisis on its merits rather than side automatically with its long time Pakistani ally.
    Have not been able to locate that interview Riedel mentions at the Foreign press center's archives (only seems to go back to 2001). Its date will make the case that the Americans were already pushing for a Pak withdrawal much earlier than Modi's arrival in the US.

    telegraph goes on to say

    Reidel has put down on paper for the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for the Advanced Study of India what is the most authoritative account of the US role in ending the Kargil war, but solely from the administration’s view point.

    According to him, “on the 3rd (of July, two days after the Ackerman amendment) Sharif was more desperate and told the president he was ready to come immediately to Washington to seek our help. The president repeated his caution — come only if you are ready to withdraw, I can’t help you if you are not ready to pull back…. Sharif said he was coming and would be there on the 4th”.
    They acknowledge Riedels work.

    So what exactly is Modi supposed to be doing here ? trying to convince the Americans to do something they already were going to do ?

    The telegraph article is bunk. Probably why Modi has kept quiet on this point.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 01 Oct 14,, 01:48.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Since Modi could not enter the US after 2002, they had to dig up something prior to show he had been there in some operational capacity. Trying to curry favour with the telegraph's readers.

    They need not have bothered. Modi didn't have to go over, CEO's came to Gujurat.

    The US meet is very anticipated and offers many opportunities for both sides.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 23 Sep 14,, 01:42.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gun Grape
    replied
    The Resolution never made it out of Committee.

    It was Sponsored on 6/29 and died 7/01.

    Do you really think the State Dept or the President even heard about it?

    H.RES.227
    Latest Title: Expressing the sense of the Congress in opposition to the Government of Pakistan's support for armed incursion into Jammu and Kashmir, India.
    Sponsor: Rep Gilman, Benjamin A. [NY-20] (introduced 6/29/1999) Cosponsors (14)
    Latest Major Action: 7/1/1999 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee Agreed to Seek Consideration Under Suspension of the Rules, (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 22 - 5.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Yeah, no amendment.

    H.RES.227
    Last edited by Double Edge; 23 Sep 14,, 01:10.

    Leave a comment:


  • antimony
    replied
    Never mind, got the right resolution. My bad, it was from a different Congressional session.

    The original text reads as follows:
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives--
    (1) that it should be the policy of the United States to
    oppose the Government of Pakistan's support for armed incursion
    into Jammu and Kashmir, India;
    (2) that it should be the policy of the United States to
    support the immediate withdrawal of intruding forces supported
    by Pakistan from the Indian side of the Line of Control, to
    urge the reestablishment and future respect for the Line of
    Control, and to encourage all sides to end the fighting and
    exercise restraint;
    (3) that it should be the policy of the United States to
    encourage both India and Pakistan to adhere to the principles
    of the Lahore Declaration.
    But there is no mention of any Amendment.

    Amendments: H.Res.227 106th Congress (1999-2000)

    No amendment information was received for H.Res.227 - Expressing the sense of the Congress in opposition to the Government of Pakistan's support for armed incursion into Jammu and Kashmir, India..
    The only place where the amendment is mentioned is the Telegraph article. I would love this to be true, but need some actual proof before that.

    Leave a comment:


  • antimony
    replied
    Originally posted by popillol View Post
    Interesting article:
    US diggers find a Kargil resolution

    Great connections indeed :Dancing-Banana:
    This is the House Resolution 227

    https://beta.congress.gov/bill/112th...house-bill/227

    Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2011 - Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to: (1) raise the age of handgun eligibility to 21 (currently, 18); and (2) prohibit persons under age 21 from possessing semiautomatic assault weapons or large capacity ammunition feeding devices, with exceptions.
    Are you you have got the right connection? Maybe it is a different resolution number?

    Leave a comment:


  • popillol
    started a topic Modi and Kargil

    Modi and Kargil

    Interesting article:
    US diggers find a Kargil resolution

    Great connections indeed :Dancing-Banana:
Working...
X