Pakistan's army chief, Asim Munir, paid tribute to Captain Karnal Sher Khan Shaheed on his "martyrdom" anniversary for his role in the 1999 Kargil War is laden with irony and historical revisionism.

 The news that Pakistan's army chief, Asim Munir, paid tribute to Captain Karnal Sher Khan Shaheed on his "martyrdom" anniversary for his role in the 1999 Kargil War is laden with irony and historical revisionism. The core of the issue lies in Pakistan's long-standing denial of its army's direct involvement in the Kargil conflict, a denial that extended to refusing to accept the bodies of its own soldiers, including Captain Sher Khan.

Analysis of the Issue:

1. Pakistan's Initial Denial and its Implications:

• Plausible Deniability: In 1999, Pakistan vehemently claimed that the Kargil intrusion was carried out by "Kashmiri mujahideen" or "freedom fighters," not by regular Pakistani army personnel. This narrative was crucial to their strategy of plausible deniability, aiming to avoid international condemnation for a direct act of aggression against India.

• Refusal to Accept Bodies: As a direct consequence of this denial, Pakistan refused to accept the bodies of its soldiers killed in the conflict, including Captain Karnal Sher Khan. The Indian government, through its embassy in Washington, had released statements explicitly detailing Pakistan's refusal to acknowledge these soldiers' identities, even when presented with evidence found on their persons. This was a callous act, deeply disrespectful to the fallen soldiers and their families.

• Insult to Soldiers: As the prompt rightly points out, this refusal was a profound insult to the Pakistani soldiers who laid down their lives. They were disowned by their own country in death, all for the sake of maintaining a false narrative. It denied them a dignified burial on their native soil and left their families in anguish and uncertainty.

• Proof of Involvement: India, on the other hand, consistently presented evidence of Pakistani army involvement, including intercepted communications and the recovery of identity documents from fallen soldiers. The very fact that an Indian Brigadier, M.P.S. Bajwa, was so impressed by Captain Sher Khan's bravery that he wrote a citation for him and placed it in his pocket before his body was returned, further highlighted the regular army's involvement.

2. The Shift: Honoring a Disowned Hero (and the Irony):

• Delayed Recognition: It is only after years of denying direct involvement, and after international scrutiny and pressure, that Pakistan gradually started acknowledging the role of its regular army in Kargil. Captain Sher Khan himself was posthumously awarded Pakistan's highest military honor, the Nishan-e-Haider, in 2000, a year after his death and the initial refusal to accept his body. This belated recognition highlights the internal contradiction of their previous stance.

• Current Tribute - A Perception Management Exercise: The current tribute by Army Chief Asim Munir on the 26th anniversary of Captain Sher Khan's "martyrdom" is a significant symbolic act. It implicitly acknowledges the army's role in a conflict they once denied, thereby attempting to integrate these soldiers into their national narrative of heroism. This could be seen as an effort to boost morale within the army, to consolidate power through nationalistic fervor, or to simply revise history for public consumption.

• Historical Revisionism: By celebrating Captain Sher Khan now, Pakistan is engaging in a form of historical revisionism. They are attempting to valorize sacrifices that were initially disowned, without fully confronting the implications of their past denial. It allows them to claim heroism while sidestepping the moral and ethical questions surrounding their initial abandonment of these soldiers.

Conclusion:

The decision to honor Captain Karnal Sher Khan now, 26 years after he was killed and his body was initially refused, exposes the inherent contradictions in Pakistan's official narrative regarding the Kargil War. It is a powerful reminder of how political expediency can lead to the dishonoring of one's own soldiers. While the tribute might be an attempt to reclaim a narrative of bravery and patriotism, it simultaneously highlights the unfortunate reality that these soldiers were initially deemed expendable in a desperate attempt to conceal undeniable truth. The incident serves as a poignant example of the human cost of political deception in times of conflict.