1999 Pakistani Breguet 1150 Atlantic shootdown

Confrontation

The French-built Breguet Br.1150 Atlantic, c/n 33, flight Atlantic-91, of 29 Squadron, was one of the Pakistan Navy's frontline aircraft, used primarily for patrol and reconnaissance. Atlantic-91 left Mehran Naval Base in Pakistan at 9:15 am PKT (9:45 IST). Indian Air Force ground radar picked up the plane as it approached the India-Pakistan border.{{cite web |access-date=9 March 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070202195038/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Kargil/Atlantique.html |archive-date=2 February 2007 |url-status=dead

Claims and counterclaims

The event immediately sparked claims and counter-claims by both nations. Pakistan claimed that the plane was unarmed and the debris was found on Pakistan's side of the border, and there was no violation of Indian airspace. According to the official Pakistan version of events, the plane was on a routine training mission inside Pakistan air space. The Pakistani Prime Minister stated during the funeral service of the airmen that the shooting was a barbaric act.

The Indian Air force claimed that the aeroplane did not respond to international protocol and that it acted in a "hostile" manner, adding that the debris of a downed aircraft could fall over a wide radius. Indian sources also stated that Pakistan's Information Minister, Mushahid Hussein, was initially quoted as saying that the aircraft was on a surveillance mission. India also alleged that the plane violated a bilateral agreement, signed by India and Pakistan in 1991, under which no military aircraft were to come within 10 km of the border (although Pakistan claimed the Atlantic was not a combat aircraft). According to them, the Pakistani claim was untenable since the primary role of the Atlantic is for operations over the sea and that to carry out a training flight over land deep inside foreign territory was an indication of its use in a surveillance role. India displayed part of the wreckage of the Pakistani naval aircraft at New Delhi airport the next day. Pakistan stated that the wreckage was removed from its side of the border by Indian helicopters.

While Pakistan said that the plane was unarmed and the debris was within Pakistani territory, India maintained that warnings had been given to the Atlantic 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; it was only then that it was fired upon. India claimed that the debris was 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, which is Indian territory. Pakistan requested that the matter be taken up in the UN. Indian officials claimed that there had been previous violations in the area and pointed out 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.

Indian analysts state "flare-ups" in the Rann of Kutch region were routine, and despite bilateral agreements, both India and Pakistan had conducted air intrusions in the past. Thus, the fact that the Atlantic was shot down, despite coming close to the Indian border, came as a surprise. Indian officials add that Pakistan military aircraft had violated Indian airspace at least 50 times since January 1999, showing videotapes of Pakistani Atlantics "buzzing", or flying provocatively near the Indian Navy's warships in the Indian Ocean. Some Indian analysts stated that the Atlantic was nearly destroyed in 1983 on a similar encounter and noted other close encounters and violations from Pakistani naval planes.

Some experts stated that the Atlantic was probably conducting a "probe" on India's air defence system, mainly the radar equipment in the border area; they advised that it was not part of any planned aggressive military action by Pakistan. Foreign diplomats who visited the crash site noted that the plane "may have strayed into restricted space", and that Islamabad was unable to explain why it was flying so close to the border; they added that India's reaction to the incident was not justified. 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.

Rise in tensions

On the day following the attack, an IAF helicopter carrying journalists to the site of the attack was attacked by the Pakistan Marines with a surface-to-air missile. Pakistani officials asserted that two Indian jets had intruded into Pakistani airspace near the Atlantic wreckage site, along the border between the Indian state of Gujarat and Pakistan's Sindh Province, and were then fired upon by Pakistan marines. No damage was recorded as the missiles missed the target. The IAF thus aborted their mission and could safely return. The helicopter carrying the journalists also returned without any damage.

Following this, and the rising tensions in the area coupled by the fact that the Sir Creek was a disputed territory, both the countries' militaries near the Rann of Kutch and nearby were put on high alert. Pakistan sent a company of marines, 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, this incident was seen with growing concern around the world. The US State Department termed the subcontinent as being in a state of "continued high-stakes tension."

Lawsuit

On 21 September 1999, Pakistan lodged a compensation claim at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, accusing India of shooting down a military aircraft. Pakistan sought about US$60 million in reparations from India and compensation for the victims' families. India's attorney general, Soli Sorabjee, argued that the court did not have jurisdiction, citing an exemption it filed in 1974 to exclude disputes between India and other Commonwealth States, and disputes covered by multi-lateral treaties. 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 (including, bombers, reconnaissance aircraft, jet military trainer and armed helicopter) will not fly within 10 km of each other's airspace including air defence identification zone."

On 21 June 2000, the 16-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 this matter. Pakistan's claims were dropped, without recourse to appeal, and the outcome was seen as a decision highly favourable to India. The Pakistan government had spent close to 25 million Pakistani rupees (approx. $400,000) on the case.Govt comments sought in Atlantique case 17 July 2002 – Pakistan's Dawn.

Aftermath

In India, the incident made the two pilots of the MiG-21s into instant heroes. On 8 October 2000, the prestigious Vayu Sena Medal was awarded to Squadron Leader P. K. Bundela. The medal was also awarded to Wing Commander V. S. Sharma (the fighter controller who tracked the Atlantic, guided the pilot and ordered him to attack the plane) and Squadron Leader Pankaj Vishnoi, the helicopter pilot who recovered a part of the Atlantic's debris from the marshy border regions of the Rann.

References

References

1. "The Nation: Atlantique Downing: Creek Crisis".
2. (2013-08-10). "The Atlantique Incident — Part 1 of 2 - HistoricWings.com :: A Magazine for Aviators, Pilots and Adventurers".
3. (23 October 2011). "16 dead as India shoots down Pakistani naval plane".
4. {{ASN accident
5. [http://www.indianembassy.org/press/New_Delhi_Press/August_1999/Air_Defence_Operations_Aug_17_99.html Air defence operations] {{webarchive. link. (19 June 2010 By Narendra Gupta. Taken from [[The Hindu]] 17 August 1999 Reproduced by [[Embassy of India in Washington]] Retrieved on 26 July 2007)
6. [http://armedforces.nic.in/airforce/fac.htm IAF Scores a Kill !!! Factual Account of Interception] {{webarchive. link. (22 July 2009 – Indian Air Force official page Retrieved on 26 July 2007)
7. A Moiz (1999) [http://www.defencejournal.com/sept99/core.htm Core Negativity] {{webarchive. link. (3 March 2016 Defence Journal, September 1999 Retrieved on 26 July 2007)
8. [http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/119/7123.pdf 21 September 1999 Application instituting proceeding] {{webarchive. link. (3 March 2016 Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999 (Pakistan v. India), International Court of Justice Case page Retrieved on 23 July 2007)
9. (23–30 August 1999). "ASIANOW - TIME Asia | India-Pakistan: Tit for Tat".
10. [http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/19990811/ige01049.html IAF shoots down Pak intruder plane]{{dead link. (July 2016)
11. [http://www.india-today.com/itoday/19990823/creek.html ATLANTIQUE DOWNING: Creek Crisis – The strange encounter in the Rann of Kutch leading to the shooting down of the Pakistani Altantique sets both countries on the path of confrontation again.] {{webarchive. link. (22 December 2008 ; By Vijay Jung Thapa; 1999/08/23; India Today Magazine)
12. link. (22 July 2009 – Hosted on [[Henry L. Stimson]] Center Retrieved on 23 July 2007)
13. link. (19 June 2010 Published in [[The Indian Express]] 12 August 1999. Hosted on [[Embassy of India in Washington]] webpage)
14. [http://www.india-today.com/itoday/19990823/creek.html Creek Crisis by Vijay Jung Thapa and Aahid Hussain and Uday Mahurkar] {{webarchive. link. (22 December 2008 23 August 1999 [[India Today]] Retrieved on 23 July 2007)
15. [[Pamela Constable]] and [[Kamran Khan (journalist). Kamran Khan]], [http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/ind-pak/99-08-12.htm Pakistan Attacks Indian Aircraft in Border Region] {{webarchive. link. (19 May 2009 12 August 1999, ''[[The Washington Post]]'' Retrieved on 23 July 2007)
16. [http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-83679978.html Pakistani recce aircraft shot down (Asia-Pacific Report)by S. Mallegol] {{webarchive. link. (4 May 2016 Journal of Electronic Defense 1 September 1999 Retrieved on 23 July 2007)
17. [http://www.mafhoum.com/press2/70P3.htm Cold War in the Arabian Sea] {{webarchive. link. (3 March 2016 Vijay Sakhuja, Research Fellow, [[Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses]] Retrieved on 23 July 2007)
18. [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] {{webarchive. link. (12 October 2007 [[DOC (computing)). DOC]] Retrieved on 23 July 2007
19. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/419325.stm Pakistani plane "may have crossed border"] {{webarchive. link. (18 October 2002 13 August 1999 BBC Retrieved on 23 July 2007)
20. Zehra, Nasim. "Islamabad's Post-Kargil Challenges". Defence Journal.
21. [http://vayu-sena-aux.tripod.com/other-atlantique-gallery.html Atlantique wreckage image gallery with] {{webarchive. link. (27 August 2016 pictures of [http://vayu-sena-aux.tripod.com/pix/FT0016826.jpg Pakistani soldiers] {{webarchive). link. (4 March 2016 using [http://vayu-sena-aux.tripod.com/pix/FT0016824.jpg infrared] {{webarchive). link. (3 March 2016 and [http://vayu-sena-aux.tripod.com/pix/Atlantique_Pak_RBS-70.jpg laser guided] {{webarchive). link. (3 November 2013 [[RBS 70]] and [[Mistral missile]]s Retrieved on 23 July 2007)
22. [http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000404/world.htm#4 ICJ begins hearing on Pak complaint] {{webarchive. link. (2 May 2016 4 April 2000 – [[The Tribune (Chandigarh)). The Tribune]] Retrieved on 10 September 2007
23. {{usurped. [https://web.archive.org/web/20090723020720/http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2000/06/21/stories/0321000f.htm ICJ verdict on jurisdiction in Atlantique case today] 21 June 2000 – [[The Hindu]] Retrieved on 10 September 2007
24. link. (15 October 2016 Retrieved on 23 July 2007.)
25. [http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/119/8088.pdf Judgment of 21 June 2000 Jurisdiction of the Court] {{webarchive. link. (5 April 2016 Retrieved on 23 July 2007)
26. [http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000622/main3.htm India wins case against Pakistan] {{webarchive. link. (3 March 2016 21 June 2000 – [[The Tribune (Chandigarh)). The Tribune]] Retrieved on 23 July 2007
27. [http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2000/jun24.html Pakistan dismayed over verdict: ICJ refuses to hear Atlantique case] {{webarchive. link. (5 February 2012 21 June 2000 – [[Dawn (newspaper)). Dawn]] [[wire service]] Retrieved on 23 July 2007
28. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/800433.stm World court blow for Pakistan] {{webarchive. link. (28 March 2007 BBC 21 June 2000 Retrieved on 23 July 2007)
29. [https://web.archive.org/web/20070926225906/http://origin.ndtv.com/money/templatebusiness.asp?template=&callid=1&id=25955 Report on Bundela's critical condition who was "a national hero"] – 11 June 2002 [[NDTV]] Retrieved on 23 July 2007
30. [http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Awards/awavm1999.htm Vayusena Medal (VM)] {{webarchive. link. (6 July 2008 Bharat Rakshak Retrieved on 22 July 2007)