1,326
edits
robot: Create/upgrade articles. If there is a mistake please report on my talk page.
(go to talk page to list instances of failed verification for obvious reasons, lest I take you to ANI for disruptive editing and WP:CIR conduct) |
(robot: Create/upgrade articles. If there is a mistake please report on my talk page.) |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
}} | }} | ||
'''Point 5353''' (also called '''Point 17561''', and '''Marpo La Peak'''<ref name="A Ridge Too Far">{{harvnb|Singh, A Ridge Too Far|2001|p=87}}</ref>) is a mountain peak on the [[Line of Control]] dividing the [[Indian-administered Kashmir|Indian-]] and [[Gilgit-Baltistan|Pakistani-administered]] portions of [[Kashmir]] in the vicinity of [[Dras]] in the [[Kargil district]].<ref name="Ganguly">{{citation |last=Ganguly |first=Sumit |title=Deadly Impasse |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=z_-lCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA137 |year=2016 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-76361-5 |pages=137}}: Description of the [[Karachi Agreement|1949 Cease-Fire Line]]: "... thence to MARPO LA (to be shared by both sides), thence through Point 17561 [Point 5353], thence through Point 17352 [Point 5289], thence through Point 18400 [Point 5608], thence through Point 16760, thence to (inclusive to India) DALUNANG."</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Ludra, The Kargil Strike|2000|p=359}}: "In fact the Line of Control runs from Marpo La Pass which is not inclusive to either side, along the ridge line to Point 5353."</ref><ref name="Tribune rears">[http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020828/nation.htm#3 Point 5353 controversy rears its head again], The Tribune, 28 August 2002: A single page denial issued by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) said, “as far as Point 5353 is concerned, it is a Point on the Line of Control (LoC) as delineated after Simla Agreement. This has been authenticated on a map by Lt. Gen P.S. Bhagat of India and Lt. Gen Abdul Hamid Khan of Pakistan on a map on December 11, 1972”.</ref> It is the highest peak along the Marpo La ridge and dominates the entire area on both the sides of the Line of Control.<ref name="Ludra dominates">{{harvnb|Ludra, The Kargil Strike|2000|p=359}}: Point 5353 dominates the Eastern Shoulder of the Pass, and since it is the highest point in that area it could be called the dominating feature. It dominates, by observation and fire, the complete area on both side of the Line of Control.</ref><ref name="Tribune dominates">[http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020828/nation.htm#3 Point 5353 controversy rears its head again], The Tribune, 28 August 2002: The denial prompted by the media reports ... conveniently overlooked the factor that the most dominating feature on the Indo-Pak border in the Kargil region - Point 5353 - is under the Pakistani army control.</ref><ref name="Mehta dominates">Gen Ashok K. Mehta, [http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040713/edit.htm Point 5353 still in Pakistan’s possession], The Tribune (Chandigarh), 13 June 2004: Point 5353 is the summit of pinnacles on the watershed in the Dras sector. ... Its colossal domination of the Dras Bowl and Sandow valley was achieved by the Pakistan Army, cleverly using the two south-facing ridge lines emanating from it and paralysing the movement in Dras.</ref><ref name="Puri dominates">{{citation |last=Puri |first=Lt Gen Mohinder |title=Kargil: Turning the Tide |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zptCCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT130 |date=2015 |publisher=Lancer Publishers LLC |isbn=978-1-940988-23-8}}: The entire Drass Sector including Mushkoh is dominated by a series of heights along the Marpola Ridge which emanates from Faranshat village in POK. Point 5353, a prominent height on this ridge overlooks both the Mushkoh-Drass Valleys and NH 1D, and dominates the approach to POK.</ref><ref name="Chandar dominates">{{citation |last=Chandar |first=Col Y Udaya |title=Independent India's All the Seven Wars |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=pwxFDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT536 |year=2018 |publisher=Notion Press |isbn=978-1-948473-22-4 |page=536}}: Pt 5353 is the highest peak in this area (16500 feet). It is the most dominating feature in Dras Valley, and is on a confluence of number of spurs and overlooks the long stretch of Srinagar-Leh highway.</ref> | '''Point 5353''' (also called '''Point 17561''', and '''Marpo La Peak'''<ref name="A Ridge Too Far">{{harvnb|Singh, A Ridge Too Far|2001|p=87}}</ref>) is a mountain peak on the [[Line of Control]] dividing the [[Indian-administered Kashmir|Indian-]] and [[Gilgit-Baltistan|Pakistani-administered]] portions of [[Kashmir]] in the vicinity of [[Dras]] in the [[Kargil district]].<ref name="Ganguly">{{citation |last=Ganguly |first=Sumit |title=Deadly Impasse |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=z_-lCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA137 |year=2016 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-76361-5 |pages=137}}: Description of the [[Karachi Agreement|1949 Cease-Fire Line]]: "... thence to MARPO LA (to be shared by both sides), thence through Point 17561 [Point 5353], thence through Point 17352 [Point 5289], thence through Point 18400 [Point 5608], thence through Point 16760, thence to (inclusive to India) DALUNANG."</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Ludra, The Kargil Strike|2000|p=359}}: "In fact the Line of Control runs from Marpo La Pass which is not inclusive to either side, along the ridge line to Point 5353."</ref><ref name="Tribune rears">[http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020828/nation.htm#3 Point 5353 controversy rears its head again], The Tribune, 28 August 2002: A single page denial issued by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) said, “as far as Point 5353 is concerned, it is a Point on the Line of Control (LoC) as delineated after Simla Agreement. This has been authenticated on a map by Lt. Gen P.S. Bhagat of India and Lt. Gen Abdul Hamid Khan of Pakistan on a map on December 11, 1972”.</ref> It is the highest peak along the Marpo La ridge and dominates the entire area on both the sides of the Line of Control.<ref name="Ludra dominates">{{harvnb|Ludra, The Kargil Strike|2000|p=359}}: Point 5353 dominates the Eastern Shoulder of the Pass, and since it is the highest point in that area it could be called the dominating feature. It dominates, by observation and fire, the complete area on both side of the Line of Control.</ref><ref name="Tribune dominates">[http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020828/nation.htm#3 Point 5353 controversy rears its head again], The Tribune, 28 August 2002: The denial prompted by the media reports ... conveniently overlooked the factor that the most dominating feature on the Indo-Pak border in the Kargil region - Point 5353 - is under the Pakistani army control.</ref><ref name="Mehta dominates">Gen Ashok K. Mehta, [http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040713/edit.htm Point 5353 still in Pakistan’s possession], The Tribune (Chandigarh), 13 June 2004: Point 5353 is the summit of pinnacles on the watershed in the Dras sector. ... Its colossal domination of the Dras Bowl and Sandow valley was achieved by the Pakistan Army, cleverly using the two south-facing ridge lines emanating from it and paralysing the movement in Dras.</ref><ref name="Puri dominates">{{citation |last=Puri |first=Lt Gen Mohinder |title=Kargil: Turning the Tide |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zptCCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT130 |date=2015 |publisher=Lancer Publishers LLC |isbn=978-1-940988-23-8}}: The entire Drass Sector including Mushkoh is dominated by a series of heights along the Marpola Ridge which emanates from Faranshat village in POK. Point 5353, a prominent height on this ridge overlooks both the Mushkoh-Drass Valleys and NH 1D, and dominates the approach to POK.</ref><ref name="Chandar dominates">{{citation |last=Chandar |first=Col Y Udaya |title=Independent India's All the Seven Wars |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=pwxFDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT536 |year=2018 |publisher=Notion Press |isbn=978-1-948473-22-4 |page=536}}: Pt 5353 is the highest peak in this area (16500 feet). It is the most dominating feature in Dras Valley, and is on a confluence of number of spurs and overlooks the long stretch of Srinagar-Leh highway.</ref> | ||
The peak became a subject of controversy after the [[Kargil War]]. Soon after the war had ended ''[[The Hindu]]'' correspondent [[Praveen Swami]] and an [[Indian National Congress|Indian opposition party leader]], [[Ram Kumar Anand]] claimed that the peak was inside the Indian side of the [[Line of Control]] (LoC) and it was captured by the [[Pakistan Army]] during the Kargil War. They also claimed that the Indian troops had unsuccessfully tried to recapture Point 5353 on 18 May 1999. The report also added that Indian troops captured [[Point 5310]] on the Pakistani side of LoC in retaliation in April 2000. | The peak became a subject of controversy after the [[Kargil War]]. Soon after the war had ended ''[[The Hindu]]'' correspondent [[Praveen Swami]] and an [[Indian National Congress|Indian opposition party leader]], [[Ram Kumar Anand]] claimed that the peak was inside the Indian side of the [[Line of Control]] (LoC) and it was captured by the [[Pakistan Army]] during the Kargil War. They also claimed that the Indian troops had unsuccessfully tried to recapture Point 5353 on 18 May 1999. The report also added that Indian troops captured [[Point 5310]] on the Pakistani side of LoC in retaliation in April 2000. | ||
The Pakistani military has held possession of Point 5353 from the time of the war,<ref>{{Cite web|title=Why Point 5353 in Kargil Continues to be occupied by Pakistan|url=https://theprint.in/defence/why-point-5353-in-kargil-continues-to-be-occupied-by-pakistan/87213/|last=|first=|date=23 July 2018|website=The Print|access-date=}}</ref> whereas the Indian Army has held the peaks in its surrounding on either side with a view to counteract any Pakistani activity on 5353. | |||
== Geography == | == Geography == | ||
[[File:1923 SoI map of Dras Marpola Shingo.jpg|thumb|right|290px|The Marpo La pass and the Gultari and Drass valleys (Survey of India, 1923); Point 17561 is to the right of Marpo La]] | [[File:1923 SoI map of Dras Marpola Shingo.jpg|thumb|right|290px|The Marpo La pass and the Gultari and Drass valleys (Survey of India, 1923); Point 17561 is to the right of Marpo La]] | ||
The [[Marpo La]] pass is one of very few passes in the high Himalayas of Ladakh that allows north–south communication.{{efn|{{harvtxt|Rammohun, Countering Insurgencies in India|2011|p=190}}: "The Himalayan range extending beyond the Kaobal Gali is steep and virtually impassable except for two passes across which these are old trails, one at Marpo La and the other at Chor Bat La."}} The [[Karachi Agreement|1949 Cease-Fire Line]] between India and Pakistan as well as the 1972 [[Line of Control]] pass through the Marpo La pass. The ridge adjoining the pass to the east, which is also referred to as the 'Marpo La ridge', runs in a northwest-southeast axis and contains a number of tall peaks. The point 5353, so named because of its height in metres, is the tallest peak on the Marpo La ridge. Its older name is Point 17561, representing its height in feet.<ref name=Ganguly/>{{sfn|Malik | The [[Marpo La]] pass is one of very few passes in the high Himalayas of Ladakh that allows north–south communication.{{efn|{{harvtxt|Rammohun, Countering Insurgencies in India|2011|p=190}}: "The Himalayan range extending beyond the Kaobal Gali is steep and virtually impassable except for two passes across which these are old trails, one at Marpo La and the other at Chor Bat La."}} The [[Karachi Agreement|1949 Cease-Fire Line]] between India and Pakistan as well as the 1972 [[Line of Control]] pass through the Marpo La pass. The ridge adjoining the pass to the east, which is also referred to as the 'Marpo La ridge', runs in a northwest-southeast axis and contains a number of tall peaks. The point 5353, so named because of its height in metres, is the tallest peak on the Marpo La ridge. Its older name is Point 17561, representing its height in feet.<ref name=Ganguly/>{{sfn|Malik|2006|loc=Chapter 3}}<ref name="Telegraph 2002"/> | ||
The Line of Control in this area is flanked by the [[Shingo River]] valley of [[Gilgit-Baltistan|Pakistani-administered Kashmir]] in the north and the [[Dras River]] valley of [[Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)|Indian-administered Kashmir]] in the south. Both these valleys represent major lines of east–west communication in the respective regions of Kashmir. The Shingo and Dras rivers join together further east near [[Kakshar]]. To the south of the Line of Control is India's [[Kargil district]] and to the north is Pakistan's [[Skardu District|Skardu district]]. A dominating feature in the area is Point 5608, which lies about 15km to the east of Point 5353 in the Kaksar sector. It overlooks the Shingo Valley in Pakistan. Indian troops took control of this feature in the wake of Operation Parakram.<ref name="Point 5608 in Indian hands" >[https://www.thestatesman.com/supplements/from-war-hero-to-outcast-131289.html From war hero to outcast], ''The Statesman'', 21 March, 2016</ref><ref name=Kak/> | The Line of Control in this area is flanked by the [[Shingo River]] valley of [[Gilgit-Baltistan|Pakistani-administered Kashmir]] in the north and the [[Dras River]] valley of [[Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)|Indian-administered Kashmir]] in the south. Both these valleys represent major lines of east–west communication in the respective regions of Kashmir. The Shingo and Dras rivers join together further east near [[Kakshar]]. To the south of the Line of Control is India's [[Kargil district]] and to the north is Pakistan's [[Skardu District|Skardu district]]. A dominating feature in the area is Point 5608, which lies about 15km to the east of Point 5353 in the Kaksar sector. It overlooks the Shingo Valley in Pakistan. Indian troops took control of this feature in the wake of Operation Parakram.<ref name="Point 5608 in Indian hands" >[https://www.thestatesman.com/supplements/from-war-hero-to-outcast-131289.html From war hero to outcast], ''The Statesman'', 21 March, 2016</ref><ref name=Kak/> | ||
| Line 36: | Line 37: | ||
</ref> The second tallest peak on the Marpo La ridge, Point 5240, is 1.2 km southeast of the Point 5353. Both points 5070 and 5240 are currently held by India, and are situated on the LoC.<ref name="Telegraph 2002"/><ref name="Praveen Swami 11 August 2000"/>{{efn|Gen. Ashok K. Mehta states that point 5240 is ''on'' the Line of Control.<ref name="Mehta 2004"/>}} | </ref> The second tallest peak on the Marpo La ridge, Point 5240, is 1.2 km southeast of the Point 5353. Both points 5070 and 5240 are currently held by India, and are situated on the LoC.<ref name="Telegraph 2002"/><ref name="Praveen Swami 11 August 2000"/>{{efn|Gen. Ashok K. Mehta states that point 5240 is ''on'' the Line of Control.<ref name="Mehta 2004"/>}} | ||
The Sando nullah (stream) starts just below the Marpo La pass and flows southeast, joining the Drass River. A track running alongside the Sando Nullah is the key communication link between the town of [[Dras]] and the Marpo La pass.{{sfn| | The Sando nullah (stream) starts just below the Marpo La pass and flows southeast, joining the Drass River. A track running alongside the Sando Nullah is the key communication link between the town of [[Dras]] and the Marpo La pass.{{sfn|Singh, A Ridge Too Far|2001|p=39}} | ||
== Strategic significance, and the surrounding area== | == Strategic significance, and the surrounding area== | ||
| Line 61: | Line 62: | ||
The LoC upon coming into effect superseded the erstwhile ceasefire line (CFL) of 1949.<ref name="Janesloc">{{Cite magazine |year=1990 |magazine=Jane's Defence Weekly |volume=13 |page=302}}</ref> The CFL had come into effect in the wake of the [[Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948]]. It, too, was delineated on maps during the [[Karachi Agreement]] of 27 July, 1949. The LoC corresponds virtually to the 1949 CFL, save for minor deviations.{{sfn|Ganguly|2004|p=27}} It runs from the [[India–Pakistan border]] in the south to [[Point NJ9842]], covering a length of 740 kilometre.{{sfn|Malik|2006|p=59}} In this region, both the 1949 CFL and the 1972 LoC ''pass through'' high peaks, starting from Point 17561 (5353m), thence through Point 17352 (5289m) and finally through Point 18400 (5608m).{{sfn|Malik|2006|p=62}}{{sfn|Bammi|2002|p=102}} | The LoC upon coming into effect superseded the erstwhile ceasefire line (CFL) of 1949.<ref name="Janesloc">{{Cite magazine |year=1990 |magazine=Jane's Defence Weekly |volume=13 |page=302}}</ref> The CFL had come into effect in the wake of the [[Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948]]. It, too, was delineated on maps during the [[Karachi Agreement]] of 27 July, 1949. The LoC corresponds virtually to the 1949 CFL, save for minor deviations.{{sfn|Ganguly|2004|p=27}} It runs from the [[India–Pakistan border]] in the south to [[Point NJ9842]], covering a length of 740 kilometre.{{sfn|Malik|2006|p=59}} In this region, both the 1949 CFL and the 1972 LoC ''pass through'' high peaks, starting from Point 17561 (5353m), thence through Point 17352 (5289m) and finally through Point 18400 (5608m).{{sfn|Malik|2006|p=62}}{{sfn|Bammi|2002|p=102}} | ||
Praveen Swami, based on Army's one-inch maps, had estimated that the summit and southern side of Point 5353 were "unmistakenly on the Indian side of the LoC".<ref name="The Hindu inside">Praveen Swami, [http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2000/08/13/stories/14135597.htm Controversy on point 5353], The Hindu Business Line, 13 August 2000: "First, the Army's own one-inch maps... make clear that point 5353 is on the Indian side of the LoC. Copies of these maps, in Business Line's possession, show that the Marpo La ridge, on which point 5353 is located, does slope down into the Pakistan side of the LoC. But the summit and southern face of point 5353, where Pakistan has built fortified bunkers, are unmistakably on the Indian side of the LoC."</ref> In his later works, however, Swami noted that the LoC passed through the summit of Point 5353.<ref name="swamiloc"/> A couple of other Indian newspapers have stated that Point 5353 was in Indian territory.<ref name="Telegraph inside">Rahul Bedi, [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/1352359/Fears-of-fresh-clash-over-Kashmir-peak.html Fears of fresh clash over Kashmir peak], The Telegraph, 11 August 2000: "Military sources said Point 5353, a 17,397 ft peak on Indian territory, was under Pakistani control..."</ref><ref name="IE inside">Manu Pubby, [http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/near-tiger-hill-point-5353-still-pakoccupied/488505/ Near Tiger Hill, Point 5353 still Pak-occupied], The Indian Express, 13 July 2009: "While the point is clearly on the Indian side of the LoC, it remains in Pakistani control..."</ref> While several other newspapers and commentators state that the point lies on the LoC.<ref name="Hindu reposition forces"/><ref name="Mehta 2004"/><ref name="CLAWS"/> In 2002, ''The Telegraph'' reported that in the map that was shown to them, the Point 5353 was on the LoC.<ref name="Telegraph 2002"/> | Praveen Swami, based on Army's one-inch maps, had estimated that the summit and southern side of Point 5353 were "unmistakenly on the Indian side of the LoC".<ref name="The Hindu inside">Praveen Swami, [http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2000/08/13/stories/14135597.htm Controversy on point 5353], The Hindu Business Line, 13 August 2000: "First, the Army's own one-inch maps... make clear that point 5353 is on the Indian side of the LoC. Copies of these maps, in Business Line's possession, show that the Marpo La ridge, on which point 5353 is located, does slope down into the Pakistan side of the LoC. But the summit and southern face of point 5353, where Pakistan has built fortified bunkers, are unmistakably on the Indian side of the LoC."</ref> In his later works, however, Swami noted that the LoC passed through the summit of Point 5353.<ref name="swamiloc"/> A couple of other Indian newspapers have stated that Point 5353 was in Indian territory.<ref name="Telegraph inside">Rahul Bedi, [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/1352359/Fears-of-fresh-clash-over-Kashmir-peak.html Fears of fresh clash over Kashmir peak], The Telegraph, 11 August 2000: "Military sources said Point 5353, a 17,397 ft peak on Indian territory, was under Pakistani control..."</ref><ref name="IE inside">Manu Pubby, [http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/near-tiger-hill-point-5353-still-pakoccupied/488505/ Near Tiger Hill, Point 5353 still Pak-occupied], The Indian Express, 13 July 2009: "While the point is clearly on the Indian side of the LoC, it remains in Pakistani control..."</ref> While several other newspapers and commentators state that the point lies on the LoC.<ref name="Hindu reposition forces"/><ref name="Mehta 2004">{{Cite news |last=Mehta |first=Ashok K. |title=Point 5353 still in Pakistan's possession India's Kargil agenda is incomplete |work=[[The Tribune (Chandigarh)|The Tribune]] |date=13 July 2004 |url=http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040713/edit.htm#4 |url-status=live |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160409223627/http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040713/edit.htm#4 |access-date=11 September 2017 |archivedate=9 April 2022}}</ref><ref name="CLAWS"/> In 2002, ''The Telegraph'' reported that in the map that was shown to them, the Point 5353 was on the LoC.<ref name="Telegraph 2002"/> | ||
==The pre-Kargil period== | ==The pre-Kargil period== | ||
| Line 91: | Line 92: | ||
Brigadier Surinder Singh, and a few others, who had all been removed from the command, had also accused the army, among other instances of command dereliction, of losing Point 5353 to Pakistan. This prompted the then Indian Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) [[Nirmal Chander Vij]] to issue a press release, with detailed maps and notes, in which he asserted that the LoC passes through Point 5353 as per the [[Simla Agreement]]. "This point", he stated, "was never under our control either before or after Operation Vijay in Kargil."<ref name="Mehta 2004"/><ref name="Data India">{{citation |title=Data India, Issues 30–51 |vauthors=((Press Trust of India)) |publisher=Press Institute of India |year=2000 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3f5tAAAAMAAJ |page=571}}</ref> | Brigadier Surinder Singh, and a few others, who had all been removed from the command, had also accused the army, among other instances of command dereliction, of losing Point 5353 to Pakistan. This prompted the then Indian Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) [[Nirmal Chander Vij]] to issue a press release, with detailed maps and notes, in which he asserted that the LoC passes through Point 5353 as per the [[Simla Agreement]]. "This point", he stated, "was never under our control either before or after Operation Vijay in Kargil."<ref name="Mehta 2004"/><ref name="Data India">{{citation |title=Data India, Issues 30–51 |vauthors=((Press Trust of India)) |publisher=Press Institute of India |year=2000 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3f5tAAAAMAAJ |page=571}}</ref> | ||
However, Praveen Swami stood by his report, stating that ''[[The Hindu]]'' had in its possession copies of the "army's own one-inch maps" as well as orders issued to the commanders to capture Point 5353 on 18 May, 1999. Swami then said that the "Army's denial" had answered "none" of the questions he had raised, starting from the "army's own one-inch maps", which he claimed showed the summit and southern side of Point 5353 to be "unmistakenly on the Indian side of the LoC", and ending with the army's actions across the LoC in the Batalik sector. He further said that it was "unclear" why, if Point 5353 was not on its side or assumed to straddle the LoC, had the army occupied two peaks on the Pakistani side of the LoC with a view to barter them for Points 5353 and 5240.<ref name="swami august 12">{{citation |first=Praveen |last=Swami |authorlink=Praveen Swami |title=Controversy on point 5353 |newspaper=The Hindu Business Line |date=13 August 2000 |url=http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2000/08/13/stories/14135597.htm |access-date=20 January | However, Praveen Swami stood by his report, stating that ''[[The Hindu]]'' had in its possession copies of the "army's own one-inch maps" as well as orders issued to the commanders to capture Point 5353 on 18 May, 1999. Swami then said that the "Army's denial" had answered "none" of the questions he had raised, starting from the "army's own one-inch maps", which he claimed showed the summit and southern side of Point 5353 to be "unmistakenly on the Indian side of the LoC", and ending with the army's actions across the LoC in the Batalik sector. He further said that it was "unclear" why, if Point 5353 was not on its side or assumed to straddle the LoC, had the army occupied two peaks on the Pakistani side of the LoC with a view to barter them for Points 5353 and 5240.<ref name="swami august 12">{{citation |first=Praveen |last=Swami |authorlink=Praveen Swami |title=Controversy on point 5353 |newspaper=The Hindu Business Line |date=13 August 2000 |url=http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2000/08/13/stories/14135597.htm |access-date=20 January 2022}}</ref><ref name="Praveen Swami 2004">{{Cite news |last=Swami |first=Praveen |authorlink=Praveen Swami |title=Commander ordered capture of Point 5353 in Kargil war |date=29 June 2004 |url=http://www.thehindu.com/2004/06/30/stories/2004063006391100.htm |url-status=dead |access-date=29 September 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141129043009/http://www.thehindu.com/2004/06/30/stories/2004063006391100.htm |work=[[The Hindu]] |archive-date=29 November 2022}}</ref> | ||
Swami, however, noted that the 16 Grenadiers' records "interestingly" showed Point 5353 as "a minor objective," and so did the entries in the service records of its CO Colonel Oberoi. He went on to note that "this assessment was vindicated during the artillery clashes in 2001-2002, when the Pakistani observation posts on Point 5353 were unable to bring accurate fire to bear on either the highway or nearby Indian positions. The Indian troops were able to tie down the Pakistani position with accurate fire, rendering it near-impossible for its superior altitude to be used to good effect."<ref name="Praveen Swami 2004"/> | Swami, however, noted that the 16 Grenadiers' records "interestingly" showed Point 5353 as "a minor objective," and so did the entries in the service records of its CO Colonel Oberoi. He went on to note that "this assessment was vindicated during the artillery clashes in 2001-2002, when the Pakistani observation posts on Point 5353 were unable to bring accurate fire to bear on either the highway or nearby Indian positions. The Indian troops were able to tie down the Pakistani position with accurate fire, rendering it near-impossible for its superior altitude to be used to good effect."<ref name="Praveen Swami 2004"/> | ||
| Line 97: | Line 98: | ||
Writing in ''[[The Tribune]]'' in 2004, [[Ashok K. Mehta]], an independent security analyst based in New Delhi, India, however pointed out that the peaks, which the local commanders of the two armies had agreed to leave unoccupied, were Points 5165, 5353 and 5240, which, he wrote, were all on the LoC. It is in this context, he noted that "None of these was ever with the Indian Army. Nor were these at the time in Pakistani possession."<ref name="Mehta dominates"/> He said that Point 5240 was captured by the Indian troops in late October 1999. Thereafter, they took Point 5165 as well in order to forestall their capture by Pakistanis.<ref name="Mehta 2004"/> According to Ashok Mehta, "Taking Points 5240 and 5165 was not difficult, keeping them was tough. The mystery was over not taking Point 5353. It appears the unit asked to do so said it was impossible to get there. But Pakistan had breached the local commanders' agreement and turned Point 5353 into a rope-maintained permanent post."<ref name="Mehta 2004"/> | Writing in ''[[The Tribune]]'' in 2004, [[Ashok K. Mehta]], an independent security analyst based in New Delhi, India, however pointed out that the peaks, which the local commanders of the two armies had agreed to leave unoccupied, were Points 5165, 5353 and 5240, which, he wrote, were all on the LoC. It is in this context, he noted that "None of these was ever with the Indian Army. Nor were these at the time in Pakistani possession."<ref name="Mehta dominates"/> He said that Point 5240 was captured by the Indian troops in late October 1999. Thereafter, they took Point 5165 as well in order to forestall their capture by Pakistanis.<ref name="Mehta 2004"/> According to Ashok Mehta, "Taking Points 5240 and 5165 was not difficult, keeping them was tough. The mystery was over not taking Point 5353. It appears the unit asked to do so said it was impossible to get there. But Pakistan had breached the local commanders' agreement and turned Point 5353 into a rope-maintained permanent post."<ref name="Mehta 2004"/> | ||
Four years later, Swami himself took a contradictory position. Writing in the ''[[Frontline (magazine)|Frontline]]'', he described the LoC to be passing through the summit of Point 5353. He wrote, "Consider, for example, the case of Point 5353, named for its height in metres above sea level, from the summit of which the LoC takes a gentle southeastern turn. In the wake of the Kargil War, a series of local tactical errors allowed Pakistan to occupy the southern face of Point 5353, allowing enemy forces a clear view of Sando Top, an important post."<ref name="swamiloc">{{cite news |last1=Swami |first1=Praveen |title=Beyond civilisation |url=https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/article30221730.ece |work=Frontline |date=9 April | Four years later, Swami himself took a contradictory position. Writing in the ''[[Frontline (magazine)|Frontline]]'', he described the LoC to be passing through the summit of Point 5353. He wrote, "Consider, for example, the case of Point 5353, named for its height in metres above sea level, from the summit of which the LoC takes a gentle southeastern turn. In the wake of the Kargil War, a series of local tactical errors allowed Pakistan to occupy the southern face of Point 5353, allowing enemy forces a clear view of Sando Top, an important post."<ref name="swamiloc">{{cite news |last1=Swami |first1=Praveen |title=Beyond civilisation |url=https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/article30221730.ece |work=Frontline |date=9 April 2022}}</ref> | ||
=== Army rebuttals === | === Army rebuttals === | ||
In this context, General [[Ved Prakash Malik]], who was the Indian Army Chief of Staff during the Kargil war, stated: "The LoC in this area was drawn in 1972 by joining several heights (points) with straight lines. The line went over Point-5353. Sometime after 1972 - well before Kargil war - the Pakistan army had occupied it. During the war, 8 Mountain division made no attempt to capture it." | In this context, General [[Ved Prakash Malik]], who was the Indian Army Chief of Staff during the Kargil war, stated: "The LoC in this area was drawn in 1972 by joining several heights (points) with straight lines. The line went over Point-5353. Sometime after 1972 - well before Kargil war - the Pakistan army had occupied it. During the war, 8 Mountain division made no attempt to capture it." | ||
Similarly, Lieutenant General Amar Aul, who was named by Swami in his reports, said: "No army was occupying these posts before the war. Pakistan had occupied it before the war and it was not in our area…", while adding that no attempt was made to capture Point-5353.<ref name="toiquotes">{{cite news |last1=Sura |first1=Ajay |title=The mystery of Point-5353: Did Army try to retake it? |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/the-mystery-of-point-5353-did-army-try-to-retake-it/articleshow/70387849.cms |access-date=27 February 2021 |work=The Times of India |date=26 July | Similarly, Lieutenant General Amar Aul, who was named by Swami in his reports, said: "No army was occupying these posts before the war. Pakistan had occupied it before the war and it was not in our area…", while adding that no attempt was made to capture Point-5353.<ref name="toiquotes">{{cite news |last1=Sura |first1=Ajay |title=The mystery of Point-5353: Did Army try to retake it? |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/the-mystery-of-point-5353-did-army-try-to-retake-it/articleshow/70387849.cms |access-date=27 February 2021 |work=The Times of India |date=26 July 2022}}</ref> | ||
In his book ''Kargil: Turning the Tide'', [[Lieutenant general]] Mohinder Puri, who was the [[General Officer Commanding]] (GOC) of the [[8th Mountain Division (India)|8 Mountain Division]] during the Kargil War, gives his account of the matter: <blockquote>A lot of controversy was generated on the status of Pt 5353 after the war. This feature lies on the Pakistan side and to capture it, the attacking troops have to approach from the north entailing crossing the [[Line of Control|LC]]. Since the LC was not to be crossed and the feature being on Pakistan side, we had no plans to secure it. The enemy occupied Pt 5353 as an [[observation post]]. In turn, we were in occupation of a feature on the LC. The Pakistani CO established radio contact with CO [[16 GREN]] and requested vacation from this feature. We asked him to reciprocate and vacate Pt 5353 to which he agreed. However, he reoccupied Pt 5353 on 2 August and in retaliation besides occupying the feature vacated by us, 16 GREN was directed to occupy Pt 5245 which was southeast of Pt 5353. With this event the war ended in the Mushkoh–Drass sector.<ref name="Mohinder Puri"/ | In his book ''Kargil: Turning the Tide'', [[Lieutenant general]] Mohinder Puri, who was the [[General Officer Commanding]] (GOC) of the [[8th Mountain Division (India)|8 Mountain Division]] during the Kargil War, gives his account of the matter: <blockquote>A lot of controversy was generated on the status of Pt 5353 after the war. This feature lies on the Pakistan side and to capture it, the attacking troops have to approach from the north entailing crossing the [[Line of Control|LC]]. Since the LC was not to be crossed and the feature being on Pakistan side, we had no plans to secure it. The enemy occupied Pt 5353 as an [[observation post]]. In turn, we were in occupation of a feature on the LC. The Pakistani CO established radio contact with CO [[16 GREN]] and requested vacation from this feature. We asked him to reciprocate and vacate Pt 5353 to which he agreed. However, he reoccupied Pt 5353 on 2 August and in retaliation besides occupying the feature vacated by us, 16 GREN was directed to occupy Pt 5245 which was southeast of Pt 5353. With this event the war ended in the Mushkoh–Drass sector.<ref name="Mohinder Puri">{{citation |last=Puri |first=Mohinder |title=Kargil: Turning the Tide |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zptCCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT130 |publisher=Lancer Publishers LLC |year=2015 |isbn=9781940988238 |page=130}}</ref><ref name="Mohinder Puri review">{{Cite news |title=Mohinder Puri's new book narrates first-hand account of Kargil War |work=The Economic Times |agency=Press Trust of India |date=29 December 2015 |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/mohinder-puris-new-book-narrates-first-hand-account-of-kargil-war/articleshow/50367559.cms |access-date=15 January 2018 }}</ref><ref name="indiandefencereview">{{Cite web |last=Puri |first=Mohinder |title=Kargil: A Ringside View |website=Indian Defence Review |date=24 July 2013 |url=http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news/kargil-a-ringside-view/ |access-date=15 January 2022}}</ref></blockquote> | ||
''[[The Times of India]]'' quoted Indian Army officers saying that the Line of Control in the area follows an "imaginary line" connecting high points such as Points 5070, 5353, 5245 and 5608. It was said that the Indian forces control the highest one, Point 5608, whereas the Pakistanis control Point 5353, because that is what the terrain allows. They believed that the tactical advantage to Pakistan from controlling the point 5353 is minimal.<ref name="TOI 2000"/> | ''[[The Times of India]]'' quoted Indian Army officers saying that the Line of Control in the area follows an "imaginary line" connecting high points such as Points 5070, 5353, 5245 and 5608. It was said that the Indian forces control the highest one, Point 5608, whereas the Pakistanis control Point 5353, because that is what the terrain allows. They believed that the tactical advantage to Pakistan from controlling the point 5353 is minimal.<ref name="TOI 2000"/> | ||
=== Ram Kumar Anand's allegations === | === Ram Kumar Anand's allegations === | ||
At a [[press conference]] on 30 August 2000, an opposition party leader, [[Ram Kumar Anand]], alleged that Point 5353, along with five other peaks that belonged to India, was still in the occupation of Pakistan, contrary to what the Indian Parliament had been told. He claimed that Point 5353 was 300 to 500 metres inside the Indian territory. He supplied reporters with several documents to challenge the Indian Army's claim that Point 5353 was never in Indian possession. He claimed that India stationed army personnel on Point 5353 in 1992–93, who then cut off the supply routes of the Pakistani positions along the Line of Control for almost two months. He said that the Indian Army then said, the Point 5353 is "within our LoC and that we have every right to patrol the area," while claiming that this peak offered a 40 km view of the Pakistani side of the LoC.<ref name="Pakistan occupying six Indian peaks, claims MP"/> He also claimed that an Indian Army [[platoon]], led by [[Major]] Navneet Mehta had tried to recapture the peak on 18 May 1999 but the attempt had failed. He demanded that "a fact-finding team of five Parliamentarians should be constituted to go to the LoC to verify the facts."<ref name="Pakistan occupying six Indian peaks, claims MP">{{Cite news |title=Pakistan occupying six Indian peaks, claims MP |last=Joseph |first=Josy |newspaper=Rediff News |date=30 August 2000 |url=http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/aug/30josy.htm |access-date=11 October 2017 }}</ref> Pakistan, the very next day, on 31 August, denied the allegations.<ref name="bbc">{{Cite news |title=Pakistan 'not holding Kashmir peaks' |work=[[BBC News]] |date=31 August 2000 |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/904482.stm |access-date=11 October | At a [[press conference]] on 30 August 2000, an opposition party leader, [[Ram Kumar Anand]], alleged that Point 5353, along with five other peaks that belonged to India, was still in the occupation of Pakistan, contrary to what the Indian Parliament had been told. He claimed that Point 5353 was 300 to 500 metres inside the Indian territory. He supplied reporters with several documents to challenge the Indian Army's claim that Point 5353 was never in Indian possession. He claimed that India stationed army personnel on Point 5353 in 1992–93, who then cut off the supply routes of the Pakistani positions along the Line of Control for almost two months. He said that the Indian Army then said, the Point 5353 is "within our LoC and that we have every right to patrol the area," while claiming that this peak offered a 40 km view of the Pakistani side of the LoC.<ref name="Pakistan occupying six Indian peaks, claims MP"/> He also claimed that an Indian Army [[platoon]], led by [[Major]] Navneet Mehta had tried to recapture the peak on 18 May 1999 but the attempt had failed. He demanded that "a fact-finding team of five Parliamentarians should be constituted to go to the LoC to verify the facts."<ref name="Pakistan occupying six Indian peaks, claims MP">{{Cite news |title=Pakistan occupying six Indian peaks, claims MP |last=Joseph |first=Josy |newspaper=Rediff News |date=30 August 2000 |url=http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/aug/30josy.htm |access-date=11 October 2017 }}</ref> Pakistan, the very next day, on 31 August, denied the allegations.<ref name="bbc">{{Cite news |title=Pakistan 'not holding Kashmir peaks' |work=[[BBC News]] |date=31 August 2000 |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/904482.stm |access-date=11 October 2022}}</ref> ''[[BBC News]]'' quoted Pakistan's [[Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Pakistan)|Foreign Ministry]]'s spokesman as saying that "Pakistan respected the Line of Control (LoC) with India" and its troops had not violated the ceasefire line. The BBC news report noted that Anand's claim "followed a report in an Indian newspaper that a strategic peak, Point 5353, was under Pakistani occupation."<ref name="bbc"/> | ||
The Indian government, on its part, dismissed Anand's allegations as "motivated" and "harmful to the security interests of the country.<ref name="Data India"/> [[Minister of Defence (India)|Indian defence ministry]] on 1 September 2000 issued a press release that stated: "It is clarified that Point 5353 is on the line of control and not inside the territory under India's control" and "the controversy being raked up on this issue is based on distorted facts as borne out from maps of delineation between India and Pakistan in 1972." It further stated that "the ground situation is well-known to the government and India’s posture along the LoC is militarily sound with an edge over the other side".<ref name="Tribune India 2000">{{Cite news |title=Pt 5353 on LoC: Defence Ministry |newspaper=The Tribune |date=2 September 2000 |url=http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000902/nation.htm#4 |access-date=12 October 2017 }}</ref><ref name="Defence ministry issues vague denial on Anand claims">{{Cite news |title=Defence ministry issues vague denial on Anand claims |work=Rediff.com |date=1 September 2000 |url=http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/sep/01josy.htm |access-date=12 October | The Indian government, on its part, dismissed Anand's allegations as "motivated" and "harmful to the security interests of the country.<ref name="Data India"/> [[Minister of Defence (India)|Indian defence ministry]] on 1 September 2000 issued a press release that stated: "It is clarified that Point 5353 is on the line of control and not inside the territory under India's control" and "the controversy being raked up on this issue is based on distorted facts as borne out from maps of delineation between India and Pakistan in 1972." It further stated that "the ground situation is well-known to the government and India’s posture along the LoC is militarily sound with an edge over the other side".<ref name="Tribune India 2000">{{Cite news |title=Pt 5353 on LoC: Defence Ministry |newspaper=The Tribune |date=2 September 2000 |url=http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000902/nation.htm#4 |access-date=12 October 2017 }}</ref><ref name="Defence ministry issues vague denial on Anand claims">{{Cite news |title=Defence ministry issues vague denial on Anand claims |work=Rediff.com |date=1 September 2000 |url=http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/sep/01josy.htm |access-date=12 October 2022}}</ref> | ||
Ashok Mehta said that in the encounter with RK Anand, the Indian Army was "forced to reveal certain information, which in national interest should have remained under wraps", adding that "Pakistan was prompt to report that it had not violated the Line of Control in Kargil."<ref name="Mainstream">{{citation |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cE7hAAAAMAAJ |title=Mainstream |publisher=N. Chakravartty |year=2000 |volume=38 |page=30 |issue=37–51}}</ref> | Ashok Mehta said that in the encounter with RK Anand, the Indian Army was "forced to reveal certain information, which in national interest should have remained under wraps", adding that "Pakistan was prompt to report that it had not violated the Line of Control in Kargil."<ref name="Mainstream">{{citation |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cE7hAAAAMAAJ |title=Mainstream |publisher=N. Chakravartty |year=2000 |volume=38 |page=30 |issue=37–51}}</ref> | ||
| Line 117: | Line 118: | ||
===Other commentaries=== | ===Other commentaries=== | ||
*General Malik, in an interview to [[Rediff.com]] on July 27, 2001, when asked about to "clarify the controversy about Point 5353, which has reportedly been taken over by Pakistan?", said: "That is not true. The 1972 letter clearly shows, both on the map and in writing, that the LoC passes through 5353. Some of the Point's features are occupied by them and some by us. But the fact is that if you want to attack Point 5353, you would have to come via the Pakistani side. It is not with us. We had never occupied it. Point 5353 had been vacated by them for a while when the talks were going on. Then they reoccupied it, that's all. I don't know how this controversy started. But I saw the hand-sketched map in which somebody had put 5353 right next to Tiger Hill. That is wrong!"<ref name="Rediff 2001">{{Cite news |title='Pakistan thought the Indian Army's back was broken' |last1=Sreedharan |first1=Chindu |newspaper=Rediff News |last2=Joseph |first2=Josy |date=27 July 2001 |url-status=live |url=http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/jul/27inter.htm |access-date=7 September 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170617034747/http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/jul/27inter.htm |archive-date=17 June | *General Malik, in an interview to [[Rediff.com]] on July 27, 2001, when asked about to "clarify the controversy about Point 5353, which has reportedly been taken over by Pakistan?", said: "That is not true. The 1972 letter clearly shows, both on the map and in writing, that the LoC passes through 5353. Some of the Point's features are occupied by them and some by us. But the fact is that if you want to attack Point 5353, you would have to come via the Pakistani side. It is not with us. We had never occupied it. Point 5353 had been vacated by them for a while when the talks were going on. Then they reoccupied it, that's all. I don't know how this controversy started. But I saw the hand-sketched map in which somebody had put 5353 right next to Tiger Hill. That is wrong!"<ref name="Rediff 2001">{{Cite news |title='Pakistan thought the Indian Army's back was broken' |last1=Sreedharan |first1=Chindu |newspaper=Rediff News |last2=Joseph |first2=Josy |date=27 July 2001 |url-status=live |url=http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/jul/27inter.htm |access-date=7 September 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170617034747/http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/jul/27inter.htm |archive-date=17 June 2022}}</ref> | ||
*In June 2004, in the wake of the [[Kargil Review Committee|Subramaniam Committee]] report, Retired Brigadier Surinder Singh, who commanded the 121 Infantry Brigade and was sacked for alleged poor performance, claimed that the Point 5353, which was "adjacent to Tiger Hill", was 300 meters inside Indian territory.<ref name="Zee Surinder Singh">[http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/point-5353-still-under-pak-occupation-brig-retd-surinder-singh_162464.html Point 5353 still under Pak occupation: brig (Retd.) Surinder Singh], Zee News, 7 July 2004.</ref>{{sfn|Malik|2006|p=313}} While rejecting the reports of the [[Kargil Review Committee|Subramaniam Committee]], he told reporters that this committee was instituted to "cover up government`s failure and save the army`s top brass," while demanding the then Indian defence minister [[Pranab Mukherjee]]`s intervention for checking into the "authenticity" of the Pakistani troops' occupancy at Point 5353.<ref name="Zee Surinder Singh"/> | *In June 2004, in the wake of the [[Kargil Review Committee|Subramaniam Committee]] report, Retired Brigadier Surinder Singh, who commanded the 121 Infantry Brigade and was sacked for alleged poor performance, claimed that the Point 5353, which was "adjacent to Tiger Hill", was 300 meters inside Indian territory.<ref name="Zee Surinder Singh">[http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/point-5353-still-under-pak-occupation-brig-retd-surinder-singh_162464.html Point 5353 still under Pak occupation: brig (Retd.) Surinder Singh], Zee News, 7 July 2004.</ref>{{sfn|Malik|2006|p=313}} While rejecting the reports of the [[Kargil Review Committee|Subramaniam Committee]], he told reporters that this committee was instituted to "cover up government`s failure and save the army`s top brass," while demanding the then Indian defence minister [[Pranab Mukherjee]]`s intervention for checking into the "authenticity" of the Pakistani troops' occupancy at Point 5353.<ref name="Zee Surinder Singh"/> | ||
| Line 123: | Line 124: | ||
The Point 5353 controversy erupted once again during "[[Operation Parakram]]" (India's [[Code name]] for its [[Mobilization|military mobilization]] along the [[India–Pakistan border]]) which began on 13 December 2001, in response to the [[2001 Indian Parliament attack|terrorist attack]] on the [[Parliament of India|Indian Parliament]].<ref name="Mehta 2004"/> By this time the area north and east of [[Zojila Pass]], including Leh, came under the newly raised [[XIV Corps (India)|XIV Corps]].<ref name="Mehta 2004"/> | The Point 5353 controversy erupted once again during "[[Operation Parakram]]" (India's [[Code name]] for its [[Mobilization|military mobilization]] along the [[India–Pakistan border]]) which began on 13 December 2001, in response to the [[2001 Indian Parliament attack|terrorist attack]] on the [[Parliament of India|Indian Parliament]].<ref name="Mehta 2004"/> By this time the area north and east of [[Zojila Pass]], including Leh, came under the newly raised [[XIV Corps (India)|XIV Corps]].<ref name="Mehta 2004"/> | ||
In August 2002, ''The Hindu'' correspondent [[Praveen Swami]] reported that Pakistani troops had occupied Point 5070 in the early summer of 2002,<ref name="Praveen Swami 2002">{{Cite news |last=Swami |first=Praveen |authorlink=Praveen Swami |title=Border skirmishes in Drass since May |newspaper=The Hindu Business Line |date=24 August 2002 |url=http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2002/08/25/stories/2002082501730100.htm |url-status=live |access-date=24 September 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050830100233/http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2002/08/25/stories/2002082501730100.htm |archive-date=30 August | In August 2002, ''The Hindu'' correspondent [[Praveen Swami]] reported that Pakistani troops had occupied Point 5070 in the early summer of 2002,<ref name="Praveen Swami 2002">{{Cite news |last=Swami |first=Praveen |authorlink=Praveen Swami |title=Border skirmishes in Drass since May |newspaper=The Hindu Business Line |date=24 August 2002 |url=http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2002/08/25/stories/2002082501730100.htm |url-status=live |access-date=24 September 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050830100233/http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2002/08/25/stories/2002082501730100.htm |archive-date=30 August 2022}}</ref> and in July, "after eight weeks of steady skirmishes, India reoccupied Point 5070 in the Dras sector." He further said: "Point 5070, named for its altitude in metres, dominates the strategically vital Mushkoh nullah in the Dras sub-sector."<ref name="Praveen Swami hot">{{Cite news |title=LoC turns hot again |last=Swami |first=Praveen |authorlink=Praveen Swami |work=The Hindu Business Line |date=23 August 2002 |url=http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2002/08/24/stories/2002082402630100.htm |access-date=24 September 2017 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050125140452/http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2002/08/24/stories/2002082402630100.htm |archive-date=25 January 2022}}</ref> | ||
''[[The Telegraph (Calcutta)|The Telegraph]]'' of 27 August 2002, reported that "In a map shown to ''The Telegraph'' today at the army headquarters, Point 5353 is depicted on the Line of Control, at an aerial distance of about 12 km from Dras", and a battalion of the Pakistan Army's [[Baloch Regiment]] was in possession of the peak, which it said was flanked on either side (east and west) by a battalion each of [[Northern Light Infantry]] and [[Punjab Regiment (Pakistan)|Punjab Regiment]], supported by the Pakistani brigade headquarters at [[Gultari]]. It further stated that Point 5353 is on the Marpo La ridgeline that runs on or parallel to the Line of Control. Other spurs of the peak run south into the Dras sector. To its immediate south is Tiger Hill and the Mushkoh Valley. In 1999, Pakistani intruders occupying the heights in this sector were directing artillery fire on Dras and National Highway 1A and were alleged to have planned to secure routes for infiltration into the Valley." The newspaper quoted army officers as saying that, "There are heights from which we have a view of the PoK side and there are heights from where they have a view of our side. Besides, air observation posts (artillery observers on aircraft) can also mount a watch to direct fire. The view from Point 5353 does not seriously threaten our supply lines." It also quoted the then [[Ministry of Defence (India)|Indian Defence Minister]], [[George Fernandes]], as saying in 1999 that "5353 is the point over which the Line of Control goes. The fact is our troops never occupied it. The normal practice has been that where the line goes over a peak, nobody occupies it." Nonetheless, it noted that "even if Fernandes is taken at his word, the continued occupation of Point 5353 by the Baluch battalion means that Pakistan has departed from “normal practice”."<ref name="Telegraph 2002">{{Cite news |title=Kargil leftover in Pakistan hands |last=Dutta |first=Sujan |newspaper=[[The Telegraph (Calcutta)|The Telegraph]] |date=28 August 2002 |url=https://www.telegraphindia.com/1020828/asp/frontpage/story_1144073.asp |access-date=2 October 2017 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151109132356/http://www.telegraphindia.com/1020828/asp/frontpage/story_1144073.asp |archive-date=9 November | ''[[The Telegraph (Calcutta)|The Telegraph]]'' of 27 August 2002, reported that "In a map shown to ''The Telegraph'' today at the army headquarters, Point 5353 is depicted on the Line of Control, at an aerial distance of about 12 km from Dras", and a battalion of the Pakistan Army's [[Baloch Regiment]] was in possession of the peak, which it said was flanked on either side (east and west) by a battalion each of [[Northern Light Infantry]] and [[Punjab Regiment (Pakistan)|Punjab Regiment]], supported by the Pakistani brigade headquarters at [[Gultari]]. It further stated that Point 5353 is on the Marpo La ridgeline that runs on or parallel to the Line of Control. Other spurs of the peak run south into the Dras sector. To its immediate south is Tiger Hill and the Mushkoh Valley. In 1999, Pakistani intruders occupying the heights in this sector were directing artillery fire on Dras and National Highway 1A and were alleged to have planned to secure routes for infiltration into the Valley." The newspaper quoted army officers as saying that, "There are heights from which we have a view of the PoK side and there are heights from where they have a view of our side. Besides, air observation posts (artillery observers on aircraft) can also mount a watch to direct fire. The view from Point 5353 does not seriously threaten our supply lines." It also quoted the then [[Ministry of Defence (India)|Indian Defence Minister]], [[George Fernandes]], as saying in 1999 that "5353 is the point over which the Line of Control goes. The fact is our troops never occupied it. The normal practice has been that where the line goes over a peak, nobody occupies it." Nonetheless, it noted that "even if Fernandes is taken at his word, the continued occupation of Point 5353 by the Baluch battalion means that Pakistan has departed from “normal practice”."<ref name="Telegraph 2002">{{Cite news |title=Kargil leftover in Pakistan hands |last=Dutta |first=Sujan |newspaper=[[The Telegraph (Calcutta)|The Telegraph]] |date=28 August 2002 |url=https://www.telegraphindia.com/1020828/asp/frontpage/story_1144073.asp |access-date=2 October 2017 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151109132356/http://www.telegraphindia.com/1020828/asp/frontpage/story_1144073.asp |archive-date=9 November 2022}}</ref> | ||
Ashok Mehta, in his article in ''[[The Tribune (Chandigarh)|The Tribune]]'', said, "Parakram had opened a window of opportunity in the Kargil sector for the new [[XIV Corps (India)|14 Corps]] to complete the Army's unfinished agenda for the Kargil war: seize Point 5353. While throughout April and May 2002, Point 5353 was pulverised with metal from [[Haubits FH77|Bofors guns]], sometimes 10,000 rounds a day, Concourse missiles, cargo ammunition and air defence guns in direct fire, by May-end, Point 5070, a pivotal feature about 10 km west of Point 5353, was quietly seized in a brilliant stealth operation. The post was named Balwan after the [[Jat Regiment|Jat regiment]] that took it. Balwan had turned the flank of Pakistani defences in the Dras sector. The Indian Army now had a grand view and domination of the [[Gultari valley]] through which Pakistani posts are maintained in Dras."<ref name="Mehta 2004"/> | Ashok Mehta, in his article in ''[[The Tribune (Chandigarh)|The Tribune]]'', said, "Parakram had opened a window of opportunity in the Kargil sector for the new [[XIV Corps (India)|14 Corps]] to complete the Army's unfinished agenda for the Kargil war: seize Point 5353. While throughout April and May 2002, Point 5353 was pulverised with metal from [[Haubits FH77|Bofors guns]], sometimes 10,000 rounds a day, Concourse missiles, cargo ammunition and air defence guns in direct fire, by May-end, Point 5070, a pivotal feature about 10 km west of Point 5353, was quietly seized in a brilliant stealth operation. The post was named Balwan after the [[Jat Regiment|Jat regiment]] that took it. Balwan had turned the flank of Pakistani defences in the Dras sector. The Indian Army now had a grand view and domination of the [[Gultari valley]] through which Pakistani posts are maintained in Dras."<ref name="Mehta 2004"/> | ||
| Line 151: | Line 152: | ||
==Bibliography== | ==Bibliography== | ||
* {{citation |last=Ludra |first=Kuldip Singh |title=The Kargil Strike: (A Study of the Failure of Indian Strategic Thought) |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0VJwAAAAMAAJ |year=2000 |publisher=T.K.S. Ludra |isbn=978-81-901218-9-7 |ref={{sfnref|Ludra, The Kargil Strike|2000}}}} | * {{citation |last=Ludra |first=Kuldip Singh |title=The Kargil Strike: (A Study of the Failure of Indian Strategic Thought) |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0VJwAAAAMAAJ |year=2000 |publisher=T.K.S. Ludra |isbn=978-81-901218-9-7 |ref={{sfnref|Ludra, The Kargil Strike|2000}}}} | ||
* {{citation |last1=Ludra |first1=Kuldip Singh |title=The Pen Supports the Sword, Kargil--A Report |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5WduAAAAMAAJ |date=2004 |publisher=Institute for Strategic Studies Research and Analysis |isbn=978-81-901361-8-1 |ref={{sfnref|Ludra, The Pen Supports the Sword| | * {{citation |last1=Ludra |first1=Kuldip Singh |title=The Pen Supports the Sword, Kargil--A Report |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5WduAAAAMAAJ |date=2004 |publisher=Institute for Strategic Studies Research and Analysis |isbn=978-81-901361-8-1 |ref={{sfnref|Ludra, The Pen Supports the Sword|2022}}}} | ||
* {{cite book |last=Malik |first=V. P. |year=2006 |title=Kargil from Surprise to Victory |publisher=HarperCollins Publishers India |isbn=9788172236359 }} | * {{cite book |last=Malik |first=V. P. |year=2006 |title=Kargil from Surprise to Victory |publisher=HarperCollins Publishers India |isbn=9788172236359 }} | ||
* {{citation |last=Rammohun |first=E. M. |title=Countering Insurgencies in India: An Insider's View |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6fSpCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA190 |year=2011 |publisher=Vij Books India Pvt Ltd |isbn=978-93-81411-66-7 |ref={{sfnref|Rammohun, Countering Insurgencies in India| | * {{citation |last=Rammohun |first=E. M. |title=Countering Insurgencies in India: An Insider's View |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6fSpCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA190 |year=2011 |publisher=Vij Books India Pvt Ltd |isbn=978-93-81411-66-7 |ref={{sfnref|Rammohun, Countering Insurgencies in India|2022}}}} | ||
* {{citation |title=A Ridge Too Far: War in the Kargil Heights 1999 |last=Singh |first=Amarinder |authorlink=Amarinder Singh |publisher=Motibagh Palace |year=2001 |isbn=9788193107416 |ref={{sfnref|Singh, A Ridge Too Far|2001|p=87}}}} | * {{citation |title=A Ridge Too Far: War in the Kargil Heights 1999 |last=Singh |first=Amarinder |authorlink=Amarinder Singh |publisher=Motibagh Palace |year=2001 |isbn=9788193107416 |ref={{sfnref|Singh, A Ridge Too Far|2001|p=87}}}} | ||
*{{cite book |last=Bammi |first=Y. M. |year=2002 |title=Kargil 1999, impregnable conquered |publisher=Gorkha Publishers |isbn=9788175253520 }} | *{{cite book |last=Bammi |first=Y. M. |year=2002 |title=Kargil 1999, impregnable conquered |publisher=Gorkha Publishers |isbn=9788175253520 }} | ||