Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:26, 24 January 2018

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India: Jammu and Kashmir 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 WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir (assessed as Mid-importance). This article was last assessed in January 2018. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mountains Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Military history: Asian / South Asia 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 not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force South Asian military history task force

PAKHIGHWAY's recent edits

@PAKHIGHWAY: please discuss and/or explain your edits here one by one and lay off any further reverts until a consensus is reached. In the meantime, I've restored the WP:STATUSQUO version. —MBL 05:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@MBlaze Lightning: The quote about 5353 being "occupied by Pakistan" should be clearly highlighted, as it his (Praveen) article which introduced this dispute to the Indian public following comments made by an Indian MP. Why is it being reverted back and thrown into a few meager random lines is beyond my comprehension, unless the intention is for that quote not to be clearly visible, which is the only logical conclusion I can come to. Secondly, this is not a controversy for the world, this is a controversy for India. The term "Indian claims" should be clearly mentioned as a subheading. Point 5353 is in Pakistan and they captured it in 1999 and India failed to take control of it along with several other peaks during the Kargil War. The only dispute or controversy is coming from India, nobody else. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I recommend you read WP:COPYQUOTE, which specifically states, "a longer quotation should not be used where a shorter quotation would express the same information." I'll simply ignore the rest of your comment since you haven't provided any reliable sources to back up your claims. —MBL 08:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your last sentence, "The only dispute or controversy is coming from India, nobody else", but then the controversy was also started by a section of the Indian media. That's why your labeling of the controversy as "Indian claim" makes no sense. And, what about the rest of your edits? —MBL 09:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Can either of you give me the coordinates for the peak, so that I can see what you are talking about? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

34°31'30.10"N, 75°41'55.31"E 34.525028, 75.698697 according to this guy called Aditya_V. —MBL 08:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: The Line of Control has now been altered after 1999. The maps prior to 1999 are claimed to be with Praveen. In the 1999 maps, Point 5353 (along with several other peaks) were on the Indian side of the LoC (Indian administered Kashmir). As for the link given above, a nationalist Pakistan obsessed forum like "Bharat Rickshaw" shouldn't be taken very seriously. Computer arm chair defense experts are hardly credible. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Praveen Swami you mean? Is there corroboration from any other source? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes Praveen Swami. He claimed in his article and quote ''Pakistani occupation of point 5353 means Operation Vijay's core objective in Drass, securing the highway, in effect failed. Officials in New Delhi attempt to argue that point 5353 is in an ambiguous location on the Line of Control, and that there are two peaks of the same height which are being confused, claims debunked by copies of the Army's own maps which are in Business Line's possession.'' This is why I wanted this quote highlighted. Unfortunately the person who edited this article later on decided to conveniently remove this quote. The maps are in his possession. I've since contacted a senior member at PakistanDefence.com in order to somehow get in contact with this Praveen Swami via Twitter . Hopefully I'll be able to provide you and this article with some facts and maps. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I have read the article and know what it says. (a) It is not making a precise claim. Which maps? Where does the LoC go in that map? (b) We need corroboration from another source to state it as more than a claim. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

It is indeed just a claim. Never claimed it was the hard truth. Give me a few days to get into contact with Praveen Swami's take on this via his Twitter account and if he gives us access to those maps which he claimed debunks the Indian army claims. Furthermore, those coordinates are not hard facts either. That's just a random claim from some user on a forum. Hence those coordinates should be reverted back to the original one. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hence those coordinates should be reverted back to the original one. What "original one"? There were no coordinates here before I started editing the article this morning. The coordinates are the same as what I found on Wikimapia. They can be verified on Google Earth. If you have alternative coordinates, please provide them and tell us where they come from. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• On my first look at the article, it appears too lengthy and there seems to be too much written about the political controversy. Some lengthy sections including unnecessary details may need to be cut down or modified to meet WP:SUMMARY and WP:WEIGHT. Also, there are no subsections which makes this hard to follow. Mar4d (talk) 07:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mar4d: Indeed. Not only is it very long, but there seems to be an attempt to highlight certain quotes and hide other quotes. Quite disingenuous if you ask me. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ved Prakash Malik's book, Chapter 3, reproduces a map of the LoC in the area, along with the signatures of Indian and Pakistani commanders from 1972. It looks very much like the OpenStreetMap depiction of the line included on this page. The line does put Point 5353 on the LoC, if anything slightly to the Pakistani side. Praveen Swami and Anand were probably looking at wrong maps or wrong peaks. Unless somebody can find and quote the wording of the 1972 agreement, I think the controversy is overblown. Its length should be greatly reduced. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

References

1. Malik, General V. P. (2010), Kargil-From Surprise TO Victory, HarperCollins Publishers India, pp. 1–, ISBN 978-93-5029-313-3

Other peaks and quotes

Peaks captured by Pakistan in 1999 and still under control as of 2018

• 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
2. 'Pakistan still occupies key Drass point', by Praveen Swami. DRASS, 10 August 2000 - THE HINDU
3. '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
4. ‘6 Kargil heights in Pak control’. NEW DELHI, 30 August 2000 - Tribune India
5. 'Pakistan occupying six Indian peaks, claims MP' by Josy Joseph. NEW DELHI, 30 August 2000 - REDIFF
6. 'Not convinced we won Kargil: Lt Gen Kishan Pal to NDTV' by Nitin Gokhale. NEW DELHI 31 May 2010 00:36 IST - NDTV
7. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/904482.stm
8. 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
9. https://www.telegraphindia.com/1020828/asp/frontpage/story_1144073.asp

Point 5240

@Kautilya3: It is factually incorrect to say that Point 5240 was on the Indian side of the LoC. The Ashok Mehta source explicitly says that this peak is bang on the LoC. —MBL 18:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the maps the Army folks are drawing don't seem to have a lot of connection to reality. I am still trying to figure out their world view. See the secttion on Marpo La ridge below. Wikimapia shows 5240 inside the Indian side. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Mohinder Puri says 5240 (which he calls "5245") is to the "southeast" of 5353 . That is a correct description. And it would put it inside the Indian territory (assuming the LoC is running east-west in that area). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

This blog post points out that the LoC in the Simla Agreement was more curvy than the current maps depict. The Simla Agreement line shown there is indeed running at 135° angle in the Tiger Hill area. That might might put both 5353 and 5240 on the LoC. But neither the Indians nor the Pakistanis seem to be following that line any more. Once you straighten it out, 5353 falls on the Pakistani side and 5240 falls on the Indian side. So, all this controversy may be due to map inconsistencies. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is a link to the 1949 CFL. After Point 17561 (5353m), it goes to Point 17352 (5289m). I have no idea where the latter is. But there is no mention of Point 5240 being on the CFL. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Point 5240 and Point 5245 appear to be two names for the same mountain peak. Captain Amarinder Singh also refers to this peak as "Point 5245" in his book A Ridge Too Far: War in the Kargil Heights 1999. Here are some relevant excerpts from his book:

... A further kilometre away lie two more points, the one to the east of the ridge being Point 5105 and that to the west being Point 5140. A 250-metre gap between the two was dubbed 'Flat'. From Point 5105, the ridge line north-east, crossing a series of smaller 'Rocky Knobs' until it reaches the LOC at point 5245, a distance of some 3.5 kilometres.

The area of the Dras Sub-Sector which had been penetrated by the enemy starts east of the Marpola Pass, at Marpola Point, short of the enemy post on Point 5353 on their side of the LOC. This first, or western ridge line then loops southwards to Point 5100 and then directly south to Point 4195, close to Dras. A second ridge line, the central one, then extends further south of the LOC from west of Point 5245 on the enemy's side to a point in line with the Tololing— Point 5140 ridge line. It then splits in two, one half arcing back to Point 4700, the other continuing south to Point 4169, again above Dras. , or eastern ridge line, is the one we have already dealt with - the line Tololing-Point 5140, extending across the LOC to Point 5245. Just short of the LOC, about 1 kilometre on the Indian side, lies Point 5060. The enemy's original arc of intrusion, before they lost Tololing, had followed these features: Marpola Point (on the LOC)-Point 5100-Point 4700- Tololing (Point 4590)-Point 5140-Point 5060 and thence back to the LOC, and the junction point of the two ridges west of Point 5245.

—MBL 13:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Ashok Metha offers no evidence whatsoever. This is his imagination at best and quite clearly propaganda to save face for the loss of several Kargil Peaks to Pakistan. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Marpo La ridge

Mohinder Puri, in his book as well as his IDR article, shows the Marpo La ridge running roughly east-west, and the Line of Control running along it. However, the Google terrain map shows a ridge running at 135° angle, which I took to mean the Marpo La ridge. There does seem to be an east-west ridge branching out of it to the right, along which the LoC runs.

Which of these two is the correct Marpo La ridge? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

That was a false alarm. It appears that Puri is only labeling the Marpo La pass, not the "Marpo La ridge". The east-west line in the maps is clearly the Line of Control and has no connection to any ridge. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding Block Quote For Praveen's initial assessment

@Kautilya3: I have added a block quote to this subsection so it reads like this. The edits however are continuously being reverted for no reason. Kindly settle the issue. The block quote makes sense to highlight.

The Hindu Business Line report

On 11 August 2000, The Hindu Business Line published a report titled Pakistan still occupies key Drass point, authored by noted journalist and security specialist Praveen Swami. It stated that the Point 5353 was inside the Indian side of the Line of Control and the Pakistani troops held the mountain through the Kargil war and continue to do so today.

Praveen Swami wrote on 11 August 2000:

"Pakistan soldiers perched at peak 5,353 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."

According to Swami, "Artillery observers on peak 5,353 metres can direct accurate artillery fire on to up to 20 km of the National Highway 1A, and cripple Indian defensive positions from Mushkoh to Bhimbet." Swami goes on to narrate that Indian soldiers on three posts, namely Point 5165, Point 5240 and Point 5100, "guided their superior 155-millimetre Bofors howitzers with devastating accuracy". He adds "Pakistani troops on Point 5353 were first hit with smoke-filled mortar shells, to flush them out of their bunkers, and then with air-burst artillery, which showered down shards of metal at great speed. Well over 40 Pakistanis are believed to have died on Point 5353. Pakistan could not reinforce the troops since the Indian soldiers on Point 5165 and Point 5240 were in a position to hit their supply lines."

Swami narrated that, during the war, the Commander Amar Aul of the 56 Mountain Brigade was given the objective of securing point 5353, but he was unable to do so within the timeframe available. Instead, he occupied two peaks on the Pakistani side of the Line of Control, point 4875 and point 4251 before the ceasefire came into force. In the negotiations carried out between the Brigadier Aul and a Pakistani interlocuter called Colonel Saqlian in August 1999, both sides committed themselves to leave the points 5353, 5240, 4251 and 4875 unoccupied.

Location

If the mountain peak is under Pakistani control, obviously it will be in Pakistani territory. This isn't rocket science. I don't know why efforts are being made to downplay the fact that this peak (along with several other peaks) were captured by Pakistan in 1999 from India and continue to be held to this day. I have not seen one map at all proving the Indian claim whatsoever that these peaks were on the Line of Control. What I am seeing is a very clever effort to try and downplay the embarrassment of losing several peaks by redrawing maps and claiming they were never with India. This is a LIE. For further information, please refer to your very own media.

• Tiger Hill Peak 5353 still under control of Pakistan
• Point 5353 still under Pak occupation: brig (Retd.) Surinder Singh
• Point 5353 in Pakistan's control

1. p. 158
2. p. 164
3. ^ Swami, Praveen (11 August 2000). "Pakistan still occupies key Drass point". The Hindu Business Line. Retrieved 29 September 2017.
4. Swami, Praveen (9 March 2004). "War and peace on Gurkha Post". The Hindu. Retrieved 25 September 2017.

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Pakistan articles
• Mid-importance Pakistan articles
• WikiProject Pakistan articles
• Start-Class India articles
• High-importance India articles
• Start-Class India articles of High-importance
• Start-Class Jammu and Kashmir articles
• Mid-importance Jammu and Kashmir articles
• Start-Class Jammu and Kashmir articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir articles
• WikiProject India articles
• Start-Class Mountain articles
• Low-importance Mountain articles
• Misplaced Pages requested images of mountains
• All WikiProject Mountains pages
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• Start-Class South Asian military history articles
• South Asian military history task force articles