How to beat the "1971Civil War " Psychological Syndrome !

[magra]

Here is something else:
When Pakistan was formed in 1947 we used rubber stamps to mark the demonetized Indian currency notes with the name "Pakistan". We couldn't even print our currency as the British India presses were in Calcutta. The currency notes were so worthless that until India reluctantly transferred some currency to the newly formed State Bank of Pakistan these had no value in the streets of Rawalpindi.

There was only a single currency printing press in 1947. What was the alternative solution as per you?

We manufactured nothing, importing our shirt buttons from Britain.
We fought the first Kashmir war under those circumstances and took a third of Kashmir away.
We survived then and we will rubber stamp our currency again if necessary.... if only to fight you.

Yes sure, you defeated the princely state's forces before Indian army stepped in.

Rhetoric aside, sheer weight of numbers are on our side. In a conventional war, you cannot win. You have tried multiple times.

Proxy war only gave you a bad name over the years and cannot work in this day and age.

Nuclear war does not give anyone anything but only ashes.

So, what will you fight with and with what hope?

 

[magra]

Too late. We offered a deal at the Agra summit between Musharraf and Vajpayee.

What was the final draft of the Agra summit deal?
Another deal was about to happen between Musharraf and Manmohan in 2004 and I heard Pakistani side backed down at the last minute. Do you have details?

The Vietcong fought a power with an economy 100 times their size. We will fight for our existence for the next 1000 years.

Vietnam was fighting on its own land against a foreign power thousands of miles away from its shores. Plus, American public was not emotionally invested in the war. Even if 1 American died for 10 Vietcong, it was too many for Americans and that led to American public pressure to end the offensive war.

India is in a defensive war to hold on to what we have. Defense is always easier to win than attack. Kashmir (indian side) is a jugular vein for Indians too. We consider Kashmir as the head of our body. No amount of attritional warfare will force India to give up Kashmir. It will only unite Indians more and steel our resolve to hold on. If you want to fight for 1000 years, we can do so too.

But shouldn't sanity be given a chance?

 

[Baibars_1260]

This is a prime example, and I am certain you can see what is happening and yet I am a little surprised that you keep entertaining his arrogant ego. You are a brother/yaar as long as you present a version that suits his Indian mindset/propaganda/fantasies. As soon as you deviate from his worldview, it's a full-on attack with self-conceived truths, mixed with inbuilt self-created righteous crap.

You give an inch they take a mile, that's why now I make sure the point has complete fairness, and not admit to simply realities, but present the whole picture, they take simple realities, twist the story to merge it with their own reality to make a new truth, ignorant of any Indian role, which is bullshit.

Of course I can see what is happening. What I want to understand is the mindset, which is why I am engaging. Basically whom am I talking to?
All Indians across the ideological spectrum are sold on the idea of the destruction of Pakistan. Am I talking to a centrist Congress person or a left wing secularist, or a BJP RSS bot. Even the present generation Indian Muslims are sold on the idea that their woes are because of Pakistan and if Pakistan miraculously vanished so would their problems.

We can't have conversations with RSS bots and their 1000 year revenge theories. At least the conversation so far has been kept secular. As I have said before we must keep talking even if we never agree.

India is in a defensive war to hold on to what we have. Defense is always easier to win than attack. Kashmir (indian side) is a jugular vein for Indians too. We consider Kashmir as the head of our body. No amount of attritional warfare will force India to give up Kashmir. It will only unite Indians more and steel our resolve to hold on. If you want to fight for 1000 years, we can do so too.

Answer:
( Don't have to type so much ).

India Pakistan is in a defensive war to hold on to what we have. Defense is always easier to win than attack. Kashmir (indian Pakistani side) is a jugular vein for Indians Pakistanis too. We consider Kashmir as the head of our body. No amount of attritional warfare will force India Pakistan to give up Kashmir. It will only unite Indians Pakistanis more and steel our resolve to hold on. If you want to fight for 1000 years, we can do so too.

Tell that to Amit Shah when he made this statement.

 

[magra]

Tell that to Amit Shah when he made this statement.

If you read the article, you could see that the analysis clearly says that the talk of taking back Pak Kashmir is for negotiation purposes. So we will relinquish our claim on Pak Kashmir if you relinquish your claim on Indian Kashmir.

 

[padamchen]

If you read the article, you could see that the analysis clearly says that the talk of taking back Pak Kashmir is for negotiation purposes. So we will relinquish our claim on Pak Kashmir if you relinquish your claim on Indian Kashmir.

We will do no such thing ....

Cheers, Doc

 

[magra]

We will do no such thing ....

Cheers, Doc

Kashaala traas deta tumhi ya lokaanna?

 

[Baibars_1260]

I am one of those refugees that the maharaja together with the RSS with the blind support of the Indian government and army chased out of Jammu, in the process massacred between 200,000 to 300,000 Muslims, giving Jammu the Hindu majority it has today. That's the total number of Pundits who were in Kashmir in the 1990s, at least they are still alive.

@peagle
Agree, the Maharaja was a murderer, and if India hadn't saved his skin he would have been publicly tried and hung for his war crimes by the Kashmiri resistance. Worst of all he ruined the centuries old religious harmony prevailing in Kashmir that had survived the various empires that had governed Kashmir.
It took almost a generation to rebuild relationships till 1990, which now lies shattered forever. It is a mercy we have Azad Kashmir free from strife.

Yes sure, you defeated the princely state's forces before Indian army stepped in.

History timeline to confirm when the Pakistan Army got involved.
( Link ).
October 1947 to May 1948 first the Maharaja's palace guards pehredaar fought irregular Kashmiri resistance fighters and got the worst of it. Then the Indian Army and Air Force stepped in. The Kashmiri resistance began to lose ground. After packing the British officers home Pakistani regular forces intervened in May 1948 and held India to a stand still holding one third of Kashmir. Not bad for a foot soldier force on food rations with no air support artillery or armor fighting an enemy 6 times its size worrying where its boot laces would come from if they broke.

Rhetoric aside, sheer weight of numbers are on our side. In a conventional war, you cannot win. You have tried multiple times.

Rhetoric aside by sheer weight of numbers will you take back the rest of Kashmir. You tried it multiple times over 14 months from 1947-1949.


"Rubber stamped" and yet we fought on.

 

[magra]

@peagle
Agree, the Maharaja was a murderer, and if India hadn't saved his skin he would have been publicly tried and hung for his war crimes by the Kashmiri resistance. Worst of all he ruined the centuries old religious harmony prevailing in Kashmir that had survived the various empires that had governed Kashmir.
It took almost a generation to rebuild relationships till 1990, which now lies shattered forever. It is a mercy we have Azad Kashmir free from strife.

History timeline to confirm when the Pakistan Army got involved.
( Link ).
October 1947 to May 1948 first the Maharaja's palace guards pehredaar fought irregular Kashmiri resistance fighters and got the worst of it. Then the Indian Army and Air Force stepped in. The Kashmiri resistance began to lose ground. After packing the British officers home Pakistani regular forces intervened in May 1948 and held India to a stand still holding one third of Kashmir. Not bad for a foot soldier force on food rations with no air support artillery or armor fighting an enemy 6 times its size worrying where its boot laces would come from if they broke.

Rhetoric aside by sheer weight of numbers will you take back the rest of Kashmir. You tried it multiple times over 14 months from 1947-1949.

"Rubber stamped" and yet we fought on.

In the mountains, defensive war is a lot easier than winning ground by attacking. We both agree that neither taking Pak Kashmir will be easy nor can you win Indian Kashmir militarily.
So, why not make de-jure what is de-facto ?

 

[Baibars_1260]

If you read the article, you could see that the analysis clearly says that the talk of taking back Pak Kashmir is for negotiation purposes. So we will relinquish our claim on Pak Kashmir if you relinquish your claim on Indian Kashmir.

Don't see India relinquishing its claim. The article is written by Lt.General H.S. Panag.
Will quote directly from it and ask you to explain.

"Army chief General Bipin Rawat in a recent interview to ANI said, “The next agenda is retrieving Azad Kashmir and making it a part of India. The government takes actions in such matters. The institutions of the country will work as per the orders of the government. The Army is always ready.”

While Akhand Bharat is a lofty concept, the BJP and the RSS are ideologically committed to recovering the territories under illegal occupation of Pakistan and China."


The parliamentary resolution of February 1994 clearly said that Azad Kashmir (Azad Kashmir) is an integral part of India. So, why is there a need to reiterate it, and that too ahead of the key UN General Assembly meeting?

The latest policy shift has put both Pakistan and China on notice, especially because the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which includes strategic road and rail links, passes through Gilgit-Baltistan."

A day after the Narendra Modi government removed Jammu and Kashmir’s special status last month, Home Minister Amit Shah said in Parliament, “Kashmir is an integral part of India… When I talk about Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan occupied Kashmir and Aksai Chin are included in it”. Citing the Constitution vis-à-vis Jammu and Kashmir’s boundary, Shah said, “We will give our lives for this region”.

Ok so that settles it... So amend that to "lots of lives for the region"
What exactly is there to negotiate?
Let me publish your parliamentary resolution ( Link )

https://takshashila.org.in/pragmatic-the-1994-parliamentary-resolution-on-jammu-kashmir/

a) The state of Jammu & Kashmir has been, is and shall be an integral part of India and any attempts to separate it from the rest of the country will be resisted by all necessary means;

b) India has the will and capacity to firmly counter all designs against its unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity;

and demands that –

c) Pakistan must vacate the areas of the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir, which they have occupied through aggression;

and resolves that –

d) All attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of India will be met resolutely.

Asking again where is the scope for negotiation. ?

 

[magra]

Don't see India relinquishing its claim. The article is written by Lt.General H.S. Panag.
Will quote directly from it and ask you to explain.

"Army chief General Bipin Rawat in a recent interview to ANI said, “The next agenda is retrieving Azad Kashmir and making it a part of India. The government takes actions in such matters. The institutions of the country will work as per the orders of the government. The Army is always ready.”

While Akhand Bharat is a lofty concept, the BJP and the RSS are ideologically committed to recovering the territories under illegal occupation of Pakistan and China."


The parliamentary resolution of February 1994 clearly said that Azad Kashmir (Azad Kashmir) is an integral part of India. So, why is there a need to reiterate it, and that too ahead of the key UN General Assembly meeting?

The latest policy shift has put both Pakistan and China on notice, especially because the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which includes strategic road and rail links, passes through Gilgit-Baltistan."

A day after the Narendra Modi government removed Jammu and Kashmir’s special status last month, Home Minister Amit Shah said in Parliament, “Kashmir is an integral part of India… When I talk about Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan occupied Kashmir and Aksai Chin are included in it”. Citing the Constitution vis-à-vis Jammu and Kashmir’s boundary, Shah said, “We will give our lives for this region”.

Ok so that settles it... So amend that to "lots of lives for the region"
What exactly is there to negotiate?
Let me publish your parliamentary resolution ( Link )

https://takshashila.org.in/pragmatic-the-1994-parliamentary-resolution-on-jammu-kashmir/

a) The state of Jammu & Kashmir has been, is and shall be an integral part of India and any attempts to separate it from the rest of the country will be resisted by all necessary means;

b) India has the will and capacity to firmly counter all designs against its unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity;

and demands that –

c) Pakistan must vacate the areas of the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir, which they have occupied through aggression;

and resolves that –

d) All attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of India will be met resolutely.

Asking again where is the scope for negotiation. ?

Did you read the last sentence of the same article written by the same general
" It should suffice to say that our strategic shift on Pak Kashmir is an excellent tool for diplomacy. But militarily, we may not be able to achieve much. "
So it is clear that the current dispensation want to sound more aggressive on Pak Kashmir to have a bargaining chip in negotiations.

 

[Baibars_1260]

In the mountains, defensive war is a lot easier than winning ground by attacking. We both agree that neither taking Pak Kashmir will be easy nor can you win Indian Kashmir militarily.
So, why not make de-jure what is de-facto ?

Whose the "we" you are talking on behalf of, your MEA or your COAS.. He said something quite different at the ANI interview.,

Lt. General Panag :
"There is no doubt about our de jure claim over Azad Kashmir, which is enshrined in the Constitution based on the Instrument of Accession signed 26 October 1947. The same has been upheld by a resolution moved in Parliament in 1994."

Given our limited technological military edge over Pakistan, we simply do not have the capacity to make major gains in Azad Kashmir in a limited war before the nuclear weapons come into play. But a J&K-centric limited war has always been on the radar of the Indian armed forces. We have the capacity to extend the LoC by 5-10 kms in selected areas in a 7-10-day limited war. And, this is what we should do at an opportune time to make our intent credible.


So the LOC will be altered by 5-10 kms in a selected areas in a limited 7-10 day war. So much for the "Simla Agreement ", Wonder why the LOC wasn't extended in February 2019.

So where is the scope for negotiation ?

 

[magra]

Whose the "we" you are talking on behalf of, that bawa quack you just spoke to in his native language or your COAS.. He said something quite different at the ANI interview.,

Lt. General Panag :
"There is no doubt about our de jure claim over Azad Kashmir, which is enshrined in the Constitution based on the Instrument of Accession signed 26 October 1947. The same has been upheld by a resolution moved in Parliament in 1994."

Given our limited technological military edge over Pakistan, we simply do not have the capacity to make major gains in Azad Kashmir in a limited war before the nuclear weapons come into play. But a J&K-centric limited war has always been on the radar of the Indian armed forces. We have the capacity to extend the LoC by 5-10 kms in selected areas in a 7-10-day limited war. And, this is what we should do at an opportune time to make our intent credible.


So the LOC will be altered by 5-10 kms in a selected areas in a limited 7-10 day war. So much for the "Simla Agreement ", Wonder why the LOC wasn't extended in February 2019.

So where is the scope for negotiation ?

Read the last sentence of that article.

 

[Baibars_1260]

Did you read the last sentence of the same article written by the same general
" It should suffice to say that our strategic shift on Pak Kashmir is an excellent tool for diplomacy. But militarily, we may not be able to achieve much. "
So it is clear that the current dispensation want to sound more aggressive on Pak Kashmir to have a bargaining chip in negotiations.

He just said India should alter the LOC by 5-10 km in a 7-10 war ?
Boy, what rate of advance ! Sam Bahadur if alive would be ashamed to have a general talking like this, when he himself took East Pakistan in 14 days.

Does General Panag determine Indian foreign military policy writing in a left wing digital on-line journal or does the Minister for External Affairs, and the COAS?

India's minister of state, for External Affairs:
"It is not only my or my party’s commitment, but it has been a resolve of Parliament who (sic) unanimously adopted a resolution in 1994 during then Congress government headed by P.V. Narasimha Rao, saying that Kashmir is an integral part of India and the only issue left to be resolved with Pakistan was Pakistan occupied Kashmir.”

So where is the scope for negotiation.

 

[magra]

He just said India should alter the LOC by 5-10 km in a 7-10 war ?
Boy, what rate of advance ! Sam Bahadur if alive would be ashamed to have a general talking like this, when he himself took East Pakistan in 14 days.

Does General Panag determine Indian foreign military policy writing in a left wing digital on-line journal or does the Minister for External Affairs, and the COAS?

India's minister of state, for External Affairs:
"It is not only my or my party’s commitment, but it has been a resolve of Parliament who (sic) unanimously adopted a resolution in 1994 during then Congress government headed by P.V. Narasimha Rao, saying that Kashmir is an integral part of India and the only issue left to be resolved with Pakistan was Pakistan occupied Kashmir.”

So where is the scope for negotiation.

Political strategy is made by PM, FM, HM and the military strategy is accordingly made by COAS, but ex-generals can also give frank and fair assessment of the situation.
Ofcourse we need to claim complete J&K and then give up Pak Kashmir to settle the deal. A good negotiation is where neither party is very pleased with the outcome, but they take the outcome anyways.

 

[Baibars_1260]

So, why not make de-jure what is de-facto ?

The 1972 Simla Agreement was a quasi agreement accepting the LOC as the border. In fact the LOC remained quiet for a decade. But did it end there?

In between from 1972-1978 India aggressively demanded resumption of post, telegraph, phone, rail and air travel links as well as opening of the consular offices. This was beyond the scope of the Simla Agreement and Pakistan had closed its embassy in India.

India also demanded transit rights to Afghanistan.
India is not satisfied only with a quiet peaceful border. It wants a big brother status.
Its not just "no war " but a peace on India's terms.

Pakistan would be happy to settle the border like North and South Korea or like East and West Germany. No war. No terrorism and separation. North and South Korea are an ideal model to follow.