Difference between revisions of "Atlantique Incident" - New World Encyclopedia

From New World Encyclopedia
(category added)
(11 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{approved}}{{submitted}}{{images OK}}{{started}}{{claimed}}{{Contracted}}
+
{{approved}}{{submitted}}{{images OK}}{{Paid}}{{copyedited}}
 
[[Image:Breguet.atlantic.fairford.arp.jpg|thumb|230px|right|An Atlantique plane belonging to the [[Marina Militare|Italian Navy]]. Identical to the downed Pakistan Navy plane.<!--This image is only being used as a temporary one, until we can get a public domain image of any Pakistani atlantic planes. —>]]
 
[[Image:Breguet.atlantic.fairford.arp.jpg|thumb|230px|right|An Atlantique plane belonging to the [[Marina Militare|Italian Navy]]. Identical to the downed Pakistan Navy plane.<!--This image is only being used as a temporary one, until we can get a public domain image of any Pakistani atlantic planes. —>]]
The '''Atlantique Incident''' represented an event in which the [[Indian Air Force]] shot down a [[Pakistan Navy]] plane, [[Breguet Atlantique]], carrying sixteen people on board, citing violation of [[airspace]]. The episode took place in the [[Rann of Kutch]] on August 10, 1999 just a month after the [[Kargil War]], creating a tense atmosphere between [[India]] and [[Pakistan]]. The downing represented the Pakistan Navy's only loss of an airplane to hostile fire in its history.
+
The '''Atlantique Incident''' represented an event in which the [[Indian Air Force]] shot down a [[Pakistan Navy]] plane, [[Breguet Atlantique]], carrying sixteen people on board, citing violation of [[airspace]]. The episode took place in the [[Rann of Kutch]] on August 10, 1999, just a month after the [[Kargil War]], creating a tense atmosphere between [[India]] and [[Pakistan]]. The downing represented the Pakistan Navy's only loss of an airplane to hostile fire in its history.
 
+
{{toc}}
The Atlantique Incident, taking place one month after the end of the [[Kargil War]], heightened tensions between the two nations. Each nation had tested [[nuclear weapons]] in 1998, meaning even relatively minor incidents could devolve into a nuclear exchange. The [[Indian Airforce]] had reason to suspect the [[Pakistan navy]] of intentional violation, in light of the apparent deceptive attempt to seize [[Kargil]]. Yet, in a less tense time, the Indian government would have to question why a navy plane, most likely unarmed, would put the lives of sixteen personnel in harms way without protection. In any case, the Atlantique Incident ratcheted up the tension between the two countries another notch. Fortunately, recently relations between [[India]] and [[Pakistan]] have been normalizing.
+
The Atlantique Incident, taking place one month after the end of the [[Kargil War]], heightened tensions between the two nations. Each nation had tested [[nuclear weapons]] in 1998, meaning even relatively minor incidents could devolve into a nuclear exchange. The [[Indian Air Force]] had reason to suspect the [[Pakistan Navy]] of intentional violation, in light of the apparent deceptive attempt to seize [[Kargil]]. Yet, in a less tense time, the Indian government would have to question why a navy plane, most likely unarmed, would put the lives of sixteen personnel in harms way without protection. In any case, the Atlantique Incident ratcheted up the tension between the two countries another notch. Fortunately, recently, relations between [[India]] and [[Pakistan]] have been normalizing.
  
 
==The confrontation==
 
==The confrontation==
[[Image:Atlantic_kill.jpg|thumb|230px|right|[[Head-Up Display|HUD]]/[[VTR]] still showing the [[Molniya R-60|R-60]] streaking towards the Atlantique in its final moments.]]<!--FAIR USE of Atlantique_Kill.jpg: see image description page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Atlantique_Kill.jpg for rationale —>
+
<!--FAIR USE of Atlantique_Kill.jpg: see image description page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Atlantique_Kill.jpg for rationale —>
  
The [[France|French]]-built naval plane [[Breguet Atlantique]] (Breguet Br.1150 Atlantique) plane, flight '''Atlantic-91''',<ref>[http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19990810-0&lang=en Hull-loss Aircraft accident description Breguet 1150 Atlantic 91] [[Aviation Safety Network]] Retrieved on July 23, 2007</ref>, one of Pakistan Navy's frontline aircraft, has been used primarily for [[patrol]] and [[reconnaissance]] (though capable of being fitted with [[air-to-surface missile]]s and [[anti-submarine weapon]]s). Atlantic-91 left [[Mehran]] ([[Sindh]] province) [[Navy base|Naval Base]] in Pakistan at 9:15 a.m. ([[Time in Pakistan|PST]]). An [[Indian Air Force]] [[ground-controlled interception|ground radar]] picked up the flight path of the plane approaching the International Border.<ref name=indiaaccount>{{cite web
+
The [[France|French]]-built naval plane [[Breguet Atlantique]] (Breguet Br.1150 Atlantique) plane, flight '''Atlantic-91,'''<ref>Aviation Safety Network, [http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19990810-0&lang=en Hull-loss Aircraft accident description Breguet 1150 Atlantic 91.] Retrieved on July 23, 2007.</ref>, one of the Pakistan Navy's front line aircraft, has been used primarily for [[patrol]] and [[reconnaissance]] (though capable of being fitted with [[air-to-surface missile]]s and [[anti-submarine weapon]]s). Atlantic-91 left [[Mehran]] ([[Sindh]] province) [[Navy base|Naval Base]] in Pakistan at 9:15 a.m. ([[Time in Pakistan|PST]]). An [[Indian Air Force]] [[ground-controlled interception|ground radar]] picked up the flight path of the plane approaching the International Border.<ref>Bharat Rakshak Indian Air Force, The Atlantique Incident.</ref> The Indian Air Force soon scrambled two IAF [[Mig-21]] [[interceptor aircraft]] of No.45 [[Squadron#Aviation|Squadron]], from the Indian [[airbase]] at [[Naliya]] in the [[Kutch]] region.<ref>Narendra Gupta, [http://www.indianembassy.org/press/New_Delhi_Press/August_1999/Air_Defence_Operations_Aug_17_99.html Air defense operations.] Retrieved on July 26, 2007.</ref> After a series of maneuvers—and a conflicting version of events from both sides—the two [[Jet aircraft|jet]]s received clearance to shoot down the Pakistani plane. At 11:17 a.m. [[Indian Standard Time|IST]] (10:47 a.m. PST), nearly two hours after takeoff from Pakistan, the Indian Air Force jets intercepted the Atlantique, [[Squadron Leader]] P.K. Bundela and fired [[infrared homing]] [[air-to-air missile]] at it, hitting the engine on the [[port (nautical)|port]] side of the plane.<ref>Indian Air Force Official Page, [http://armedforces.nic.in/airforce/fac.htm IAF Scores a Kill!!! Factual Account of Interception.] Retrieved on July 26, 2007.</ref> That resulted in the aircraft losing control and spiraling towards a [[plane crash|crash]] at approximately 11:00 a.m. PST, killing all sixteen on board the Atlantic-91, including five [[officer (armed forces)|officers]] of the Pakistan Navy.
| url = http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Kargil/Atlantique.html
 
| title = The Atlantique Incident
 
| accessdate = 2007-03-09
 
| work = 1999 Kargil Operations
 
| publisher = Bharat Rakshak [[Indian Air Force]]
 
}}</ref> The Indian Air Force soon scrambled two IAF [[Mig-21]] [[interceptor aircraft]] of No.45 [[Squadron#Aviation|Squadron]], from the Indian [[airbase]] at [[Naliya]] in the [[Kutch]] region.<ref>[http://www.indianembassy.org/press/New_Delhi_Press/August_1999/Air_Defence_Operations_Aug_17_99.html Air defense operations] By Narendra Gupta. Taken from [[The Hindu]] August 17, 1999 Reproduced by [[Indian diplomatic missions|Embassy of India]], [[Washington D.C.]] Retrieved on July 26, 2007</ref> After a series of maneuvers—and a conflicting version of events from both sides—the two [[Jet aircraft|jet]]s received clearance to shoot down the Pakistani plane.<ref name=indiaaccount /> At 11:17 a.m. [[Indian Standard Time|IST]] (10:47 a.m. PST), nearly two hours after takeoff from Pakistan, the Indian Airforce jets intercepted the Atlantique, [[Squadron Leader]] P.K. Bundela an fired [[infrared homing]] [[air-to-air missile]] at it, hitting the engine on the [[port (nautical)|port]] side of the plane.<ref>[http://armedforces.nic.in/airforce/fac.htm IAF Scores a Kill !!! Factual Account of Interception] - Indian Air Force official page Retrieved on July 26, 2007</ref> That resulted in the aircraft losing control and spiraling towards a [[plane crash|crash]] at approximately 1100 hours PST, killing all sixteen on board the Atlantic-91, including five [[officer (armed forces)|officers]] of the Pakistan Navy.
 
  
The incident constituted the Pakistan Navy's only loss of an aircraft to hostile fire in its history, and the biggest combat-related casualty for the navy since the [[Indo-Pakistani War of 1971]].<ref>Pakistan Navy had not seen active participation in any conflict post-1971.</ref>
+
The incident constituted the Pakistan Navy's only loss of an aircraft to hostile fire in its history, and the biggest combat-related casualty for the navy since the [[Indo-Pakistani War of 1971]].
  
 
==Claims and counterclaims==
 
==Claims and counterclaims==
 
[[Image:Sir-Creek-locator.svg|thumb|230px|The region in Kutch, (marked in red) where the incident took place.]]
 
[[Image:Sir-Creek-locator.svg|thumb|230px|The region in Kutch, (marked in red) where the incident took place.]]
The event immediately sparked claims and counter-claims by both nations. Pakistan claimed that the plane had been unarmed, that [[debris]] had been found on Pakistan's side of the border,<ref name="Defense">[http://www.defencejournal.com/sept99/core.htm Pakistan's Core Negativity] Defense Journal, September 1999 Retrieved on July 26, 2007</ref> providing evidence that the aircraft had remained in Pakistan airspace. According to the official Pakistan version of events, the plane merely flew on a "routine training mission inside Pakistan air space."<ref>[http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/119/7123.pdf 21 September 1999 Application instituting proceeding] ([[PDF]]) Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999 (Pakistan v. India), International Court of Justice Case page Retrieved on July 23, 2007</ref><ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20041224194450/http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/ipi/ipi_orders/ipi_iapplication_19990921.html INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS filed in the Registry of the International Court of Justice on 21 September, 1999] by [[Islamic Republic of Pakistan]] Retrieved on November 1, 2006</ref> The Pakistani Prime Minister stated during the funeral service of the airmen that the shooting constituted "a barbaric act."<ref name="TIME">{{cite news | title=Can't Stop the Madness | date=August 23-30, 1999 vol 154 NO. 7/8 | publisher=[[TIME]] | url=http://www.time.com/time/asia/asia/magazine/1999/990823/india_pakistan1.html}}</ref>
+
The event immediately sparked claims and counter-claims by both nations. Pakistan claimed that the plane had been unarmed, that [[debris]] had been found on Pakistan's side of the border,<ref>Defense Journal, [http://www.defencejournal.com/sept99/core.htm Pakistan's Core Negativity.] Retrieved on July 26, 2007.</ref> providing evidence that the aircraft had remained in Pakistan airspace. According to the official Pakistan version of events, the plane merely flew on a "routine training mission inside Pakistan air space."<ref>International Court of Justice, [http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/119/7123.pdf 21 September 1999 Application instituting proceeding.] Retrieved on July 23, 2007</ref> The Pakistani Prime Minister stated during the funeral service of the airmen that the shooting constituted "a barbaric act."<ref>Time Magazine, [http://www.time.com/time/asia/asia/magazine/1999/990823/india_pakistan1.html Can't Stop the Madness.] Retrieved February 14, 2008.</ref>
  
The Indian Air Force claimed that the aeroplane failed to respond to international protocol and that the plane acted in a "hostile" manner, adding that the debris of a downed aircraft fell over a wide area.<ref name="India" /> Indian sources stated that the [[BBC]] initially quoted the Pakistani [[Minister of Information|Information Minister]], Mushahid Hussein, as saying that the aircraft flew on a "[[surveillance]]" mission.<ref name="Subcontinent">[http://www.subcontinent.com/sapra/research/military/sr19990812.html Military Situation Report for 12 August 1999] Retrieved on July 23, 2007</ref><!--Lacks an immediate online source for the BBC original statement—>
+
The Indian Air Force claimed that the aircraft failed to respond to international protocol and that the plane acted in a "hostile" manner, adding that the debris of a downed aircraft fell over a wide area. Indian sources stated that the [[BBC]] initially quoted the Pakistani [[Minister of Information|Information Minister]], Mushahid Hussein, as saying that the aircraft flew on a "[[surveillance]]" mission.<ref>Subcontinent.com, [http://www.subcontinent.com/sapra/research/military/sr19990812.html Military Situation Report for 12 August 1999] Retrieved on July 23, 2007</ref><!--Lacks an immediate online source for the BBC original statement—>
India also accused that the plane violated a [[Bilateral Aviation Agreement|bilateral agreement]] signed between India and Pakistan in 1991. The treaty states that no [[military aircraft]] would fly anywhere near 10 km from the border.<ref name=Agreement>[http://www.stimson.org/southasia/?sn=sa20020109216 Agreement Between India and Pakistan on the Advance Notice of Military Exercises] - Hosted on [[Henry L. Stimson]] Center Retrieved on July 23, 2007</ref> Indian experts also questioned why a training mission flew so close to [[international border]]s, since all air forces clearly demarcate training areas for flight, located well away from the borders. According to them, the Pakistanis made an untenable claim since the Atlantique primary operates over the sea; carrying out a training flight over land deep inside foreign territory indicated a surveillance mission.<ref name="Subcontinent" /> India displayed part of the wreckage of the Pakistani naval aircraft at [[Indira Gandhi International Airport|New Delhi airport]] the next day. Pakistan alleged that Indian helicopters had removed the wreckage from its side of the border.<ref name="Defense" />
+
India also argued that the plane violated a [[Bilateral Aviation Agreement|bilateral agreement]] signed between India and Pakistan in 1991. The treaty states that no [[military aircraft]] would fly anywhere near 10 km from the border.<ref>Henry L. Stimson Center, [http://www.stimson.org/southasia/?sn=sa20020109216 Agreement Between India and Pakistan on the Advance Notice of Military Exercises.] Retrieved on July 23, 2007.</ref> Indian experts also questioned why a training mission flew so close to [[international border]]s, since all air forces clearly demarcate training areas for flight, located well away from the borders. According to them, the Pakistanis made an untenable claim, since the Atlantique primarily operates over the sea; carrying out a training flight over land deep inside foreign territory indicated a surveillance mission. India displayed part of the wreckage of the Pakistani naval aircraft at [[Indira Gandhi International Airport|New Delhi airport]] the next day. Pakistan alleged that Indian helicopters had removed the wreckage from its side of the border.
 
[[Image:Sir-Creek-map.svg|thumb|230px|Enlarged map of the region showing [[Sir Creek]] and [[Kori Creek]] area where the plane had been shot down and wreckage found.]]
 
[[Image:Sir-Creek-map.svg|thumb|230px|Enlarged map of the region showing [[Sir Creek]] and [[Kori Creek]] area where the plane had been shot down and wreckage found.]]
While Pakistan said that the plane had been unarmed and the debris fell within Pakistani territory, India maintained that warnings had been given to the Atlantique and that its flight [[trajectory]] meant it could have fallen on either side of the border. According to the Indian version of events, the MiGs tried to escort it to a nearby Indian base, when the Pakistani aircraft turned abruptly and tried to make a dash for the border, drawing Indian fire. India claimed that the debris had been found in a radius of 2 km on either side of the border and that the intrusion took place 10 km inside the [[Kori Creek]], in Indian territory. Pakistan requested that the matter be taken up in the [[UN]]. Indian officials pointed to previous violations in the area, that in the previous year a Pakistani [[unmanned aerial vehicle|unmanned surveillance aircraft]] had intruded 150 km inside the Indian border, coming close to the [[Bhuj]] air base before the IAF spotted it and brought it down with several missiles.<ref name="India">[http://www.india-today.com/itoday/19990823/creek.html Creek Crisis by Vijay Jung Thapa and Aahid Hussain and Uday Mahurkar] August 23, 1999 [[India Today]] Retrieved on July 23, 2007</ref> They further added that Pakistan military aircraft had violated Indian airspace at least fifty times since January 1999, showing [[videotape]]s of Pakistani Atlantiques "buzzing," or flying provocatively near the [[Indian Navy]]'s [[warship]]s in the [[Indian Ocean]].<ref name="Globalpolicy">[http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/ind-pak/99-08-12.htm Pakistan Attacks Indian Aircraft in Border Region By Pamela Constable and Kamran Khan] August 12, 1999, [[Washington Post]] Retrieved on July 23, 2007</ref> Some Indian analysts stated that the Atlantique had been nearly destroyed in 1983 on a similar encounter, noting other close encounters as well as violations by Pakistani naval planes.<ref>[http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-83679978.html  Pakistani recce aircraft shot down (Asia-Pacific Report)by  S. Mallegol] Journal of Electronic Defense September 1, 1999  Retrieved on July 23, 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.mafhoum.com/press2/70P3.htm Cold War in the Arabian Sea] Vijay Sakhuja, Research Fellow, [[Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses]] Retrieved on July 23, 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.centrovolta.it/landau/South%20Asia%20Security%20Program_file%5CDocumenti%5CWorkshop%20South%20Asia%202004%5CTalks%5C8-%20Ghosh.doc Confidence Building Measures in South Asia – The Maritime Angle] ([[DOC (computing)|DOC]] Retrieved on July 23, 2007</ref>  
+
While Pakistan said that the plane had been unarmed and the debris fell within Pakistani territory, India maintained that warnings had been given to the Atlantique and that its flight [[trajectory]] meant it could have fallen on either side of the border. According to the Indian version of events, the MiGs tried to escort it to a nearby Indian base, when the Pakistani aircraft turned abruptly and tried to make a dash for the border, drawing Indian fire. India claimed that the debris had been found in a radius of 2 km on either side of the border and that the intrusion took place 10 km inside the [[Kori Creek]], in Indian territory. Pakistan requested that the matter be taken up in the [[UN]]. Indian officials pointed to previous violations in the area, that in the previous year a Pakistani [[unmanned aerial vehicle|unmanned surveillance aircraft]] had intruded 150 km inside the Indian border, coming close to the [[Bhuj]] air base before the IAF spotted it and brought it down with several missiles.<ref>India Today, Creek Crisis by Vijay Jung Thapa and Aahid Hussain and Uday Mahurkar.</ref> They further added that Pakistani military aircraft had violated Indian airspace at least fifty times since January 1999, showing [[videotape]]s of Pakistani Atlantiques "buzzing," or flying provocatively near the [[Indian Navy]]'s [[warship]]s in the [[Indian Ocean]].<ref>Washington Post, [http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/ind-pak/99-08-12.htm Pakistan Attacks Indian Aircraft in Border Region By Pamela Constable and Kamran Khan.] Retrieved on July 23, 2007.</ref> Some Indian analysts stated that an Atlantique had been nearly destroyed in 1983, on a similar encounter, noting other close encounters as well as violations by Pakistani naval planes.<ref>Journal of Electronic Defense, [http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-83679978.html  Pakistani recce aircraft shot down (Asia-Pacific Report) by  S. Mallegol.] Retrieved on July 23, 2007.</ref>
  
Independent defense experts stated that the Atlantique probably conducted a "probe" on India's [[air defense]] system, mainly the [[radar]] equipment in the border area; they advised that   Pakistan had never intended aggressive military action.<ref name="Globalpolicy" /> Foreign [[diplomats]] who visited the crash site noted that the plane "may have strayed into restricted space," and that [[Islamabad]] had been unable to explain why the plane flew so close to the border; they added that India's reaction to the incident had been unjustified.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/419325.stm Pakistani plane "may have crossed border"] August 13, 1999 BBC Retrieved on July 23, 2007</ref> Many countries, the [[G8]], the [[United Nations Security Council#Permanent members|permanent members of the UN Security Council]], as well as the western [[news media|media]] questioned the wisdom behind Pakistan's decision to fly military aircraft so close to the Indian border.<ref name="G8">[http://www.defencejournal.com/sept99/post-kargil.htm Islamabad's Post-Kargil Challenges] by [[Ms.|Ms]] Nasim Zehra, September 1999 - Defense Journal, Pakistan Retrieved on July 23, 2007</ref> They advised that Pakistan should exercise more caution, especially after the Kargil episode.<ref name="G8" />
+
Independent defense experts stated that the Atlantique probably conducted a "probe" on India's [[air defense]] system, mainly the [[radar]] equipment in the border area; they advised that Pakistan had never intended aggressive military action. Foreign [[diplomats]] who visited the crash site noted that the plane "may have strayed into restricted space," and that [[Islamabad]] had been unable to explain why the plane flew so close to the border; they added that India's reaction to the incident had been unjustified.<ref>BBC, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/419325.stm Pakistani plane "may have crossed border."] Retrieved July 23, 2007.</ref> Many countries, the [[G8]], the [[United Nations Security Council#Permanent members|permanent members of the UN Security Council]], as well as the western [[news media|media]] questioned the wisdom behind Pakistan's decision to fly military aircraft so close to the Indian border.<ref>Defense Journal, [http://www.defencejournal.com/sept99/post-kargil.htm Islamabad's Post-Kargil Challenges.] Retrieved on July 23, 2007.</ref> They advised that Pakistan should exercise more caution, especially after the Kargil episode.
  
 
==Rise in tensions==
 
==Rise in tensions==
On the day following the attack, the [[Pakistan Army]] attacked an IAF [[helicopter]] carrying [[journalist]]s to the site of the attack with a [[surface-to-air missile]]. Pakistani officials asserted that Pakistan two fired upon Indian jets when they had intruded into Pakistani airspace near the Atlantique wreckage site, along the border between the Indian state of [[Gujarat]] and Pakistan's [[Sindh]] Province. International and Indian television [[journalists]] traveling in the chopper said the aircraft shook severely and a flash appeared in the air, suggesting a missile had been fired at it.<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_19990812/ai_n10529001 Tensions renew as Pakistan launches missile at Indian military] by Neelesh Misra [[Milwaukee Journal Sentinel]] August 12, 1999 Retrieved on July 26, 2007</ref> The IAF thus aborted their mission to display Atlantique wreckage on Indian soil.<ref name="Globalpolicy">[http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/ind-pak/99-08-12.htm Pakistan Attacks Indian Aircraft In Border Region by Pamela Constable and Kamran Khan] Retrieved on July 23, 2007</ref>
+
On the day following the attack, the [[Pakistan Army]] attacked an IAF [[helicopter]] carrying [[journalist]]s to the site of the attack with a [[surface-to-air missile]]. Pakistani officials asserted that Pakistan fired upon Indian jets when they had intruded into Pakistani airspace near the Atlantique wreckage site, along the border between the Indian state of [[Gujarat]] and Pakistan's [[Sindh]] Province. International and Indian television [[journalists]] traveling in the chopper said the aircraft shook severely and a flash appeared in the air, suggesting a missile had been fired at it.<ref>Neelesh Misra, [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_19990812/ai_n10529001 Tensions renew as Pakistan launches missile at Indian military.] Retrieved on July 26, 2007.</ref> The IAF thus aborted their mission to display Atlantique wreckage on Indian soil.<ref>Global Policy, [http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/ind-pak/99-08-12.htm Pakistan Attacks Indian Aircraft In Border Region by Pamela Constable and Kamran Khan.] Retrieved on July 23, 2007.</ref>
  
The rising tensions in the area, coupled the dispute over the Sir Creek territory, led to both the countries' militaries near the Rann of Kutch and nearby going on high alert.<ref name="TIME" /> Pakistan sent a [[company (military unit)|company]] of soldiers, equipped with both [[laser guided]] and [[infrared homing]] [[shoulder-fired missile|shoulder-fired]] [[surface-to-air missile]]s, to the site near the border.<ref>[http://vayu-sena-aux.tripod.com/other-atlantique-gallery.html Atlantique wreckage image gallery with] pictures of [http://vayu-sena-aux.tripod.com/pix/FT0016826.jpg Pakistani soldiers] using [http://vayu-sena-aux.tripod.com/pix/FT0016824.jpg infrared] and [http://vayu-sena-aux.tripod.com/pix/Atlantique_Pak_RBS-70.jpg laser guided] [[RBS 70]] and [[Mistral missile]]s Retrieved on July 23, 2007</ref> Coming barely weeks after the [[Kargil Conflict]] where both [[nuclear weapon|nuclear armed]] countries fought [[high altitude]] warfare, the international community viewed the incident with growing concern. The [[U.S. State Department]] termed the [[Indian subcontinent|subcontinent]] as being in a state of "continued high-stakes tension."<ref name="TIME" />
+
The rising tensions in the area, coupled the dispute over the Sir Creek territory, led to both the countries' militaries near the Rann of Kutch and nearby going on high alert. Pakistan sent a [[company (military unit)|company]] of soldiers, equipped with both [[laser guided]] and [[infrared homing]] [[shoulder-fired missile|shoulder-fired]] [[surface-to-air missile]]s, to the site near the border. Coming barely weeks after the [[Kargil Conflict]], where both [[nuclear weapon|nuclear armed]] countries fought [[high altitude]] warfare, the international community viewed the incident with growing concern. The [[U.S. State Department]] termed the [[Indian subcontinent|subcontinent]] as being in a state of "continued high-stakes tension."
  
 
==Lawsuit==
 
==Lawsuit==
 
[[Image:International Court of Justice.jpg|thumb|230px|The [[International Court of Justice]] dismissed Pakistan's case on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction.]]
 
[[Image:International Court of Justice.jpg|thumb|230px|The [[International Court of Justice]] dismissed Pakistan's case on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction.]]
On September 21, 1999, Pakistan lodged a compensation claim at the [[International Court of Justice]] (ICJ) in [[The Hague]], accusing India of shooting down an unarmed aircraft. Pakistan sought about [[USD|$]]60 [[million]] in [[war reparations|reparation]]s from India and [[damages|compensation]] for the victims' families (The cost of the aircraft lost in the incident is put at >$35 million<ref>See article on [[Breguet Atlantique]] for cost details with source</ref>). [[Attorney General of India|India's attorney general]], [[Soli Sorabjee]], argued that the court lacked [[jurisdiction]],<ref>[http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000404/world.htm#4 ICJ begins hearing on Pak complaint] April 4, 2000 - [[The Tribune]] Retrieved on September 10, 2007</ref> citing an exemption it filed in 1974 to exclude disputes between India and other [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth]] States, and disputes covered by [[Treaties#Bilateral and multilateral treaties|multi-lateral treaties]].<ref>[http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2000/06/21/stories/0321000f.htm ICJ verdict on jurisdiction in Atlantique case today] June 21, 2000 - [[The Hindu]] Retrieved on September 10, 2007</ref> In the buildup to the case, India also contended that Pakistan had violated the 1991 bilateral agreement between Pakistan and India on air violations, which states "[[Combat aircraft]] (to include fighter, [[bomber]] reconnaissance, [[trainer (aircraft)|jet military trainer]] and [[helicopter gunship|armed helicopter]] aircraft) will not fly within 10 km of each other’s [[airspace]] including [[Air Defense Identification Zone]]."<ref name=Agreement>[http://www.stimson.org/southasia/?sn=sa20020109216 Agreement Between India and Pakistan on the Advance Notice of Military Exercises] - Hosted on [[Henry L. Stimson]] Center</ref>
+
On September 21, 1999, Pakistan lodged a compensation claim at the [[International Court of Justice]] (ICJ) in [[The Hague]], accusing India of shooting down an unarmed aircraft. Pakistan sought about [[USD|$]]60 [[million]] in [[war reparations|reparation]]s from India and [[damages|compensation]] for the victims' families (The cost of the aircraft lost in the incident is put at >$35 million.) [[Attorney General of India|India's attorney general]], [[Soli Sorabjee]], argued that the court lacked [[jurisdiction]],<ref>The Tribune, [http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000404/world.htm#4 ICJ begins hearing on Pak complaint.] Retrieved on September 10, 2007.</ref> citing an exemption it filed in 1974, to exclude disputes between India and other [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth]] States, and disputes covered by [[Treaties#Bilateral and multilateral treaties|multi-lateral treaties]].<ref>The Hindu, ICJ verdict on jurisdiction in Atlantique case today.</ref> In the buildup to the case, India also contended that Pakistan had violated the 1991 bilateral agreement between Pakistan and India on air violations, which states "[[Combat aircraft]] (to include fighter, [[bomber]], reconnaissance, [[trainer (aircraft)|jet military trainer]], and [[helicopter gunship|armed helicopter]] aircraft) will not fly within 10 km of each other’s [[airspace]] including [[Air Defense Identification Zone]]."<ref>Henry L. Stimson Center, [http://www.stimson.org/southasia/?sn=sa20020109216 Agreement Between India and Pakistan on the Advance Notice of Military Exercises.] Retrieved February 14, 2007.</ref>
  
On June 21, 2000, the 15-judge Bench headed by Gilbert Guillaume of [[France]] ruled—with a 14–2 verdict—upholding India's submission that the court had no jurisdiction in the matter.<ref>[http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=585&code=pi&p1=3&p2=3&case=119&k=b5&p3=5 ICJ's Press Communique on the verdict] Retrieved on July 23, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/119/8088.pdf Judgment of 21 June 2000 Jurisdiction of the Court] ([[PDF]]) Retrieved on July 23, 2007</ref> The court dropped Pakistan's claims, without recourse to appeal, the outcome seen as a decision highly favorable to India.<ref>[http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2000/jun24.html Pakistan dismayed over verdict: ICJ refuses to hear Atlantique case] June 21, 2000 - [[Dawn (newspaper)]] [[wire service]] Retrieved on July 23, 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000622/main3.htm India wins case against Pakistan] June 21, 2000 - [[The Tribune]] Retrieved on July 23, 2007</ref><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/800433.stm  World court blow for Pakistan] BBC 21 June, 2000 Retrieved on July 23, 2007</ref> The ruling constituted a financial setback to the [[Government of Pakistan|Pakistan government]] which had spent close to 25 million [[Pakistani rupee]]s (approx. $400,000) preparing for the case, much higher than what India spent.<ref>[http://www.dawn.com/2002/07/17/nat32.htm Govt comments sought in Atlantique case]  
+
On June 21, 2000, the 15-judge Bench headed by Gilbert Guillaume of [[France]] ruled—with a 14–2 verdict—upholding India's submission that the court had no jurisdiction in the matter.<ref>International Court of Justice, [http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=585&code=pi&p1=3&p2=3&case=119&k=b5&p3=5 ICJ's Press Communique on the verdict.] Retrieved on July 23, 2007.</ref> The court dropped Pakistan's claims, without recourse to appeal, the outcome seen as a decision highly favorable to India.<ref>Dawn Wire Service, [http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2000/jun24.html Pakistan dismayed over verdict: ICJ refuses to hear Atlantique case. Retrieved on July 23, 2007.</ref> The ruling constituted a financial setback to the [[Government of Pakistan|Pakistan government]] which had spent close to 25 million [[Pakistani rupee]]s (approx. $400,000) preparing for the case, much higher than what India spent.<ref>Dawn Newspaper, [http://www.dawn.com/2002/07/17/nat32.htm Govt comments sought in Atlantique case.] Retrieved February 14, 2007.</ref>
July 17, 2002 - Pakistan's [[Dawn (newspaper)]].</ref>
 
  
 
==Aftermath==
 
==Aftermath==
In India, the incident made the two [[Aviator#Military|pilots]] of the Mig-21s into instant heroes.<ref name="India" /><ref>[http://origin.ndtv.com/money/templatebusiness.asp?template=&callid=1&id=25955 Report on Bundela's critical condition who was "a national hero"] - June 11, 2002 [[NDTV]] Retrieved on July 23, 2007</ref> On October 8, 2000, [[Squadron Leader]] P.K. Bundela received the prestigious [[Vayusena medal]].[[Wing Commander (rank)|Wing Commander]] V.S. Sharma (the [[Air traffic controller#Civilian.2FMilitary - Public.2FPrivate|fighter controller]] who tracked the Atlantique, guided the pilot and ordered him to attack the plane) also received the medal, as did Squadron Leader Pankaj Vishnoi, the [[helicopter pilotage|helicopter pilot]] who recovered a part of the Atlantique's debris from the [[marsh]]y border regions of the Rann.<ref>[http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Awards/awavm1999.htm Vayusena Medal (VM)] Bharat Rakshak Retrieved on July 22, 2007</ref>
+
In India, the incident made the two [[Aviator#Military|pilots]] of the Mig-21s into instant heroes. On October 8, 2000, [[Squadron Leader]] P.K. Bundela received the prestigious [[Vayusena medal]]. [[Wing Commander (rank)|Wing Commander]] V.S. Sharma (the [[Air traffic controller#Civilian.2FMilitary - Public.2FPrivate|fighter controller]] who tracked the Atlantique, guided the pilot, and ordered him to attack the plane) also received the medal, as did Squadron Leader Pankaj Vishnoi, the [[helicopter pilotage|helicopter pilot]] who recovered a part of the Atlantique's debris from the [[marsh]]y border regions of the Rann.<ref>Bharat Rakshak, Vayusena Medal (VM).</ref>
  
The downing of the Pakistani aircraft came at a particularly bad juncture for the [[Prime Minister of Pakistan|Pakistani Prime Minister]], [[Nawaz Sharif]], already under attack from [[Right-wing politics|right-wing conservatives]] for ordering a [[Withdrawal (military)|retreat]] of its troops in the [[Kargil War]]. Two months later an army [[Coup d'état|coup]] led by [[Pervez Musharraf]] [[deposition (politics)|deposed]] him.
+
The downing of the Pakistani aircraft came at a particularly bad juncture for the [[Prime Minister of Pakistan|Pakistani Prime Minister]], [[Nawaz Sharif]], already under attack from [[Right-wing politics|right-wing conservatives]] for ordering a [[Withdrawal (military)|retreat]] of its troops in the [[Kargil War]]. Two months later, an army [[Coup d'état|coup]] led by [[Pervez Musharraf]] [[deposition (politics)|deposed]] him.
  
 
==Notes==
 
==Notes==
<div class="references-small">
+
<references/>
<references />
 
</div>
 
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
* [http://www.time.com/time/asia/asia/magazine/1999/990823/india_pakistan1.html TIME: Can't Stop the Madness. August 23-30, 1999 vol 154 NO. 7/8]. Retrieved July 23, 2007
+
* Bharat Rakshak. [http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Kargil/Atlantique.html Indian Air Force account of the incident.] Retrieved July 23, 2007.
* [http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Kargil/Atlantique.html Indian Air Force account of the incident. (hosted by [[Bharat Rakshak]])]. Retrieved July 23, 2007
+
* Defense Journal. [http://www.defencejournal.com/sept99/core.htm Pakistani side of the argument.] Retrieved July 23, 2007.
* [http://www.defencejournal.com/sept99/core.htm Pakistani side of the argument. Defense Journal, September 1999]. Retrieved July 23, 2007
+
* Glardon, Thomas L. ''Balancing U.S. Interests Amidst the India and Pakistan Conflict.'' USAWC strategy research project. Carlisle Barracks, Pa: U.S. Army War College, 2005.  
* Glardon, Thomas L. Balancing U.S. Interests Amidst the India and Pakistan Conflict. USAWC strategy research project. Carlisle Barracks, Pa: U.S. Army War College, 2005. OCLC: 60349776
+
* Time Magazine. [http://www.time.com/time/asia/asia/magazine/1999/990823/india_pakistan1.html Can't Stop the Madness. August 23-30, 1999 vol 154 NO. 7/8]. Retrieved July 23, 2007.
  
 
==External Links==
 
==External Links==
* [http://vayu-sena-aux.tripod.com/other-atlantique-gallery.html Picture gallery of the aircraft wreckage]. Retrieved July 23, 2007
+
All links retrieved November 14, 2021.
* [http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/ind-pak/99-08-10.htm Propaganda War Over Plane Attack, BBC Online - Hosted on Global Policy Forum]. Retrieved July 23, 2007
+
* [http://vayu-sena-aux.tripod.com/other-atlantique-gallery.html Picture gallery of the aircraft wreckage].  
* [http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Kargil/Atlantique.html THE ATLANTIQUE INCIDENT: THE OFFICIAL INDIAN AIR FORCE SITE]. Retrieved November 8, 2007.
+
* [http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/ind-pak/99-08-10.htm Propaganda War Over Plane Attack], ''BBC Online'' - Hosted on Global Policy Forum.  
* [http://zararshaheedtrust.org/incident/inside/incident.html The Atlantique Incident]. Retrieved November 8, 2007.
 
* [http://www.india-today.com/itoday/19990823/creek.html India Today Atlantique Downing: Creek Crisis]. Retrieved November 8, 2007.
 
  
<!-- * [http://www.lawyerscollective.org/lc_mag/freedownloads/magazine2000/September_2000/international_court_of_justice.htm 'International_court_of_justice' Lawyers Collective magazine, September 2000] A brief report on the legal proceedings and outcomes at the ICJ from a legal perspective. Retrieved November 3, 2006 The given link doesn't work anymore and even a search through popular web archives failed to produce a historical copy of the online article—>
 
  
 
[[Category:Politics and social sciences]]
 
[[Category:Politics and social sciences]]
 
   
 
   
 
{{credits|156836155}}
 
{{credits|156836155}}

Revision as of 06:15, 9 January 2023

An Atlantique plane belonging to the Italian Navy. Identical to the downed Pakistan Navy plane.

The Atlantique Incident represented an event in which the Indian Air Force shot down a Pakistan Navy plane, Breguet Atlantique, carrying sixteen people on board, citing violation of airspace. The episode took place in the Rann of Kutch on August 10, 1999, just a month after the Kargil War, creating a tense atmosphere between India and Pakistan. The downing represented the Pakistan Navy's only loss of an airplane to hostile fire in its history.

The Atlantique Incident, taking place one month after the end of the Kargil War, heightened tensions between the two nations. Each nation had tested nuclear weapons in 1998, meaning even relatively minor incidents could devolve into a nuclear exchange. The Indian Air Force had reason to suspect the Pakistan Navy of intentional violation, in light of the apparent deceptive attempt to seize Kargil. Yet, in a less tense time, the Indian government would have to question why a navy plane, most likely unarmed, would put the lives of sixteen personnel in harms way without protection. In any case, the Atlantique Incident ratcheted up the tension between the two countries another notch. Fortunately, recently, relations between India and Pakistan have been normalizing.

The confrontation

The French-built naval plane Breguet Atlantique (Breguet Br.1150 Atlantique) plane, flight Atlantic-91,[1], one of the Pakistan Navy's front line aircraft, has been used primarily for patrol and reconnaissance (though capable of being fitted with air-to-surface missiles and anti-submarine weapons). Atlantic-91 left Mehran (Sindh province) Naval Base in Pakistan at 9:15 a.m. (PST). An Indian Air Force ground radar picked up the flight path of the plane approaching the International Border.[2] The Indian Air Force soon scrambled two IAF Mig-21 interceptor aircraft of No.45 Squadron, from the Indian airbase at Naliya in the Kutch region.[3] After a series of maneuvers—and a conflicting version of events from both sides—the two jets received clearance to shoot down the Pakistani plane. At 11:17 a.m. IST (10:47 a.m. PST), nearly two hours after takeoff from Pakistan, the Indian Air Force jets intercepted the Atlantique, Squadron Leader P.K. Bundela and fired infrared homing air-to-air missile at it, hitting the engine on the port side of the plane.[4] That resulted in the aircraft losing control and spiraling towards a crash at approximately 11:00 a.m. PST, killing all sixteen on board the Atlantic-91, including five officers of the Pakistan Navy.

The incident constituted the Pakistan Navy's only loss of an aircraft to hostile fire in its history, and the biggest combat-related casualty for the navy since the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971.

Claims and counterclaims

The region in Kutch, (marked in red) where the incident took place.

The event immediately sparked claims and counter-claims by both nations. Pakistan claimed that the plane had been unarmed, that debris had been found on Pakistan's side of the border,[5] providing evidence that the aircraft had remained in Pakistan airspace. According to the official Pakistan version of events, the plane merely flew on a "routine training mission inside Pakistan air space."[6] The Pakistani Prime Minister stated during the funeral service of the airmen that the shooting constituted "a barbaric act."[7]

The Indian Air Force claimed that the aircraft failed to respond to international protocol and that the plane acted in a "hostile" manner, adding that the debris of a downed aircraft fell over a wide area. Indian sources stated that the BBC initially quoted the Pakistani Information Minister, Mushahid Hussein, as saying that the aircraft flew on a "surveillance" mission.[8] India also argued that the plane violated a bilateral agreement signed between India and Pakistan in 1991. The treaty states that no military aircraft would fly anywhere near 10 km from the border.[9] Indian experts also questioned why a training mission flew so close to international borders, since all air forces clearly demarcate training areas for flight, located well away from the borders. According to them, the Pakistanis made an untenable claim, since the Atlantique primarily operates over the sea; carrying out a training flight over land deep inside foreign territory indicated a surveillance mission. India displayed part of the wreckage of the Pakistani naval aircraft at New Delhi airport the next day. Pakistan alleged that Indian helicopters had removed the wreckage from its side of the border.

Enlarged map of the region showing Sir Creek and Kori Creek area where the plane had been shot down and wreckage found.

While Pakistan said that the plane had been unarmed and the debris fell within Pakistani territory, India maintained that warnings had been given to the Atlantique and that its flight trajectory meant it could have fallen on either side of the border. According to the Indian version of events, the MiGs tried to escort it to a nearby Indian base, when the Pakistani aircraft turned abruptly and tried to make a dash for the border, drawing Indian fire. India claimed that the debris had been found in a radius of 2 km on either side of the border and that the intrusion took place 10 km inside the Kori Creek, in Indian territory. Pakistan requested that the matter be taken up in the UN. Indian officials pointed to previous violations in the area, that in the previous year a Pakistani unmanned surveillance aircraft had intruded 150 km inside the Indian border, coming close to the Bhuj air base before the IAF spotted it and brought it down with several missiles.[10] They further added that Pakistani military aircraft had violated Indian airspace at least fifty times since January 1999, showing videotapes of Pakistani Atlantiques "buzzing," or flying provocatively near the Indian Navy's warships in the Indian Ocean.[11] Some Indian analysts stated that an Atlantique had been nearly destroyed in 1983, on a similar encounter, noting other close encounters as well as violations by Pakistani naval planes.[12]

Independent defense experts stated that the Atlantique probably conducted a "probe" on India's air defense system, mainly the radar equipment in the border area; they advised that Pakistan had never intended aggressive military action. Foreign diplomats who visited the crash site noted that the plane "may have strayed into restricted space," and that Islamabad had been unable to explain why the plane flew so close to the border; they added that India's reaction to the incident had been unjustified.[13] Many countries, the G8, the permanent members of the UN Security Council, as well as the western media questioned the wisdom behind Pakistan's decision to fly military aircraft so close to the Indian border.[14] They advised that Pakistan should exercise more caution, especially after the Kargil episode.

Rise in tensions

On the day following the attack, the Pakistan Army attacked an IAF helicopter carrying journalists to the site of the attack with a surface-to-air missile. Pakistani officials asserted that Pakistan fired upon Indian jets when they had intruded into Pakistani airspace near the Atlantique wreckage site, along the border between the Indian state of Gujarat and Pakistan's Sindh Province. International and Indian television journalists traveling in the chopper said the aircraft shook severely and a flash appeared in the air, suggesting a missile had been fired at it.[15] The IAF thus aborted their mission to display Atlantique wreckage on Indian soil.[16]

The rising tensions in the area, coupled the dispute over the Sir Creek territory, led to both the countries' militaries near the Rann of Kutch and nearby going on high alert. Pakistan sent a company of soldiers, equipped with both laser guided and infrared homing shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, to the site near the border. Coming barely weeks after the Kargil Conflict, where both nuclear armed countries fought high altitude warfare, the international community viewed the incident with growing concern. The U.S. State Department termed the subcontinent as being in a state of "continued high-stakes tension."

Lawsuit

The International Court of Justice dismissed Pakistan's case on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction.

On September 21, 1999, Pakistan lodged a compensation claim at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, accusing India of shooting down an unarmed aircraft. Pakistan sought about $60 million in reparations from India and compensation for the victims' families (The cost of the aircraft lost in the incident is put at >$35 million.) India's attorney general, Soli Sorabjee, argued that the court lacked jurisdiction,[17] citing an exemption it filed in 1974, to exclude disputes between India and other Commonwealth States, and disputes covered by multi-lateral treaties.[18] In the buildup to the case, India also contended that Pakistan had violated the 1991 bilateral agreement between Pakistan and India on air violations, which states "Combat aircraft (to include fighter, bomber, reconnaissance, jet military trainer, and armed helicopter aircraft) will not fly within 10 km of each other’s airspace including Air Defense Identification Zone."[19]

On June 21, 2000, the 15-judge Bench headed by Gilbert Guillaume of France ruled—with a 14–2 verdict—upholding India's submission that the court had no jurisdiction in the matter.[20] The court dropped Pakistan's claims, without recourse to appeal, the outcome seen as a decision highly favorable to India.[21] The ruling constituted a financial setback to the Pakistan government which had spent close to 25 million Pakistani rupees (approx. $400,000) preparing for the case, much higher than what India spent.[22]

Aftermath

In India, the incident made the two pilots of the Mig-21s into instant heroes. On October 8, 2000, Squadron Leader P.K. Bundela received the prestigious Vayusena medal. Wing Commander V.S. Sharma (the fighter controller who tracked the Atlantique, guided the pilot, and ordered him to attack the plane) also received the medal, as did Squadron Leader Pankaj Vishnoi, the helicopter pilot who recovered a part of the Atlantique's debris from the marshy border regions of the Rann.[23]

The downing of the Pakistani aircraft came at a particularly bad juncture for the Pakistani Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, already under attack from right-wing conservatives for ordering a retreat of its troops in the Kargil War. Two months later, an army coup led by Pervez Musharraf deposed him.

Notes

  1. Aviation Safety Network, Hull-loss Aircraft accident description Breguet 1150 Atlantic 91. Retrieved on July 23, 2007.
  2. Bharat Rakshak Indian Air Force, The Atlantique Incident.
  3. Narendra Gupta, Air defense operations. Retrieved on July 26, 2007.
  4. Indian Air Force Official Page, IAF Scores a Kill!!! Factual Account of Interception. Retrieved on July 26, 2007.
  5. Defense Journal, Pakistan's Core Negativity. Retrieved on July 26, 2007.
  6. International Court of Justice, 21 September 1999 Application instituting proceeding. Retrieved on July 23, 2007
  7. Time Magazine, Can't Stop the Madness. Retrieved February 14, 2008.
  8. Subcontinent.com, Military Situation Report for 12 August 1999 Retrieved on July 23, 2007
  9. Henry L. Stimson Center, Agreement Between India and Pakistan on the Advance Notice of Military Exercises. Retrieved on July 23, 2007.
  10. India Today, Creek Crisis by Vijay Jung Thapa and Aahid Hussain and Uday Mahurkar.
  11. Washington Post, Pakistan Attacks Indian Aircraft in Border Region By Pamela Constable and Kamran Khan. Retrieved on July 23, 2007.
  12. Journal of Electronic Defense, Pakistani recce aircraft shot down (Asia-Pacific Report) by S. Mallegol. Retrieved on July 23, 2007.
  13. BBC, Pakistani plane "may have crossed border." Retrieved July 23, 2007.
  14. Defense Journal, Islamabad's Post-Kargil Challenges. Retrieved on July 23, 2007.
  15. Neelesh Misra, Tensions renew as Pakistan launches missile at Indian military. Retrieved on July 26, 2007.
  16. Global Policy, Pakistan Attacks Indian Aircraft In Border Region by Pamela Constable and Kamran Khan. Retrieved on July 23, 2007.
  17. The Tribune, ICJ begins hearing on Pak complaint. Retrieved on September 10, 2007.
  18. The Hindu, ICJ verdict on jurisdiction in Atlantique case today.
  19. Henry L. Stimson Center, Agreement Between India and Pakistan on the Advance Notice of Military Exercises. Retrieved February 14, 2007.
  20. International Court of Justice, ICJ's Press Communique on the verdict. Retrieved on July 23, 2007.
  21. Dawn Wire Service, [http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2000/jun24.html Pakistan dismayed over verdict: ICJ refuses to hear Atlantique case. Retrieved on July 23, 2007.
  22. Dawn Newspaper, Govt comments sought in Atlantique case. Retrieved February 14, 2007.
  23. Bharat Rakshak, Vayusena Medal (VM).

References
ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

External Links

All links retrieved November 14, 2021.

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.