1999 Pakistani Breguet 1150 Atlantic shootdown

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.{{ASN accident|id=19990810-0|type=Criminal Occurrence|accessdate=23 July 2007}} 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

|url=http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Kargil/Atlantique.html

|title=The Atlantique Incident

|access-date=9 March 2007

|work=1999 Kargil Operations

|publisher=Bharat Rakshak Indian Air Force

|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

}} Two IAF MiG-21 interceptor aircraft of No. 45 Squadron, from the Indian airbase at Naliya in the Kutch region, were scrambled.[http://www.indianembassy.org/press/New_Delhi_Press/August_1999/Air_Defence_Operations_Aug_17_99.html Air defence operations] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100619223010/http://www.indianembassy.org/press/New_Delhi_Press/August_1999/Air_Defence_Operations_Aug_17_99.html |date=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 After a series of manoeuvres—with conflicting versions of events from both sides—the two fighter jets were given clearance to shoot down the Pakistani plane. At 11:17 am IST (10:47 am PKT), nearly two hours after takeoff from Pakistan, the Atlantic was intercepted and an infrared homing R-60 air-to-air missile was fired at it by Squadron Leader P.K. Bundela, hitting the engine on the port side of the plane.[http://armedforces.nic.in/airforce/fac.htm IAF Scores a Kill !!! Factual Account of Interception] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090722043150/http://armedforces.nic.in/airforce/fac.htm |date=22 July 2009 }} – Indian Air Force official page Retrieved on 26 July 2007

Image:Sir-Creek-locator.svg

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,A Moiz (1999) [http://www.defencejournal.com/sept99/core.htm Core Negativity] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303171722/http://www.defencejournal.com/sept99/core.htm |date=3 March 2016 }} Defence Journal, September 1999 Retrieved on 26 July 2007 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.[http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/119/7123.pdf 21 September 1999 Application instituting proceeding] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303205625/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/119/7123.pdf |date=3 March 2016 }} Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999 (Pakistan v. India), International Court of Justice Case page Retrieved on 23 July 2007 The Pakistani Prime Minister stated during the funeral service of the airmen that the shooting was a barbaric act.{{cite magazine | title=Can't Stop the Madness | date=23–30 August 1999 | volume=154 | issue=7/8 | magazine=Time | url=http://www.time.com/time/asia/asia/magazine/1999/990823/india_pakistan1.html | access-date=10 June 2005 | archive-date=16 September 2010 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100916183012/http://www.time.com/time/asia/asia/magazine/1999/990823/india_pakistan1.html | url-status=dead }} Alternate URL: {{cite web |url=http://edition.cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/asia/magazine/1999/990823/india_pakistan1.html |title=ASIANOW - TIME Asia | India-Pakistan: Tit for Tat | 8/23/99 |access-date=2013-12-17 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304235506/http://edition.cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/asia/magazine/1999/990823/india_pakistan1.html |archive-date=4 March 2016 |df=dmy }}

Image:Sir-Creek-map.svg and Sir Creek area, where the plane was shot down and wreckage was found respectively.]]

The Indian Air force claimed that the aeroplane did not respond to international protocol and that it acted in a "hostile" manner,[http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/19990811/ige01049.html IAF shoots down Pak intruder plane]{{dead link|date=July 2016 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}; Wednesday, 11 August 1999; EXPRESS NEWS SERVICE; The Indian Express Retrieved on 1 January 2010[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 |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081222215123/http://www.india-today.com/itoday/19990823/creek.html |date=22 December 2008 }}; By Vijay Jung Thapa; 1999/08/23; India Today Magazine 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 {{convert|10|km|mi nmi}} of the border[http://www.stimson.org/southasia/?sn=sa20020109216 Agreement Between India and Pakistan on the Advance Notice of Military Exercises] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090722184205/http://www.stimson.org/southasia/?sn=sa20020109216 |date=22 July 2009 }} – Hosted on Henry L. Stimson Center Retrieved on 23 July 2007 (although Pakistan claimed the Atlantic was not a combat aircraft). Indian experts also questioned why a training mission was being carried out so close to the border, when all air forces conduct training flights in clearly demarcated training areas located well away from international boundaries.[http://www.indianembassy.org/press/New_Delhi_Press/August_1999/Pak_Aggression_Air_August_13_1999.htm Atlantic mission had been cleared at the highest levels By Air Commodore Jasjit Singh] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100619222817/http://www.indianembassy.org/press/New_Delhi_Press/August_1999/Pak_Aggression_Air_August_13_1999.htm |date=19 June 2010 }} Published in The Indian Express 12 August 1999. Hosted on Embassy of India in Washington webpage 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 {{convert|2|km|mi nmi|spell=in}} on either side of the border and that the intrusion took place {{convert|10|km|mi nmi}} 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 {{convert|150|km|mi nmi}} inside the Indian border, coming close to the Bhuj air base before the IAF spotted it and brought it down with several missiles.[http://www.india-today.com/itoday/19990823/creek.html Creek Crisis by Vijay Jung Thapa and Aahid Hussain and Uday Mahurkar] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081222215123/http://www.india-today.com/itoday/19990823/creek.html |date=22 December 2008 }} 23 August 1999 India Today Retrieved on 23 July 2007

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.Pamela Constable and Kamran Khan, [http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/ind-pak/99-08-12.htm Pakistan Attacks Indian Aircraft in Border Region] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090519020926/http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/ind-pak/99-08-12.htm |date=19 May 2009 }} 12 August 1999, The Washington Post Retrieved on 23 July 2007 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.[http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-83679978.html Pakistani recce aircraft shot down (Asia-Pacific Report)by S. Mallegol] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160504224323/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-83679978.html |date=4 May 2016 }} Journal of Electronic Defense 1 September 1999 Retrieved on 23 July 2007[http://www.mafhoum.com/press2/70P3.htm Cold War in the Arabian Sea] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303172542/http://www.mafhoum.com/press2/70P3.htm |date=3 March 2016 }} Vijay Sakhuja, Research Fellow, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses Retrieved on 23 July 2007[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 |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071012234541/http://www.centrovolta.it/landau/South%20Asia%20Security%20Program_file%5CDocumenti%5CWorkshop%20South%20Asia%202004%5CTalks%5C8-%20Ghosh.doc |date=12 October 2007 }} DOC Retrieved on 23 July 2007

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.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/419325.stm Pakistani plane "may have crossed border"] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20021018032538/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/419325.stm |date=18 October 2002 }} 13 August 1999 BBC Retrieved on 23 July 2007 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.{{cite news|last=Zehra |first=Nasim |title=Islamabad's Post-Kargil Challenges |url=http://defencejournal.com/sept99/post-kargil.htm |access-date=17 December 2013 |newspaper=Defence Journal |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140304092141/http://www.defencejournal.com/sept99/post-kargil.htm |archive-date=4 March 2014 |df=dmy }}

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.[http://vayu-sena-aux.tripod.com/other-atlantique-gallery.html Atlantique wreckage image gallery with] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160827211138/http://vayu-sena-aux.tripod.com/other-atlantique-gallery.html |date=27 August 2016 }} pictures of [http://vayu-sena-aux.tripod.com/pix/FT0016826.jpg Pakistani soldiers] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304090906/http://vayu-sena-aux.tripod.com/pix/FT0016826.jpg |date=4 March 2016 }} using [http://vayu-sena-aux.tripod.com/pix/FT0016824.jpg infrared] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303205237/http://vayu-sena-aux.tripod.com/pix/FT0016824.jpg |date=3 March 2016 }} and [http://vayu-sena-aux.tripod.com/pix/Atlantique_Pak_RBS-70.jpg laser guided] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131103110326/http://vayu-sena-aux.tripod.com/pix/Atlantique_Pak_RBS-70.jpg |date=3 November 2013 }} RBS 70 and Mistral missiles Retrieved on 23 July 2007 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."

Image:International Court of Justice HQ 2006.jpg dismissed Pakistan's case on the grounds that the court did not have jurisdiction.]]

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,[http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000404/world.htm#4 ICJ begins hearing on Pak complaint] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160502041237/http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000404/world.htm#4 |date=2 May 2016 }} 4 April 2000 – The Tribune Retrieved on 10 September 2007 citing an exemption it filed in 1974 to exclude disputes between India and other Commonwealth States, and disputes covered by multi-lateral treaties.{{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 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.[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] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161015055439/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=585&code=pi&p1=3&p2=3&case=119&k=b5&p3=5 |date=15 October 2016 }} Retrieved on 23 July 2007.[http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/119/8088.pdf Judgment of 21 June 2000 Jurisdiction of the Court] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160405034404/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/119/8088.pdf |date=5 April 2016 }} Retrieved on 23 July 2007 Pakistan's claims were dropped, without recourse to appeal, and the outcome was seen as a decision highly favourable to India.[http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000622/main3.htm India wins case against Pakistan] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303202336/http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000622/main3.htm |date=3 March 2016 }} 21 June 2000 – The Tribune Retrieved on 23 July 2007[http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2000/jun24.html Pakistan dismayed over verdict: ICJ refuses to hear Atlantique case] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120205074317/http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2000/jun24.html |date=5 February 2012 }} 21 June 2000 – Dawn wire service Retrieved on 23 July 2007[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/800433.stm World court blow for Pakistan] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070328230420/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/800433.stm |date=28 March 2007 }} BBC 21 June 2000 Retrieved on 23 July 2007 The Pakistan government had spent close to 25 million Pakistani rupees (approx. $400,000) on the case.[http://www.dawn.com/2002/07/17/nat32.htm Govt comments sought in Atlantique case] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100122060116/http://www.dawn.com/2002/07/17/nat32.htm |date=22 January 2010 }}

17 July 2002 – Pakistan's Dawn.

In India, the incident made the two pilots of the MiG-21s into instant heroes.[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 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.[http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Awards/awavm1999.htm Vayusena Medal (VM)] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080706123548/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Awards/awavm1999.htm |date=6 July 2008 }} Bharat Rakshak Retrieved on 22 July 2007

{{reflist}}

• [http://vayu-sena-aux.tripod.com/other-atlantique-gallery.html Picture gallery of the aircraft wreckage.] Retrieved 23 July 2007
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20060511234536/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 3 November 2006

{{Military of Pakistan}}{{Aviation accidents and incidents in India}}{{Aviation accidents and incidents in Pakistan}}

{{Aviation incidents and accidents in 1999}}

{{India-Pakistan relations}}

Category:Accidents and incidents involving military aircraft

Pakistan Breguet 1150 Atlantic shootdown

Category:Aircraft shootdown incidents in the Indo-Pakistani wars

Category:20th-century aircraft shootdown incidents

Category:Naval operations involving Pakistan

Pakistan Breguet 1150 Atlantic shootdown

Pakistan Breguet 1150 Atlantic shootdown

Category:International Court of Justice cases