How not to hold India-Pakistan talks

[nForce]

Neither side is going to give up on whatever piece of land they hold. That is understood.

But refusing to even discuss the matter and squashing any chance of development on the issue, is a bit childish imo.
There will be no solution if India keeps refusing to even bring up the K-word.

Why is India refusing to talk ? Hmm.. My view is India is not exactly refusing to talk. But India will only talk from a position of power and authority, which goes along with the position the country has.
BTW. I think you know it already, it is not entirely Modi or Manmohan that runs India, it is the bureaucrats that run India from behind, those who qualify through the fire and flames of UPSC exam, which attracts some of the best minds. That's how we are able to maintain consistency in our policies.
So, it is not as simplistic as you may think. It is just the inflexibility that India has towards any kind of arm-twisting.

Let us atleast ackowledge that the problem exists and increase people-people exchange. It will be a good first step for Pakistanis and Indians to visit the other and see for themselves. Instead of relying on talk shows for information, let them judge for themselves. What do you think?

I acknowledge there is a problem. But what is the definition of that problem ? When you come to a discussion table to respect the opinions of the person with whom you are working it out. That respect greatly reduces due to these terror tactics. That's why talks never happen on equal level. I mean how does it work out ? Either you talk Kashmir or there will be terrorists hurling grenades in Kashmir ? You think a country of 1.2 billion and a growing economic power will give in to that ?
Regarding people-people exchange.. again the same problem.. You let people from Pakistan freely travel to Indian Kashmir, and the next day, they will board the Jammu-Tawi Express and we will have Mumbai-style attacks in Nagpur and Vizag...Cannot risk that!

 

[bloo]

What exactly do you think they're talking about when referring to 'all outstanding issues' in the full statement at UFA ?

Full text of India-Pakistan joint statement on PM Narendra Modi-Nawaz Sharif talks in Russia - The Hindu

Yeah sure we would do that at some point, but that was never the MAIN ISSUE. The main issue was terrorism, and what is all this BS about meeting the Hurriyat first? This was never agreed upon in Ufa. To me all this looks like bringing in new factors to derail the talks.
You should see the interview for yourself, Sartaj Aziz was clearly diverting from the subject and bringing in all sorts of rebuttals about what they would do after the talks are derailed as if expecting it; how they would bring dossiers about RAWs involvement in Pak and how UN will support Pak when clearly that is not the case.

does that mean J&K is no longer a UN 'recognized' disputed territory?

Since long ago, apparently though that won't stop Pakistan from making a fool out of themselves in front of the world at the UN by bringing up a dead issue.

 

[Armstrong]

Yeah sure we would do that at some point, but that was never the MAIN ISSUE. The main issue was terrorism, and what is all this BS about meeting the Hurriyat first? This was never agreed upon in Ufa. To me all this looks like bringing in new factors to derail the talks.
You should see the interview for yourself, Sartaj Aziz was clearly diverting from the subject and bringing in all sorts of rebuttals about what they would do after the talks are derailed as if expecting it; how they would bring dossiers about RAWs involvement in Pak and how UN will support Pak when clearly that is not the case.

So when we jointly declared that 'they (India and Pakistan) are prepared to discuss all outstanding issues' they were just being polite !

And how exactly did you determine what the main issue was because they all seem fairly important issues without anything suggesting which is more important than the other ?

 

[JanjaWeed]

It's pretty easy...

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Requirements for Talk

And some good books- longer the better, trilogies are good for 2-3 day discussions you can pace yourself

Avoid the earge to start the discussions with statement like

When the issue of Kashmir comes start the discussion with a confident smile, hide the white elephant as much you can.

Listen carefully what is discussed and promise to pounder about the ideas , remember the confident smile , gain trust of your counter part, if you see floating text beside your opponent;s face ... ignore that make eye contact

Listen carefully to the otherparty view
no matter how ignorant they may be- show genuine interest must show in your face

The interest you show in your face , effects the mood in the room you must have appears of a
concerned listener

Before leaving the room always freshen up

Come back and report to your Boss - progress was made that day!!! like any other day in last 60 years

 

[RazorMC]

Why is India refusing to talk ? Hmm.. My view is India is not exactly refusing to talk. But India will only talk from a position of power and authority, which goes along with the position the country has.
BTW. I think you know it already, it is not entirely Modi or Manmohan that runs India, it is the bureaucrats that run India from behind, those who qualify through the fire and flames of UPSC exam, which attracts some of the best minds. That's how we are able to maintain consistency in our policies.
So, it is not as simplistic as you may think. It is just the inflexibility that India has towards any kind of arm-twisting.
...
I acknowledge there is a problem. But what is the definition of that problem ? When you come to a discussion table to respect the opinions of the person with whom you are working it out. That respect greatly reduces due to these terror tactics. That's why talks never happen on equal level. I mean how does it work out ? Either you talk Kashmir or there will be terrorists hurling grenades in Kashmir ? You think a country of 1.2 billion and a growing economic power will give in to that ?
Regarding people-people exchange.. again the same problem.. You let people from Pakistan freely travel to Indian Kashmir, and the next day, they will board the Jammu-Tawi Express and we will have Mumbai-style attacks in Nagpur and Vizag...Cannot risk that!

Who granted India the position of power? This is not Bhutan or Nepal.

I know about the policy-making and that had been my point in other threads as well. Modi is not the sole deciding factor here. But there is no arm-twisting involved. Indian can either respect other nations as sovereign or stay under the illusion of supremacy, upto them.

India will not talk on Kashmir under pressure, agreed, and it will not negotiate on the back-foot. But what pressure has Pakistan applied so far? Do you feel Pakistan will remain on the back-foot when our own affairs seem to be getting in order, when TTP seems to be heading for a downfall, when Baloch insurgency groups are falling apart (despite the brotherly nation trying to do what it could) ?

I do not expect India to be too happy about discussing Kashmir while it believes it is under attack, but your generalization of Pakistanis isn't accurate. Samjhota-Express? Shiv-senik violence? Gujarat massacre? Maoist uprisings? How many of them include Pakistan?

In my honest (and perhaps limited) view, India is not accustomed to the modern, assertive Pakistan.

 

[halupridol]

Since long ago, apparently though that won't stop Pakistan from making a fool out of themselves in front of the world at the UN by bringing up a dead issue.

@HRK

 

[Armstrong]

@HRK

What are you doing in the avatar ?

 

[GURU DUTT]

It's pretty easy...

you nailed it sirji

why is indian atx payers money is wasted like this realli very bad time to give NaMo a wake up call

 

[bloo]

So when we jointly declared that 'they (India and Pakistan) are prepared to discuss all outstanding issues' they were just being polite !

And how exactly did you determine what the main issue was because they all seem fairly important issues without anything suggesting which is more important than the other ?

Of course all issues are important, but I'm talking about the NSAs' talks right now, where terrorism was supposed to be the main issue FIRST (that was initially agreed upon) and Hurriyat was never in the equation. Following that yes Kashmir could be discussed. But again if you look at the press conference video of Sartaj Aziz, when a Pak journalist asks if terrorism would be talked about, he keeps on skirting the issue.
There is also the DGMO talks so opportunities were never lost really, so why this ambiguity.

 

[Armstrong]

you nailed it sirji

why is indian atx payers money is wasted like this realli very bad time to give NaMo a wake up call

Guru Bhai ja kar Bhabi ko koiii shopping wagheraa karvaiiin....hamaraa bhii BP raise karteiii hain aur khudd ka bhiii !

 

[GURU DUTT]

Guru Bhai ja kar Bhabi ko koiii shopping wagheraa karvaiiin....hamaraa bhii BP raise karteiii hain aur khudd ka bhiii !

to goya aapka BP tab normal ho jata hai jab aap bhabhi ko shopping kara ke late ho ..... bhai wakai bahut barri sehen shakti hai tumme ... hats off too you bhatt saheb

 

[Armstrong]

Of course all issues are important, but I'm talking about the NSAs' talks right now, where terrorism was supposed to be the main issue FIRST (that was initially agreed upon) and Hurriyat was never in the equation. Following that yes Kashmir could be discussed. But again if you look at the press conference video of Sartaj Aziz, when a Pak journalist asks if terrorism would be talked about, he keeps on skirting the issue.
There is also the DGMO talks so oppurtunities were never lost really so why this ambiguity.

Where is it agreed upon when the 'joint statement' is touching upon multiple issues without suggesting which issues are more important than others ?

 

[halupridol]

What are you doing in the avatar ?

 

[salmanACCA]

are the lives of mumbai residents more precious than kashmiris who are getting harassed and killed from past 60 years