As India tells Pakistan it will only talk terror, PM Narendra Modi’s core advisors mull next steps

[Indrajit]

This is going in circles. Since the beginning of both parties terms both have tried to start talks but it always breaks down here. India doesnt want to talk on Kashmir or any other issue apart from terrorism and Pakistan wants other issues especially Kashmir on the table. I feel that with both sides hardening their stance, talks will just be a formality......

....Both parties need to sit down and talk about all the issues but india considering the Kashmir situation currently will never bring Kashmir to the table right now.

What exactly is there to discuss on the Kashmir issue? Pakistan wants India to give it up, India doesn't & won't. What discussion is possible in such a scenario? Kashmir is a very difficult problem to resolve to the approval of both the countries.

 

[Dash]

I have better people like Gen panag and others. I don't need attention from you. I only like when u fight porkis.

@Joe Shearer I admire your patience.

You got it didn't you? you got me.

 

[saiyan0321]

@Joe Shearer
Yep indeed these are govt to govt stands and both govts are trying to do what's best for them which creates the deadlock. Pakistan wants Kashmir and other issues on the table especially now due to the situation on Kashmir and India wants to only talk about terrorism and not Kashmir especially considering the situation. Thus the deadlock. Mark my words india will not come to talk on Kashmir especially right now and pakistan will not come to any talk that has only terrorism in it... This deadlock was there in 2013 and it's there still but eventually something will crack. It always does atleast in our history of relations.

The funny thing is that I predict that come next elections it will be both govts in power still due to winning elections so if they are here to stay and the army is obviously here to stay so somebody needs to find a middle ground.

Yeah i know.

Always supported trade. Fact is and its a reality that pakistan is not going anywhere nor its breaking up and india is not going anywhere nor its breaking up. We are neighbours who share a huge border with each other so eventually its got to be enough is enough. Both nations should work more on trade which will help both nations economically however one can't just ignore these issues and focus solely on trade ( the govt won't get reelected that focused only on trade and ignored every other issue and sadly this selfishness of reelection on both sides and the world is a huge factor) thus both must go together which requires normalization of relations which is gonna take some time.

What exactly is there to discuss on the Kashmir issue? Pakistan wants India to give it up, India doesn't & won't. What discussion is possible in such a scenario? Kashmir is a very difficult problem to resolve to the approval of both the countries.

It is difficult but you are wrong in thinking a solution is not possible through talks. Musharraf and vajpayee were working on a fine solution of demilitarizion of Kashmir as well as open borders for populations to enjoy their region which is currently divided into two. That proved that both parties despite once fighting in Kashmir heights of kargil just a few years ago can still come to a solution and the solution was workable and granted another option apart from giving up huge amounts of territory to the others complete control.

When state to state talks happen they are very different to how we talk to each other. Diplomacy and diplomatic etiquette plays a huge part. They don't say you send your army back or you vacate Kashmir.

It will always contain a list of solutions provided by both sides and how they can be implemented. Both sides talk on these solutions if they are feasible for both parties or in the interest of both parties and if not then amendments are suggested and those amendments are discussed and their feasibility and advantages and disadvantages... Long series of meetings.

But it worked with vajpayee and musharraf however as we all know musharraf was ousted and manmohan Singh came to power and that's that.

 

[nair]

My (un-educated) take which I think i am entitled to, has been with the given attitude of the Pakistani military, We should completely disengage from dialogue on all issues, and just maintain transit and travel relation

Or expect a military dictator in Pakistan??? I thought we had the best chance of resolving our issues during Mushraff's time- Imagine Rahil Sharif (looking at his popularity in Pakistan similar to that of mushraff in his time) - as the president and bilateral discussion........ I know it will be tough for GoI to negotiate, but then the advantage is you are talking to the real power not the reel power....... and the expected outcomes are going to be better.......

I dono i may sound crazy, Since we have an elected Pm in islamabad, but how about inviting COAS also for the discussions when both the leaders are talking?? it may be difficult in the beginning but i am sure over a period of time all the parties involved would feel it more result oriented than the earlier arrangement. Let us not forget after a very long time we have a stable govt in centre, and we also have PM who is believed to have absolute control over his cabinet........

Current (last 10 years ) effort on engaging Pakistan in bilalteral dialogue is a waste of time and we will benefit from diverting the diplomatic effort to BIMSTEC and Africa instead.

The current government;s approach is very different from its predecessors, here you have a PM who takes things in his hands and in spite of having a very strong,able foreign minister, involves too much in foreign policy......... I guess Modi's inexperience (in foreign policy) or over expectation (from his own abilities to deal with foreign leaders) got himself into this stage..... But i guess over a period of time he has learnt his lesson......... Let us not forget Doval is the main adviser.....

NDA's Pakistan policy is more or less similar to what UPA had where intermittently they put effort in bilatral fronts, BJP is the one that tries a bit too hard (Vajpayee on a bus yatra, or the Modi on Sharif family wedding) and this primarily stems from their Right wing baggage.

I do not know how much it has to do with Right wing baggage, But i dont think that is the case, Let us not forget the failure of Agra summit....... Every PM want their legacy in Indo Pak relationship and i would say all of them were sincere in their effort be it AB, MMS, NM, but the issues are so complex and to make things worse there are part of society who do not want coordial relationship between the nations.....

This entire blah blah of talks in terror is indeed a dog and pony show. State sponsored terror is a known, state mandated and state controlled policy that pakistan uses as a cost effective measure to engage Indian Forces.

I guess if one go thru the pathankot attack and response, there is an attempt to differentiate non state actors and the state actors (a genuine attempt from GoI) and one can see an acknowledgement from Pakistan too..... But how long this going to stay is something to watch.....

We should stop this non-sense and just ignore Pakistan

This is an option which already been tried several times...... But let us be honest we cannot ignore each other....... Even if we try there are enough elements in each other's society which will ensure that doesnt happen....

 

[Indrajit]

It is difficult but you are wrong in thinking a solution is not possible through talks. Musharraf and vajpayee were working on a fine solution of demilitarizion of Kashmir as well as open borders for populations to enjoy their region which is currently divided into two. That proved that both parties despite once fighting in Kashmir heights of kargil just a few years ago can still come to a solution and the solution was workable and granted another option apart from giving up huge amounts of territory to the others complete control.

When state to state talks happen they are very different to how we talk to each other. Diplomacy and diplomatic etiquette plays a huge part. They don't say you send your army back or you vacate Kashmir.

It will always contain a list of solutions provided by both sides and how they can be implemented. Both sides talk on these solutions if they are feasible for both parties or in the interest of both parties and if not then amendments are suggested and those amendments are discussed and their feasibility and advantages and disadvantages... Long series of meetings.

But it worked with vajpayee and musharraf however as we all know musharraf was ousted and manmohan Singh came to power and that's that.

Musharraf & Vajpayee didn't come close, Musharraf & MMS supposedly did but even that would not really have held. The Pakistani military jettisoned the plan immediately after Musharraf's ouster which tells you the level of real support that the plan had.

Any idea of open borders in the present situation is a pie in the sky kind of dream, completely unrealistic. MMS-Musharraf plan provides a base but there are no takers for it in Pakistan and would be a hard sell in India.

 

[Joe Shearer]

And, what would you propose? India wouldn't do water games, remember the Indus originates in China, and Tibet's waters feed Indian rivers and land.

They don't, actually. I can explain elsewhere, elsewhen. But I have faith in India's integrity about international treaties.

 

[saiyan0321]

Musharraf & Vajpayee didn't come close, Musharraf & MMS supposedly did but even that would not really have held. The Pakistani military jettisoned the plan immediately after Musharraf's ouster which tells you the level of real support that the plan had.

Any idea of open borders in the present situation is a pie in the sky kind of dream, completely unrealistic. MMS-Musharraf plan provides a base but there are no takers for it in Pakistan and would be a hard sell in India.

Yes you are right about MMS as it was MMS and musharraf and remember it was the military that was leading it so one can't blame the military here. The biggest hurdle that came was the ouster of musharraf and the beggining of war on terror which drew complete focus of the military. The idea was jettisoned by the incompetent civilian govt of PPP... You may not believe this but when musharraf was ousted and kiyani came to power the military had lost complete power and was heavily disliked. Every step musharraf or Q league ( the party in power) had taken, was reversed and general ashfaq pervez kiyani the COAS followed a policy of no involvement in politics or govt affairs, of keeping the army in barracks and to repair the tarnished image of the army. He did all three magnificently and his policies in Baluchistan along with janjua led to peace.

The time of 2007-2013 pakistan military had zero involvement in any policy of the state due to operations against terror, attacks of horrific nature in pakistan, combatting the insurgency in Baluchistan, improving the image of pak army amongst the populace and depoliticizing of the army. If the idea failed then PPP is to be blamed. Later nawaz came along and raheel came along. Army currently does have influence in our foreign policy especially in important matters ( the failure of the NSA under sartaj in 2013 talks where the govt conceded too much ground) but not at the heights it enjoyed previously.

As for the idea, as you state it was a base idea which needs to be worked upon. Yes it sounds like a pie in the sky and a very tough sell to both nations but we need to bring that pie to the ground and make it a reality. Its the only feasible option that can bring both sides to the table as every other option is just not realistic. Nobody will concede even an inch of land whether its independence or to other party.

Anyhow all that aside coming to the present both nations won't budge so it will take time.

 

[proud_indian]

 

[Indrajit]

Yes you are right about MMS as it was MMS and musharraf and remember it was the military that was leading it so one can't blame the military here. The biggest hurdle that came was the ouster of musharraf and the beggining of war on terror which drew complete focus of the military. The idea was jettisoned by the incompetent civilian govt of PPP... You may not believe this but when musharraf was ousted and kiyani came to power the military had lost complete power and was heavily disliked. Every step musharraf or Q league ( the party in power) had taken, was reversed and general ashfaq pervez kiyani the COAS followed a policy of no involvement in politics or govt affairs, of keeping the army in barracks and to repair the tarnished image of the army. He did all three magnificently and his policies in Baluchistan along with janjua led to peace.

Kayani was the man who withdrew support. He had no interest in deal post Musharraf. One can surmise that is the more commonly held position in the PA. It has nothing to do with the war on terror etc, common sense would have wanted for a quieter border with India while fighting that battle. However Kayani was blunt, the deal didn't interest him. The civilians (PPP government) followed that line & wanted to renegotiate what MMS & Musharraf had outlined. The Indian interlocutors lost faith in Pakistan's ability to stitch up a deal & enforce it. Then 26/11 happened. The deal was a non-starter after that

Nobody will concede even an inch of land whether its independence or to other party.

You are a rare guy who gets it. Most don't.

 

[waz]

They don't, actually. I can explain elsewhere, elsewhen. But I have faith in India's integrity about international treaties.

I agree, the Indus water treaty has been fantastic and one which other countries should be looking at. You only need to see the problems going on with the Nile, and the various African countries at each other's throats to appreciate the treaty.
You're spot on about India's obligations and that has been the response from most senior Indian posters .

 

[Indrajit]

I agree, the Indus water treaty has been fantastic and one which other countries should be looking at. .

No other country will look at that treaty.....it's pretty one sided in favour of the lower riparian state. It is an example of Indian generosity that is very rarely acknowledged. So much so that many Pakistan "experts" keep calling for a re-opening of the IWT......India would so love that.........

 

[proud_indian]

No other country will look at that treaty.....it's pretty one sided in favour of the lower riparian state. It is an example of Indian generosity that is very rarely acknowledged. So much so that many Pakistan "experts" keep calling for a re-opening of the IWT......India would so love that.........

 

[MilSpec]

I guess if one go thru the pathankot attack and response, there is an attempt to differentiate non state actors and the state actors (a genuine attempt from GoI) and one can see an acknowledgement from Pakistan too..... But how long this going to stay is something to watch.....

Which is ludicrous, there is no differentiation. It's all under the auspices of the Rawalindi HQ.

This is an option which already been tried several times...... But let us be honest we cannot ignore each other....... Even if we try there are enough elements in each other's society which will ensure that doesnt happen....

Think about it a little harder, it has never been done...And we absolutely can ignore each other.

 

[Indrajit]

Which is ludicrous, there is not differentiation. It's all under the auspices of the Rawalindi HQ.

Funny how we have people running around to make a distinction that doesn't really exist.....

 

[Joe Shearer]

No other country will look at that treaty.....it's pretty one sided in favour of the lower riparian state. It is an example of Indian generosity that is very rarely acknowledged. So much so that many Pakistan "experts" keep calling for a re-opening of the IWT......India would so love that.........

NOT generosity, fairness. There's a lot of difference between the two, and I know which one I would like to characterise my country.