America's ridiculous stance on Kashmir

[Kazhugu]

well i hope that milk does not let india to become a hostile country for its neighbors(Pakistan China Bangladesh Burma)

we are already hostile to pakistan and not exactly freinds with china........we have always supported burma from US interferences.........and why did you mention bangladesh.?..bd is as friend to usa as to us......the challenge is in balancing and till now india is doing a good job.......

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

also everyone please debate on america's stand on kashmir...not on the kashmir dispute itself....indians and pakistanis cannot agree on that and tehre is no use debating......

America's stance on Kashmir is negotiate able , and is not permanent, America neither cares for India's interest neither for Pakistan neither for those Poor Kashmiris, As long as US interests with Pakistan(wrt Afg) have a greater impact on America's Reagional equation America's stance on Kashmir will tilt towards Pakistani Stance but if its interests with India out weighs other regional interests than Its stance will side with New Delhi.

What should be the Prime concern of All Parties(Pakistan China and India) is that America (Using its Manipulating Stance on Kashmir) is hell bent to make this region the Balkans of a possible Reagional War which could ultimately accumalte whole of Asia into its chaos ..That should be the real and genuine concern for All..!!!

 

[mr42O]

The sooner Pakistan and Pakistanis forget Kashmir, the better is for Pakiatan and its future

lol let stop talkig just take thats ours which is Kashmir. By keeping Kashmir by force is called decomarcy.

 

[Kazhugu]

America's stance on Kashmir is negotiate able , and is not permanent, America neither cares for India's interest neither for Pakistan neither for those Poor Kashmiris, As long as US interests with Pakistan(wrt Afg) have a greater impact on America's Reagional equation America's stance on Kashmir will tilt towards Pakistani Stance but if its interests with India out weighs other regional interests than Its stance will side with New Delhi.

Fair enough.........but another important thing is even if usa favours pak position on kashmir as it has been doing pretty much till some time ago...it cannot make india change its stance on kashmir and without making india agree to that this issue cannot be resoved........also the bargaining power to make india agree is reducing with each passing day as indian economy grows and consequently the global influence........

What should be the Prime concern of All Parties(Pakistan China and India) is that America (Using its Manipulating Stance on Kashmir) is hell bent to make this region the Balkans of a possible Reagional War which could ultimately accumalte whole of Asia into its chaos ..That should be the real and genuine concern for All..!!!

the usa has not tried that thing till now and even if it tries ......trust indians not to fall for it.......but countering rising chinese hegemony in asia is a differnt thing altogether...and both usa and india with other like minded countries like japan, vietnam, south korea must work to make asia free from anyone's hegemony......its as much as in india's interest as in usa's........

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Taking a quote from an old Article, Regarding Henry Kissinger's Views on the Regional Dynamics

Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/83af62ac-80d3-11e0-8351-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1T0H5zcqb

Not so much, though, as to get in the way of treating China as an indispensable element in any stabilisation of perilous situations in Korea and Afghanistan. Without China’s active participation, any attempts to immunise Afghanistan against terrorism would be futile. This may be a tall order, since the Russians and the Chinese are getting a “free ride” on US engagement, which contains the jihadism which in central Asia and Xinjiang threatens their own security. So was it, in retrospect, a good idea for Barack Obama to have announced that this coming July will see the beginning of a military drawdown? The question triggers a Vietnam flashback. “I know from personal experience that once you start a drawdown, the road from there is inexorable. I never found an answer when Le Duc Tho was taunting me in the negotiations that if you could not handle Vietnam with half-a-million people, what makes you think you can end it with progressively fewer? We found ourselves in a position where to maintain … a free choice for the population in South Vietnam … we had to keep withdrawing troops, thereby reducing the incentive for the very negotiations in which I was engaged. We will find the same challenge in Afghanistan. I wrote a memorandum to Nixon which said that in the beginning of the withdrawal it will be like salted peanuts; the more you eat, the more you want.”

Kissinger laughs even as he sketches a scenario for an Afghanistan even grimmer than anything anyone has yet imagined, where the presence or absence of al-Qaeda will be the least of its problems. What might happen, he says, is a de facto partition, with India and Russia reconstituting the Northern Alliance, and Pakistan hooked to the Taliban as a backstop against their own encirclement.

Suddenly, spring goes chilly. The prospect looms of a centennial commemoration of the first world war through a half-awake re-enactment. Not Belgium but Sarajevo. Think proxy half-states; the paranoia of encirclement; the bristling arsenals, in this case nuclear; the nervous, beleaguered Pakistanis lashing out in passive-aggressive insecurity. “An India-Pakistan war becomes more probable. Eventually,” says the Doctor, his voice a deep pond of calm. “Therefore some kind of international process in which these issues are discussed might generate enough restraints so that Pakistan does not feel itself encircled by India and doesn’t see a strategic reserve in the Taliban.” He looks directly at me. “Is it possible to do this? I don’t know. But I know if we let matters drift this could become the Balkans of the next world war.”

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/83af62ac-80d3-11e0-8351-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1T0H2UzpK

 

[Kazhugu]

lets not put biased view points like henry kissinger who for some unknown reasons hates india to the core......

 

[Indrajith]

Just see the change in Kashmir-- 2011 local election turnout was 88%

Now no kashmiri is asking for annexing kashmir with pakistan

Violence has reduced

Only thing that still continues -- is pakistan's mindset

See on your our country side -- Fighting never brought peace to any side of the nation and Now India is more stronger to crush any misbehaviour of pakistan, lot of intellectual pakistanis favour current status of line of control & kashmir

 

[Executioner]

lol let stop talkig just take thats ours which is Kashmir. By keeping Kashmir by force is called decomarcy.

Stop playing the game if you can't win, how many times you tried.

Game Name: Kashmir
Objective : Occupied the Kashmir at any cost.
Game starts
Stage 1 : Sending Army
Result : You lose, Try again to continued or Accept Game Over.
Option selected : Try again.
Stage 1 : Sending Mujahedin.
Result : You failed, Try again to continued or Accept Game Over.
Option selected : Try again.
Stage 1 : Mujahedin+Brainwashing people.
Result : You failed,Try again to continued or Accept Game Over.
Achievement Unlocked : Big Time Loser.
Option selected : Try again.
Stage 1 : ISI waiting more funding from Arab countries.
Result : Again you will lose (Forecasting).

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

lets not put biased view points like henry kissinger who for some unknown reasons hates india to the core......

Thats a bit unfair generalization of Kissinger's Views .. Can there be a workable soulution to Kashmir, or would there be a confrontation leading to a probable Indo-Pak war solely eminating from the Kashmir Dispute , or both counteries would continue to adopt a policy of backstabbing each other through closely protected proxies and espionage ...??
Apparently India's ambitious Military Procurement from US and lack of Serious attitude towards settling the Disputes paints a grimmer Picture..!!!

 

[Tshering22]

lets not put biased view points like henry kissinger who for some unknown reasons hates india to the core......

The old man is just soured up how his strategies in southern Asia went down the drains everytime he tried to act holy. . Let's move on.

 

[karan.1970]

lol let stop talkig just take thats ours which is Kashmir. By keeping Kashmir by force is called decomarcy.

And how do you propose you do that??

 

[karan.1970]

Thats a bit unfair generalization of Kissinger's Views .. Can there be a workable soulution to Kashmir, or would there be a confrontation leading to a probable Indo-Pak war solely eminating from the Kashmir Dispute , or both counteries would continue to adopt a policy of backstabbing each other through closely protected proxies and espionage ...??
Apparently India's ambitious Military Procurement from US and lack of Serious attitude towards settling the Disputes paints a grimmer Picture..!!!

Nah! India has no interest in changing the boundaries. The rearmament is to deter any foolish attempts by neighbors to do that..

 

[deckingraj]

Thats a bit unfair generalization of Kissinger's Views ..

Fair enough...he hates india or not is not a debate..His views are the point of debate...

Can there be a workable soulution to Kashmir, or would there be a confrontation leading to a probable Indo-Pak war solely eminating from the Kashmir Dispute , or both counteries would continue to adopt a policy of backstabbing each other through closely protected proxies and espionage ...??

War is not an option...we both are nuclear...Proxies are not going to help either...Thisis being tried since 90's...the only people who suffer from it are Kashmiri's themselves...


I have said it many times but won't shy away from repeating it one more time....Let's keep the emotions's away and think strategically...Current status quo favors us...Most of the rivers originate/pass from Indian side of Kashmir...Siachen is under our command and with Chinese interest in karakoram this glacier has got it newly found strategic importance....Indian economy is booming and Pakistan's is in turmoil....India's geo-political might is on the rise and i am afraid Pakistan's is going down...The only leverage yu guys have is WOT and things are not looking good there as well...


Now with all the above give me some good reasons for India to settle Kashmir the way you guys want...In other words what goodies can Pakistan bring on the table which can convince India to settle kashmir as per the aspirations of Pakistan??? If you cannot then what other choice you have to settle it as per Indian POV i.e. convert LOC into an IB but an open one...

Apparently India's ambitious Military Procurement from US and lack of Serious attitude towards settling the Disputes paints a grimmer Picture..!!!

I am sorry but this is biased accusation....Kargil was not done by India...if you want to accuse then accuse both sides....If we go by reports then we were close to have a deal on Kashmir with Musharraf even though he was the architect of Kargil....Now if this is not being serious then what else is??? Is it india's fault that political situation in Pak went crazy and he had to go???

Anyways i will not concentrate on this aspect and loose the smarter debate...Please care to reply to other parts

 

[Solomon2]

America has never been able to justify its position on Kashmir and tries to bury the argument that there is a Kashmiri POV to this debate and always tries to portray it as some silly feud between India and Pakistan as if the people in question, the Kashmiris are non-entities.

Leaving aside the unethical bit - the immorality of a man pretending to be an advocate for one party when he is really in the pay of another party that may be its adversary - I don't think this prosecution of Dr. Fai is part of the India/Pakistan conflict. Rather, it may be a battle between the civilian/military divide in Pakistan.

Dr. Fai allegedly was employed by the ISI - the Pakistani military - as its secret advocate. Foreign relations is supposed to be the job of civilian government yet Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S. has written that the ISI has been engaged in molding Kashmiri politics, citing allegations of that the ISI supported the murder of pro-independence Kashmiris.

If the GoP wants to assert its policy-making authority what better way to start than by sabotaging the Dr. Fai - ISI relationship?

 

[asad71]

1. America is the "bara saab" acknowledged by successive Indo-Pak leadership who are dependent on USA for various reasons. So in truth a final outcome here has to be okay-ed by USA. There are very few people in the world as unfortunate as the Kashmairis.The land is so beautiful. So are the people. And they by themselves are economically sound. Yes, every one has always remembered to forget the Kashmiris.

2. Have you traveled on the road Jammu to Srinagar? If you haven't then you are not born, says the Kashmiris. From Bhimbar's front positions (Koel-Moel posts perhaps) or from Phuklean across R Jammu Tawi/Munawwar Tawi you can see Samba with binos. But try and venture nearer and you will enter a place of beauty incomparable. Unlike the ares north of Bhimbar this location has a great charm. From Kotli northwards, across Tain feature, the mountains are rather rugged.

3. Perhaps Mush and Vajpaye had reached a formula which would have given them a joint Nobel. But Indian leadership around Vajpaye had threatened a revolt. We do not know what the formula was or what the Indians objected to. But from various media reports the understanding seems to have been to convert the once CFL, and now LOC, into an international border. Jammu and Leh would join India, and the Valley would be independent. India on its part would accept Akshai Chin belonging to China; and accept Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas as Pakistan territory. There would be a peace - but at the unfortunate cost of the Kashmiris. Most Indians define J&K to include Pak NA also -and they want all. Most Pakistanis do not want to betray Kashmiris after all the sacrifices made.

4. Is the Kashmiri struggle diminishing? For the moment perhaps. But gone are the days when Kashmiris, except the Suddans, were treated as non-martial, passive, etc. Once a people learn to shed blood for freedom it is not possible to keep them down. That is the verdict of history.

5. America's stance seems to be ridiculous because they are perplexed, if not confused, like everyone else.