India annexes Kashmir, China invades, Pakistan awaits Riasat-e-Madina

[GHALIB]

annexation my foot , jut a piece of paper jiski 32 bana ke Modi ko de do. Nothing changed on ground.
Infact it has fueled the freedom movement of Kashmiris .

then why there was programme on every friday for protest ?

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.

 

[Dil_Pakistan]

@mods just look at the title and the language used in the OP. Does it suits this forum? Firstly i never get the need to mock the concept of "riasat e madinah" just bcz one disagrees with IK. The title could simply have been Pakistan does nothing or something else but this is pathetic. Also what's with the language. Dangar, cartoon-e-azam? so now someone who hates or opposes nawaz start calling him genda or mota in every post. Or Zardari kuta in every post? Will this be a healthy discussion? Such posts or comments are just baiting or inviting fight in forum with no decent discussion.

@PakSword @AgNoStiC MuSliM @BHarwana etc...

 

[Chandrguptaa]

Li

india can't attack pakistan.

You guys thought same in 1965

annexation my foot , jut a piece of paper jiski 32 bana ke Modi ko de do. Nothing changed on ground.
Infact it has fueled the freedom movement of Kashmiris .

Lol, same paper gave citizenship to more than 10 lakh Hindus & Sikhs.
Same paper will give citizenship to 100000s of KP kids living outside J&K
And Kashmiris ! Do you actually think they love you.
& They are dumb?
Do you know who give information of Pakistanis living in kashmir.
Who helps RR to eliminate them?
And Now same paper will give control of admin to HM.

 

[GHALIB]

Li

You guys thought same in 1965

.

are betua hum log kabhi attack nahi kia pakistan ko , pakistanwa attack karta hai pahle . uske bad hum log jawabi attack karta hai.

 

[Syed1.]

are betua hum log kabhi attack nahi kia pakistan ko , pakistanwa attack karta hai pahle . uske bad hum log jawabi attack karta hai.

Is that what you guys are taught? Shame

 

[TheDarkKnight]

If tomorrow for whatever reason India and Pakistan begin negotiations, that too at India's invitation. Real willingness to make progress is made for peace, mutual trust is fostered and IK goes to Delhi among great pomp and circumstance, if during that period India covertly occupies a parts our side of AJK/GB. Officially denies that they did it officially but we're taking casualties trying to patrol over our own territory. Would we not call it a backstab? What would you call it? Please answer honestly.

Thank you so much for this explanation. From an Indian point of view even Pakistans creation in 1947 and war in 48 would be a backstab. Honestly wouldn't Indians call death of millions of Indians in partition and breaking a unified India an even bigger backstab and blunder? So maybe PM IK should state that in his next speech on 23rd march that we backstabbed India and partition in 47 was a blunder (oh wait Altaf Hussain already did that once!).
The issue is not about what qualifies as a backstab from Indian POV, but what an ex PM is saying about its own country and armed forces publicly. Has any Indian PM been this “honest” and galvanized its own public (like PM is doing here) and shamed its own Armed forces with the atrocities of IA in Kashmir, massacre of Sikhs, the interference in Pakistans affairs from Balochinstan to Karachi, Siachen, East Pakistan etc. None.

Additionally the thread is advocating a full scale war with India on Kashmir, and how NS would have done this and that, plus calling Generals as treacherous, the elected PM as dangar, and why two nuclear armed countries are already not at war etc. - disappointed to see that with all of this you only found it necessary to counter a reply which was just critical to NS? As a mod is there anything else wrong over here?

 

[Jungibaaz]

Thank you so much for this explanation. From an Indian point of view even Pakistans creation in 1947 and war in 48 would be a backstab. Honestly wouldn't Indians call death of millions of Indians in partition and breaking a unified India an even bigger backstab and blunder? So maybe PM IK should state that in his next speech on 23rd march that we backstabbed India and partition in 47 was a blunder (oh wait Altaf Hussain already did that once!).
The issue is not about what qualifies as a backstab from Indian POV, but what an ex PM is saying about its own country and armed forces publicly. Has any Indian PM been this “honest” and galvanized its own public (like PM is doing here) and shamed its own Armed forces with the atrocities of IA in Kashmir, massacre of Sikhs, the interference in Pakistans affairs from Balochinstan to Karachi, Siachen, East Pakistan etc. None.

Additionally the thread is advocating a full scale war with India on Kashmir, and how NS would have done this and that, plus calling Generals as treacherous, the elected PM as dangar, and why two nuclear armed countries are already not at war etc. - disappointed to see that with all of this you only found it necessary to counter a reply which was just critical to NS? As a mod is there anything else wrong over here?

You didn’t answer the question I posed to the other member in the quote though, instead you’ve left an emotionally charged assessment centred around the moral legitimacy of our cause.

I have news for you, everyone thinks they’re doing the right thing. Two sides in a war, both think they have moral legitimacy, nobody fights because they think they’re wrong. Modi might be a fascist, but his internal thinking is that he’s doing God’s work. So how do we judge legitimacy? Well it’s a grey area, but one of the metrics is based on objectivity and neutral analysis of actions taken in their own internal legitimacy. Meaning if I start what I see is a just war against you while pretending to be your friend, I may well have a reason in my head for doing it, a neutral analysis of whether my action was right or not is to remove my motivation and look at the act; which is the unprovoked initiation of a conflict.

One bit of nuance you actually missed that I didn’t mention in my post as it wasn’t relevant here, but which I have to mention because you’ve gone several steps forward logically and a few steps back in timeline, is that Siachen conflict was started by India, Kargil in many ways was a late response to India’s own transgressions. But you are quick to assume a lot and leave a big set of value judgements instead of realising the nuances in my argument and analysis. Also forget NS, I have very strong views on Kargil, and I’m afraid folks like yourself will always find them hard to accept. It doesn’t matter really, IK could have been PM in 1999. Almost the exact same story might have played out and my opinion would be exactly as it is now, unchanged.

Now back to Kargil, please answer these questions with a simple yes or no. Did we start the Kargil war? Did we start it while negotiating in good faith with India? Is it not duplicitous that we were talking with them, while secretly occupying their peaks? If this happened to us today, we talk with India, talks bear fruit and good will, India underhandedly captures parts of our land, would it not be a backstab?

And look at the context here, this was NS quoting Vajpayee, from the latter’s perspective there would have been people who told him not to talk with Pakistan, to keep us as enemies, he would have personally thrown his political capital and personal trust behind the Pakistani leadership, in order to negotiate in good faith, he was quite literally and publicly backstabbed. You don’t think he was called a fool for trusting us? To this day, while IK and army alike signal about willingness to talk with India, they snub us. To this day people in India who are against talking with us sight Kargil as an example of why they shouldn’t bother.

 

[Robbie]

To this day, while IK and army alike signal about willingness to talk with India, they snub us. To this day people in India who are against talking with us sight Kargil as an example of why they shouldn’t bother.

Just to add to your data point.

At one point, Manmohan Singh wanted to demilitarize Siachen and convert it to a 'mountain of peace'. He was looking for a Nobel Peace Prize. Without taking the rest of India into confidence he had some conversations with Pakistanis who were delighted with the idea.

Kargil was the primary example which guided the Indian public and the Army to shoot the idea down. The reasoning was straight forward - no treaty or discussion with Pakistan is worth the paper it is written on as India experienced during Kargil. If Pakistan does another Kargil and occupies Siachen, the Army would not be able to take it back. The terrain is such that whoever is has it, keeps it.

There is a direct co-relation between Siachen not being demilitarized and Kargil.

 

[GDP Adil Khan Niazi]

What exactly is the Pakistani military waiting for?

We can not directly invade or attack IOK at the moment, because firstly this will cost us financially a lot, secondly, this will also cost us in terms of manpower because to attack IOK and match the number of Indian soldiers we have to shift a huge number of troops towards North if we did this our other fronts will be vulnerable because we didn't have a huge army if compared with India/China. China invading Laddakh is very crucial and is very important to understand behind the scene things basically, Parvin Sawhney clearly mentioned in its vlog yesterday saying "China's invading is clearly giving a message which is that this territory belongs to their ally Pakistan" ( Sources:

) (Would recommend you to hear this full vlog but if you just want to confirm what I just said please watch from 11:05 to 11:20)

Secondly, I was also very curious about things how they were going, that why as a nation we are happy if China stood they're firmly and didn't return that land because our claim is Kashmir is an integral part of Pakistan and Laddakh is basically located in J&K for which we are raising our voice since independence but I've got answers to many of my questions after watching Parvin Sawhney's vlog.

What we can actually do at the moment is to wait if this conflict goes longer than expected and winter falls in we can actually take back Siachin and Kargil because the road which is being used for dumping supplies in the month of June, July and August are already in control of China (Daulat Baig Oldie road) thus the supply is been cut off for the Indian troops who're at the peak and we can take advantage of that because our supplies are in process, secondly controlling DBT road has also neutralized DBT Airbase which was being prepared to have all operational facilities and could've been fatal when it comes to attacking Gilgit Baltistan because, from DBT/Laddakh region where the conflict is going on, Karakoram Highway is just 8km's away!

 

[TheDarkKnight]

You didn’t answer the question I posed to the other member in the quote though, instead you’ve left an emotionally charged assessment centred around the moral legitimacy of our cause.

I have news for you, everyone thinks they’re doing the right thing. Two sides in a war, both think they have moral legitimacy, nobody fights because they think they’re wrong. Modi might be a fascist, but his internal thinking is that he’s doing God’s work. So how do we judge legitimacy? Well it’s a grey area, but one of the metrics is based on objectivity and neutral analysis of actions taken in their own internal legitimacy. Meaning if I start what I see is a just war against you while pretending to be your friend, I may well have a reason in my head for doing it, a neutral analysis of whether my action was right or not is to remove my motivation and look at the act; which is the unprovoked initiation of a conflict.

One bit of nuance you actually missed that I didn’t mention in my post as it wasn’t relevant here, but which I have to mention because you’ve gone several steps forward logically and a few steps back in timeline, is that Siachen conflict was started by India, Kargil in many ways was a late response to India’s own transgressions. But you are quick to assume a lot and leave a big set of value judgements instead of realising the nuances in my argument and analysis. Also forget NS, I have very strong views on Kargil, and I’m afraid folks like yourself will always find them hard to accept. It doesn’t matter really, IK could have been PM in 1999. Almost the exact same story might have played out and my opinion would be exactly as it is now, unchanged.

Now back to Kargil, please answer these questions with a simple yes or no. Did we start the Kargil war? Did we start it while negotiating in good faith with India? Is it not duplicitous that we were talking with them, while secretly occupying their peaks? If this happened to us today, we talk with India, talks bear fruit and good will, India underhandedly captures parts of our land, would it not be a backstab?

And look at the context here, this was NS quoting Vajpayee, from the latter’s perspective there would have been people who told him not to talk with Pakistan, to keep us as enemies, he would have personally thrown his political capital and personal trust behind the Pakistani leadership, in order to negotiate in good faith, he was quite literally and publicly backstabbed. You don’t think he was called a fool for trusting us? To this day, while IK and army alike signal about willingness to talk with India, they snub us. To this day people in India who are against talking with us sight Kargil as an example of why they shouldn’t bother.

My issue weren't the moral aspects of Kargil war - but what the Prime minister of Pakistan was speaking about his own institutions in a public rally (as he has done on other issues and occasions as well). As can be seem here, we Pakistanis do an excellent job in scoring own goals. The Ex PM would go in length on how Pakistan Army has always been the spoiler (supporting terrorism, spoiling peace with India etc) , but not once you will ever see him explaining the negative role of Indian and other governments in causing harm to Pakistan. On the other hand you will never find an Indian PM ever speak about their foreign policy or core objectives in this self immolating manner - you may find some very broad minded Indian meekly admitting that India at least morally has a weak position in Kashmir, but the PM and leadership will always stick to the script i.e. Kashmir is an integral part of India, Kashmir legally acceded to India as per Maharaja’s order blah blah.

Coming to your last point in bold - Please do tell me how Kashmir issue was addressed before Kargil? Indian leadership will always find an excuse to not solve the issue. Post 48 war they were waving a treaty signed by a Mahraja that gave them right to entire Kashmir including GB and AJK, post 71 war internationally it became a bilateral issue and in bilateral talks it became an internal issue of India, then came Militancy in 90s and the stance of no negotiations until Pakistanis stop sending terrorists to Kashmir came, and now finally after Kargil this is the latest excuse. We need to understand that India never had any problems or issues with the status-quo in Kashmir, they believe they are a bigger nation and Pakistan will eventually have to give up on its position. Whether Kargil happened or not, Modi would have still gone ahead with his agenda of abrogating 370 in Kashmir and unilaterally annexing Kashmir. The next step on their agenda is to take over Pakistani GB and AJK, and if they have the right chance and environment they will proceed whether Kargil had happened or not.

Before you explain me any further let me state what I think of Kargil war: it was a ill-conceived blunder both internally and internationally. It was temporarily a success at tactical level, but in the end we had to accept it as a defeat in the bigger picture. Similarly the AJK and GB we have is also a result of backstab to India, and some can argue that Pakistan's creation itself was a treachery with the indigenous of Indian people - especially the Indian muslims left behind now.

Anyway now lets get back to the topic created by this esteemed friend of PMLN: Why the coward/treacherous Generals of Pakistan have not declared war on India and started capturing territory Kashmir already, just like China is currently doing right now? Please carry on with this excellent idea of attacking a nuclear armed country that is at least 3x larger in every aspect.

 

[Kabira]

If tomorrow for whatever reason India and Pakistan begin negotiations, that too at India's invitation. Real willingness to make progress is made for peace, mutual trust is fostered and IK goes to Delhi among great pomp and circumstance, if during that period India covertly occupies a parts our side of AJK/GB. Officially denies that they did it officially but we're taking casualties trying to patrol over our own territory. Would we not call it a backstab? What would you call it? Please answer honestly.

I know Kargil was stupid adventure but what India did in Siachin? What they have been doing since 1947? Backstabbing Pakistan and not holding plebiscite as promised by their founding fathers. Muslim majority state had no business in being with India. They toke advantage of their size and resources.

Now India must learn how it feel to actually fight against equal rival let alone 7 times smaller neighbour. They have surrendered 60skm strategic land to China without firing a bullet.

 

[Jungibaaz]

Like I said you have done a wonderful job in explaining the treachery and backstabbing nature of Pakistan Army in this space. Much appreciated. My issue weren't the moral aspects of Kargil war - but what the Prime minister of Pakistan was speaking about his own institutions in a public rally (as he has done on other issues and occasions as well). As can be seem here, we Pakistanis do an excellent job in scoring own goals. The Ex PM would go in length on how Pakistan Army has always been the spoiler (supporting terrorism, spoiling peace with India etc) , but not once you will ever see him explaining the negative role of Indian and other governments in causing harm to Pakistan. On the other hand you will never find an Indian PM ever speak about their foreign policy or core objectives in this self immolating manner - you may find some very broad minded Indian meekly admitting that India at least morally has a weak position in Kashmir, but the PM and leadership will always stick to the script i.e. Kashmir is an integral part of India, Kashmir legally acceded to India as per Maharaja’s order blah blah.

At the risk of posting something even more negative here, allow me to say that I understand and sympathise with your qualms. It would be a lot nicer to see and a lot less unsettling if a character like NS wasn't so critical of his own military and so soft on India. I understand and agree that from our perspective the balance is way off. However, NS is an individual who has experienced being selected as PM by a militarily junta under the guise of a democratic process, he's been removed twice (and if he is to be believed even a third time too in 2017) as PM by the same military junta. He's had his peace process undermined in Kargil, on this particular point I think he shoulders some responsibility, how was it allowed under his watch. Last of all, he's had fights with the establishment since the early 90s, it was obvious before but it became undeniable when he made that 'won't take dictation' speech on two separate occasions. Besides that, I've heard a lot from what he himself has alleged has happened between him and the army leadership behind closed doors even in recent years. I know for a fact that what I was told came directly from him and isn't a rumour, and even I as big of a critic of the army as I am, what I heard shocked me and I dare not post what I know. Let's just say I hope one day that the truth of it comes out and lights a fire underneath our system. I do wish he'd balance his tone a bit more publicly, I agree.

Coming to your last point in bold - Please do tell me how Kashmir issue was addressed before Kargil? Indian leadership will always find an excuse to not solve the issue. Post 48 war they were waving a treaty signed by a Mahraja that gave them right to entire Kashmir including GB and AJK, post 71 war internationally it became a bilateral issue and in bilateral talks it became an internal issue of India, then came Militancy in 90s and the stance of no negotiations until Pakistanis stop sending terrorists to Kashmir came, and now finally after Kargil this is the latest excuse. We need to understand that India never had any problems or issues with the status-quo in Kashmir, they believe they are a bigger nation and Pakistan will eventually have to give up on its position. Whether Kargil happened or not, Modi would have still gone ahead with his agenda of abrogating 370 in Kashmir and unilaterally annexing Kashmir. The next step on their agenda is to take over Pakistani GB and AJK, and if they have the right chance and environment they will proceed whether Kargil had happened or not.

Before you explain me any further let me state what I think of Kargil war: it was a ill-conceived blunder both internally and internationally. It was temporarily a success at tactical level, but in the end we had to accept it as a defeat in the bigger picture. Similarly the AJK and GB we have is also a result of backstab to India, and some can argue that Pakistan's creation itself was a treachery with the indigenous of Indian people - especially the Indian muslims left behind now.

Anyway now lets get back to the topic created by this esteemed friend of PMLN: Why the coward/treacherous Generals of Pakistan have not declared war on India and started capturing territory Kashmir already, just like China is currently doing right now? Please carry on with this excellent idea of attacking a nuclear armed country that is at least 3x larger in every aspect.

Agree with all your points here and the purpose, I can't see any contention here at all, therefore I won't address any of this.

I know Kargil was stupid adventure but what India did in Siachin? What they have been doing since 1947? Backstabbing Pakistan and not holding plebiscite as promised by their founding fathers. Muslim majority state had no business in being with India. They toke advantage of their size and resources.

Now India must learn how it feel to actually fight against equal rival let alone 7 times smaller neighbour. They have surrendered 60skm strategic land to China without firing a bullet.

Doubtless Siachen was the same type of conflict as Kargil, and arguably the moral legitimacy was even lower if one considers that Kargil itself was motivated by Siachen. The big difference is, they carried it out successfully and now have de facto control over the glacier itself. They did this and we failed to extract a military or diplomatic cost out of them like they did with us in Kargil. We failed to do anything, whereas their escalation in Kargil outplayed us entirely. This I believe was a major leadership failure of ours in both Siachen and Kargil, one must ask how is it that India did such an aggressive move, and we failed to hear a peep from Zia, meanwhile India applied mountains of pressure on us for Kargil? We also additionally shot ourselves in the foot, we might have had a lot of progress on Kashmir issue if Kargil didn't undermine it.

So in Siachen India achieved what we tried to do but failed in Kargil, we paid the price for the latter, they got away with the former. In both cases, their leadership won the day and ours failed miserably.

 

[Pakistani sipahi]

Li

You guys thought same in 1965


Lol, same paper gave citizenship to more than 10 lakh Hindus & Sikhs.
Same paper will give citizenship to 100000s of KP kids living outside J&K
And Kashmiris ! Do you actually think they love you.
& They are dumb?
Do you know who give information of Pakistanis living in kashmir.
Who helps RR to eliminate them?
And Now same paper will give control of admin to HM.

you think when you will push in more hindus and sikhs , change the demography of Kashmir and then go for plebiscite and Pakistan will accept it silently .
Just try settle some foreigners in Kashmir , phir mujhse baat karna aa kar

 

[Chandrguptaa]

I know Kargil was stupid adventure but what India did in Siachin? What they have been doing since 1947? Backstabbing Pakistan and not holding plebiscite as promised by their founding fathers. Muslim majority state had no business in being with India. They toke advantage of their size and resources.

Now India must learn how it feel to actually fight against equal rival let alone 7 times smaller neighbour. They have surrendered 60skm strategic land to China without firing a bullet.

I think 1 video is enough