India cannot defeat Pakistan militarily

[PDF]

Pakistan calculates risk, and invariably, without fail, finds that risk insufficient to deter its adventures.

I also believe Pakistan has had significant change in it's policy towards Kashmir in favor of India initializing at least a score ago. While Indian policy has remained same if not changed much to the detrimental to peace within Pakistan.

It cannot be one-sided restraint in perpetuity, Sir.

Agreed and From my view, Pakistan is the one being restrictive rather than India in recent history a couple of decades and present.

WoT has sufficient links to India sponsoring and active role.

From the Indian point of view, it has always, invariably, been the Pakistani standard operating procedure to use clandestine force to achieve goals not achievable otherwise, and to use terror, including the maltreatment of prisoners and the mass murder of civilians, to subdue opposition.

And Pakistan has the same points but that India is has that SOP.

How should this be addressed? Do suggest what you believe ought to have been an appropriate response to these issues.

Umm Dialogue and meetings where state representatives put their case forward to the respective neighboring nation and after exchange of rants, allegations and whatnot, perhaps in a few years, both sides sit down together to to form a plan of action forward?

Due to trust deficit, it is only natural that a third party oversee the whole process, But then, India at the moment wants to keep everything unilateral, let alone bilateral. Ofcourse, Just as India is pushing things unilaterally, Pakistan can not even trust Indians on bilateral agreements (Post 5th Aug, Simla Agreement is thrown as a piece of paper). The way forward with the trust deficit is multilateral which can be more binding on both parties than anything short of that. If you have a better suggestion, I am all ears.

Pakistan is willing to follow UN agreement after consultations of all parties involved, with finding an interpretation of ALL points in the UNSC resolutions in entirety, while India is not putting Nehru to shame, but also disregarding any possible way forward on major issues.
Kashmir among other issues as we all know is the a much older issue than the so called terrorism. Of course during dialogue, both Kashmir and terrorism should be discussed as Pakistan too have complaints regarding Indian Involvement in Terrorism inside Pakistan.

Did you perhaps mean as India did not use?

Sorry I meant it was about to use. I stand corrected.

The initial spark, in our view, was the Pulwama incident. If you had read the public statements made at that time, there was a (professed) resolution in the Indian political leadership to pursue the matter with seriousness and intent. Missiles were an option from the first day, albeit missiles with conventional warheads. The targets were the same; the mode changed to air attack on the advice of the military.

Was the perpetrator an Irregular of Pakistan?

So, now the new norm is to strike with supersonic missiles directly at a start of conflict?

If you believe that cross-LOC attacks are legitimate, what, indeed, are we discussing?

I am saying that we have to make a difference on activities within disputed territories and non disputed territories.

Please do clear you where do you stand as to the position of J & K region ( Ladakh included),all that is under effective control of Pakistan, India and China. I think that will help me understand your point of view better.

The absurd proposition levelled against your own citizens, for instance, that accused a Chinese overseer of blasphemy and assaulted him? These are incidents that won international attention. How now are we suddenly the villains of the piece?

Are you sure you want to discuss internal absurdity of both nations?

I have mostly commented on issues directly involving Pakistan and bilateral issues while it seems we have to discuss purely internal matters now?

I am all for discussing absurdities both nations that are legitimate concerns of both foreign nations but let's keep internal matters for a separate day, shall we?

What status are you referring to? That Pakistan is in occupation of a portion of Kashmir, a state that acceded to India, is a reality. That Pakistan created a dispute where none existed, citing the Standstill Agreement after having sent in irregular armed murderers, is also a reality. That Pakistan rejected the initial Security Council agreement is again a reality.

Where do we stop? Where Pakistani wishes it to stop? After three failed efforts to achieve its ends through clandestine armed action?

Sir, well UNSC resolutions are still valid and accepted globally. Pakistan as of today and recent history is willing to abide by them and has officially and unofficially explicitly stated this position. Please state the reality and when should I hear India honoring it's commitment and MEA giving a statement in favor of implementing the resolutions?

I said that their focus and concentration was, and is, on internal affairs

BJP and state institutions are separate. One is temporary and another permanent. I am questioning state institutions that are primarily responsible for engagement and maintaining their credibility irrespective of internal politics.

interference in Baloch affairs.

Sir, I am sure the presence of the innocent man kidnapped from Iran by Pakistan because of jealously of us of him catching all the prawns leaving none of us was not in in 2016 but he started his fishing much earlier.

an empty folder was brandished in public

Empty... right...if you say so, Sire.

If today, you face a hostile, unrelenting atmosphere in New Delhi, you have earned it. Even those of us who want peace with Pakistan, and friendly relations with her citizens, have given up, temporarily, as we are unable to sustain the barrage of insults from our countrymen for being Pakistan's patsies.

I would love the situation to improve, but এক হাতে তালি বাজে না।

Sir being respective citizens of our nations, we all generally think the otherside deserves it, even when God-Forbid, in future, our military exchanges nukes or strikes conventional payload missiles in the cities.

Peace is never easy. If being hurled abuses for trying to support peace means one should be given up, the I guess perhaps peace might never be an option, unfortunately.

With almost no initiatives in recent history or present, perhaps we should rather start getting more practical at how to eliminate the other side, rather than focusing on any way of peace process to be worked upon. As, Desh Drohi is afterall, a serious accusation.

himself PDF Staff was very reasonable.

I am quite young and ill-experienced especially in the topics we discussed which have military element to a large extent.
Though no match for you, I believe @PanzerKiel can better put forward and discuss the military history and how to move forward with that baggage.

As for PDF username, Sir, it has given me more trouble and me being misunderstood but almost all members including staff. I have very recently already applied for a change of username, but the moderators mandated to approve it are short in numbers, thus you have to bear with me for a short while.

For once I wish there was a logical discussion on atleast what matters both side could agree to cooperate on and work forward from thereon. Here in a public forum atleast if not in policy circles. Atleast a thought experiment on what could be done now to the benefit of each other.

This is the only part we can work on.

PDF for all the trolls present, also have some intellectuals who can despite the challenges of an internet forum, can present the case in an amicable manner.
I don't mind a thread dedicated to have PDF Forum Indo-Pak dialogue, but only if both side has sufficient members and sincere members to participate in.

There are not many Indian title holders active here anymore and most members lack any substantial quality in their posts so we will first have to invite esteemed volunteers for Track 'III' diplomacy.

The code of conduct for indians on this forum.

I believe if good Indian users get active on the forum, there won't be a need for a code of conduct and their posts will overshadow the majority of trolls.

 

[Joe Shearer]

With that logic given enough time even this planet will perish.

Should we start the despair now?

Ignore this troll. He is a particularly rabid specimen.

I also believe Pakistan has had significant change in it's policy towards Kashmir in favor of India initializing at least a score ago. While Indian policy has remained same if not changed much to the detrimental to peace within Pakistan.

Crushing ridiculous arguments is easy, though time-consuming.

Responding to well-reasoned arguments such as yours is far more difficult. I am unable to do it in one fell swoop, and will have to do it one segment at a time.

Agreed and From my view, Pakistan is the one being restrictive rather than India in recent history a couple of decades and present.

WoT has sufficient links to India sponsoring and active role.

And Pakistan has the same points but that India is has that SOP.

Umm Dialogue and meetings where state representatives put their case forward to the respective neighboring nation and after exchange of rants, allegations and whatnot, perhaps in a few years, both sides sit down together to to form a plan of action forward?

Due to trust deficit, it is only natural that a third party oversee the whole process, But then, India at the moment wants to keep everything unilateral, let alone bilateral. Ofcourse, Just as India is pushing things unilaterally, Pakistan can not even trust Indians on bilateral agreements (Post 5th Aug, Simla Agreement is thrown as a piece of paper). The way forward with the trust deficit is multilateral which can be more binding on both parties than anything short of that. If you have a better suggestion, I am all ears.

Pakistan is willing to follow UN agreement after consultations of all parties involved, with finding an interpretation of ALL points in the UNSC resolutions in entirety, while India is not putting Nehru to shame, but also disregarding any possible way forward on major issues.
Kashmir among other issues as we all know is the a much older issue than the so called terrorism. Of course during dialogue, both Kashmir and terrorism should be discussed as Pakistan too have complaints regarding Indian Involvement in Terrorism inside Pakistan.

Sorry I meant it was about to use. I stand corrected.

Was the perpetrator an Irregular of Pakistan?

So, now the new norm is to strike with supersonic missiles directly at a start of conflict?

I am saying that we have to make a difference on activities within disputed territories and non disputed territories.

Please do clear you where do you stand as to the position of J & K region ( Ladakh included),all that is under effective control of Pakistan, India and China. I think that will help me understand your point of view better.

Are you sure you want to discuss internal absurdity of both nations?

I have mostly commented on issues directly involving Pakistan and bilateral issues while it seems we have to discuss purely internal matters now?

I am all for discussing absurdities both nations that are legitimate concerns of both foreign nations but let's keep internal matters for a separate day, shall we?

Sir, well UNSC resolutions are still valid and accepted globally. Pakistan as of today and recent history is willing to abide by them and has officially and unofficially explicitly stated this position. Please state the reality and when should I hear India honoring it's commitment and MEA giving a statement in favor of implementing the resolutions?

BJP and state institutions are separate. One is temporary and another permanent. I am questioning state institutions that are primarily responsible for engagement and maintaining their credibility irrespective of internal politics.

Sir, I am sure the presence of the innocent man kidnapped from Iran by Pakistan because of jealously of us of him catching all the crawls leaving none of us was not in in 2016 but he started his fishing much earlier.

Empty... right...if you say so, Sire.

Sir being respective citizens of our nations, we all generally think the otherside deserves it, even when God-Forbid, in future, our military exchanges nukes or strikes conventional payload missiles in the cities.

Peace is never easy. If being hurled abuses for trying to support peace means one should be given up, the I guess perhaps peace might never be an option, unfortunately.

With almost no initiatives in recent history or present, perhaps we should rather start getting more practical at how to eliminate the other side, rather than focusing on any way of peace process to be worked upon. As, Desh Drohi is afterall, a serious accusation.

I am quite young and ill-experienced especially in the topics we discussed which have military element to a large extent.
Though no match for you, I believe @PanzerKiel can better put forward and discuss the military history and how to move forward with that baggage.

As for PDF username, Sir, it has given me more trouble and me being misunderstood but almost all members including staff. I have very recently already applied for a change of username, but the moderators mandated to approve it are short in numbers, thus you have to bear with me for a short while.



PDF for all the trolls present, also have some intellectuals who can despite the challenges of an internet forum, can present the case in an amicable manner.
I don't mind a thread dedicated to have PDF Forum Indo-Pak dialogue, but only if both side has sufficient members and sincere members to participate in.

There are not many Indian title holders active here anymore and most members lack any substantial quality in their posts so we will first have to invite esteemed volunteers for Track 'III' diplomacy.


I believe if good Indian users get active on the forum, there won't be a need for a code of conduct and their posts will overshadow the majority of trolls.

I also believe Pakistan has had significant change in it's policy towards Kashmir in favor of India initializing at least a score ago. While Indian policy has remained same if not changed much to the detrimental to peace within Pakistan.

Perhaps that is the perspective from within informed circles in Pakistan.

From India, the view is, irrespective of political affiliation, that there must be some visible movement towards restraining the elements that have been, in our view, promoted and fostered by the Pakistani establishment itself.

On the other hand, as I have pointed out in my note earlier, just before this, there has been a clearly defined degeneration in the Indian inclination to deal with Pakistan in any way, and this dates very clearly from Valentine's Day, 2019 (ironic though that coincidence is).

It is worth noting that this was in the last year of the BJP's first term in office, and if they had not reacted to the outrage,

It is also worth reminding ourselves of the very poor return on investment that India got prior to that, even after 2014.

@M. Sarmad
@Krptonite

 

[Joe Shearer]

And Pakistan has the same points but that India is has that SOP.

To be honest, beyond the merits of the case, one is driven to ask what else a transgressing nation would do in the circumstances.

One can hardly expect that country to stop in its tracks and admit guilt.

At best, one can take on board that Pakistan feels that it has been let down in the same ways as India believes she has, and accept that a post-mortem is not likely to succeed in the absence of a corpse.

@M. Sarmad
@Krptonite

Agreed and From my view, Pakistan is the one being restrictive rather than India in recent history a couple of decades and present.

WoT has sufficient links to India sponsoring and active role.

That remains, as mentioned earlier, to be demonstrated.

Given that there is a constant stream of attacks even at present, in what ways has Pakistan restricted herself?

The restraint shown after the unfortunate incident of the accidental firing of the Brahmos missile is, of course, to Pakistan's credit. Great credit. However, there is not much else to put on the table.

Regarding WoT links, I thought I was quite well-informed, but I have never, ever heard, other than as dark surmise by sceptical Pakistanis, any agency, or responsible individual outside Pakistan (and China) say that there have been Indian links to sponsoring and actively taking part in acts of terror.

So, in the absence of further corroborating data, one remains sceptical.

@M. Sarmad
@Krptonite

 

[Joe Shearer]

Agreed and From my view, Pakistan is the one being restrictive rather than India in recent history a couple of decades and present.

WoT has sufficient links to India sponsoring and active role.

That remains, as mentioned earlier, to be demonstrated.

Given that there is a constant stream of attacks even at present, in what ways has Pakistan restricted herself?

The restraint shown after the unfortunate incident of the accidental firing of the Brahmos missile is, of course, to Pakistan's credit. Great credit. However, there is not much else to put on the table.

Regarding WoT links, I thought I was quite well-informed, but I have never, ever heard, other than as dark surmise by sceptical Pakistanis, any agency, or responsible individual outside Pakistan (and China) say that there have been Indian links to sponsoring and actively taking part in acts of terror.

So, in the absence of further corroborating data, one remains sceptical.

@M. Sarmad
@Krptonite

Umm Dialogue and meetings where state representatives put their case forward to the respective neighboring nation and after exchange of rants, allegations and whatnot, perhaps in a few years, both sides sit down together to to form a plan of action forward?

How would this work with the Indian public at large, and the diplomatic establishment, and most political leadership being sceptical about Pakistan's intentions, based on the harsh rebuffs received in earlier years during earlier efforts?

That includes Aman ki Aasha and Track Two Diplomacy.

Is it possible for smaller, individual groups to focus on reconciling the positions, and evolving workable solutions, and then trading up the size of these groups to the point where there is a definite public opinion backing for those initiatives?

@M. Sarmad
@Krptonite

 

[brational]

You will have a humble pie can't wait until the day comes when we lock horns your dreams will be shattered like a bubble of water..

The day will come and may not be tomorrow but perhaps decades from now but eventually shxt will occur and it is linked to the world economy that will be the final decision maker of the timing..

You will feel same emotions others felt before you when they were badly outwitted

I feel exactly the same way for you. You won't get a place to hide. You will be cleansed from your sins before your last breath. At the end it is Dharma that triumphs by uprooting Adharm.
Your end is near.

I like the way you explain your fantasies. Bund fatey tou fatey but Hawabazi na chhutey.

Thats why i am a big fan of Lai(bum) Topi. He is also made of same material like you. "Eik din duniya ke sarey decision Ishwarpura (Islamabad) mein baith ke liye jayengay.“ Alhamdolelo, Ola hu Uber

 

[xyx007]

India ‘cannot win a war’ against Pakistan, says former Indian officer in latest book
N.C. Asthana writes that India has no clarity about its military and strategic objectives.
India would be better served by finding solutions to the security challenges both Pakistan and China present by strengthening itself internally and pursuing non-military solutions, including diplomacy', Asthana writes in his book.

“While conventional weapons can provide a tactical advantage in limited theatre conflicts short of war, the danger lies in escalation — which is hard to control at the best of times but especially so when the public discourse has been vitiated by the politics of warmongering," he writes.

India ‘cannot win a war’ against Pakistan, says former Indian officer in latest book

* N.C. Asthana writes that India has no clarity about its military and strategic objectives. * India would be better served by finding solutions to the security challenges both Pakistan and China present by strengthening itself internally and pursuing non-military solutions, including...

www.brecorder.com

In Pakistan, the army fights on the basis of ideology with the support of the nation. Although we have some political disagreements with the military leadership's policies, we will be able to sort it out as soon as possible and start seeing the army establishment realize that China is our real strategic friend, and we do not have to sacrifice just to please the west. Traditionally, India has lacked an ideology when it comes to army, but we are seeing the RSS inducted into many of the army and this is where we are waiting for the great war between the two countries, which was told to us 1400 years ago and also the good news of who will win.Due to the fact that I do not want to promote lal Topi here, I refrain from using that wording in my writing.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Due to trust deficit, it is only natural that a third party oversee the whole process, But then, India at the moment wants to keep everything unilateral, let alone bilateral.

That ship has sailed. It was the basis for the agreement prior to the formal Simla Agreement. That, according to Indian representatives present at the meetings, included an understanding that the Kashmir issue would no longer be taken up for dispute resolution by Pakistan, but also that this issue would henceforth be discussed bilaterally.

Besides, there is no party that has credibility with India - not UK, after its faithless double-dealing on numerous occasions; not France, that is available for purchase on lease; not Germany, that has enough problems of her own not to want further involvement; not Russia embattled in Ukraine; not the US, that has dealt India so many blows in the past, and retains no regard, other than in terms of lip service to our democratic process.

@M. Sarmad
@Krptonite

Ofcourse, Just as India is pushing things unilaterally, Pakistan can not even trust Indians on bilateral agreements (Post 5th Aug, Simla Agreement is thrown as a piece of paper).

I did not understand that reference.

@M. Sarmad
@Krptonite

 

[Joe Shearer]

Pakistan is willing to follow UN agreement after consultations of all parties involved, with finding an interpretation of ALL points in the UNSC resolutions in entirety, while India is not putting Nehru to shame, but also disregarding any possible way forward on major issues.

That, again, is not a point to which we will revert once again.

Just a bit of history.

Sometime around the 11th of June 1947, Mountbatten flew down to meet Jinnah, and proposed that for three territories, that seemed to be heading for a disputed status, Hyderabad, Junagadh and J&K, there should be a vote by the residents of the three states.

Jinnah bluntly rejected this proposal.

Subsequently, as we all know, Mountbatten persuaded Nehru to propose this as a resolution of the wishes of the Kashmiri people, and Nehru, convinced that aggression would be punished, went to the UN.

As for the interpretation of all points, the situation before the Simla Agreement was that under Chapter VI (an important point), the Security Council proposed a solution, and Pakistan rejected it; the Council made another resolution closer to Pakistan's wishes, and India rejected it. As these resolutions were made under Chapter VI, these are not mandatory and are not binding. They are now null and void after Simla.

If Pakistan wishes to revive these, and obtain India's consent to accepting them as a basis for further discussions, it should be clear that there has to be a lot of incentive before India feels the need or even the desirability of the UN resolutions as a basis for discussion.

@M. Sarmad
@Krptonite

Kashmir among other issues as we all know is the a much older issue than the so called terrorism. Of course during dialogue, both Kashmir and terrorism should be discussed as Pakistan too have complaints regarding Indian Involvement in Terrorism inside Pakistan.

I was under the impression that the root of terrorism was the desire to acquire Kashmir.

@M. Sarmad
@Krptonite

 

[Joe Shearer]

Kashmir among other issues as we all know is the a much older issue than the so called terrorism. Of course during dialogue, both Kashmir and terrorism should be discussed as Pakistan too have complaints regarding Indian Involvement in Terrorism inside Pakistan.

Sure.

Well within the scope of discussions.

I beg leave to spend some time in the kitchen. Dinner awaits.

@M. Sarmad
@Krptonite

 

[M. Sarmad]

As for the interpretation of all points, the situation before the Simla Agreement was that under Chapter VI (an important point), the Security Council proposed a solution, and Pakistan rejected it; the Council made another resolution closer to Pakistan's wishes, and India rejected it. As these resolutions were made under Chapter VI, these are not mandatory and are not binding. They are now null and void after Simla.

This argument poses two problems. Firstly, even though India approached the UN under Chapter VI of the UN charter, the resolutions passed by the UN were not exclusively based on this chapter. The interim measures which included a cease-fire and deputation of the United Nations Military Observer Group were based on Article 40 of Chapter VII. Besides Chapters VI and VII, UN resolutions are based on other chapters also(i.e. Article 1, Chapter I (2) and Article 55, Chapter IX)... Source: 'Higgins, Rosalyn. United Nations Peace Keeping 1946-67: Documents and Commentary. London, UK: Oxford University Press, 1970. (349-51)

Secondly, even if we assume that this resolution should be considered under Chapter 6, it is important to note that while a recommendation under Chapter 6 alone may not be binding, this is not the case in the Kashmir dispute as the parties involved have consented to be bound by the resolutions of 13 August and 5 January. This fact is mentioned in M. Whiteman's 'Digest of International Law' (1968).


As for Shimla Agreement, it does not preclude the raising of the Kashmir issue at the United Nations. India or Pakistan have no "legal" right to deprive Kashmiris of their right to self-determination (that was given to them by the UN through its SC resolutions) by signing any bilateral agreement to which the People of Kashmir are not a party. (ICJ Report on Kashmir, 1995)

Sometime around the 11th of June 1947, Mountbatten flew down to meet Jinnah, and proposed that for three territories, that seemed to be heading for a disputed status, Hyderabad, Junagadh and J&K, there should be a vote by the residents of the three states.

Jinnah bluntly rejected this proposal.

I think you are referring to the Jinnah-Mountbatten talks that were held in Nov 1947 (5 days AFTER the Indian occupation of Kashmir)

Jinnah was a man of principles, Jinnah's response to Mountbatten's "offer" was that he could not accept a formula if it was so drafted as to include Hyderabad since he pointed out that Hyderabad did not wish to accede to either Dominion and he could not be a party to coercing them to accession.

 

[PDF]

As these resolutions were made under Chapter VI, these are not mandatory and are not binding. They are now null and void after Simla.

First,

UN resolutions will have superiority over any bilateral agreements especially in case of Indo-Pak.
Secondly, even if we were to take the bilateral agreement to nullify valid UNSC resolutions, Simla is null and void after unilateral revocation of Kashmir status as Simla agreement is broken; so we are forced to return UN resolutions.

obtain India's consent to accepting them

The Onus is not on Pakistan but India to honor it's bilateral and especially multilateral commitments.

Sometime around the 11th of June 1947, Mountbatten flew down to meet Jinnah, and proposed that for three territories, that seemed to be heading for a disputed status, Hyderabad, Junagadh and J&K, there should be a vote by the residents of the three states.

Jinnah bluntly rejected this proposal.

There was no state of Pakistan before August 1947.

If we are to discuss pre August 1947, I would love to hear your views about Redcliffe Award and how it was finalized. We should discuss the role of esteemed Viceroy Mountbatten and the innocent Nehru indeed who were deceived by evil to be Pakistanis at that time.

I would love to hear the historical perspective and your opinion as a student of history of the disputed territories and the events surrounding them at partition.

I was under the impression that the root of terrorism was the desire to acquire Kashmir.

So when India says it wants to discuss terrorism, does it imply to actually discuss Kashmir issue? Interesting...

Sure.

Well within the scope of discussions.

I beg leave to spend some time in the kitchen. Dinner awaits.

@M. Sarmad
@Krptonite

Happy eating!

That, according to Indian representatives present at the meetings, included an understanding

Besides, there is no party that has credibility with India - not UK, after its faithless double-dealing on numerous occasions; not France, that is available for purchase on lease; not Germany, that has enough problems of her own not to want further involvement; not Russia embattled in Ukraine; not the US, that has dealt India so many blows in the past, and retains no regard, other than in terms of lip service to our democratic process.

In case of dispute over interpretations which can not be resolved bilaterally, what do you suggest?

In my view, both India and Pakistan should in the present scenario use the good offices of UN offered by UN Secretary General and help with Indo-Pak dialogue. If you have any better recommendation, please do share.

 

[PDF]

I did not understand that reference.

https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/IN%20PK_720702_Simla%20Agreement.pdf

Let's all study the 1972 Simla agreement afresh to get better understanding of it's implementation and relevance.

 

[PDF]

@Joe Shearer

With regards to Kashmir, let's involve the people of Kashmir into the discussion as they are the direct involved party, much more than Pakistan or India.

@waz is one from Kashmir if my memory serves me right. I think we need to hear Kashmiris in all parts of J & K region to actually respect the democratic rights of the people.

PDF has many members hailing from our side of Kashmir (GB included in it). I do invite any and all from your side of Kashmir.

P.S: @waz kindly approve my username change request, mate. Thanks!

 

[Saudang]

A lot of Indians don't realize that Pakistan doesn't have to win against India in a war, it just has to make sure it doesn't lose and that India doesn't win. Stalemate itself is a victory for Pakistan, because any Indian invasion would collapse in such a scenario.

You don't have to be good at your job, you just have to be good enough.

Why would India need to win and win what ? Azad Kashmir?


All the rethoric of getting back the remaining part of Kashmir is just for domestic consumption. Everyone knows that trying to get back a portion of unproductive hostile population so different from us is a stupid idea..

I always felt that it is the Pakistanis who are morally burdened to liberate their deprived brothers and sisters on the Indian side of Kashmir.

Question should be whether Pakistan is capable of doing anything to support their jugular vein Kashmir - militarily, financially, diplomatically or any other means.. rethoric annual UN General Assembly speeches does not count..

 

[M. Sarmad]

Absolutely not. There HAS to be dialogue.

May I now, take this opportunity of pointing to an aspect of Pakistani behaviour that is downright exasperating?

We constantly have this complaint that today, India is being unreasonable, that it was far easier to talk to India earlier. So whose fault is that? How did Pakistan treat the moderate, even accommodating government of, say, Manmohan Singh? For that entire administration, R&AW was restricted in action, and kept away from Pakistan. The reward? A straightforward and peace-seeking man was made to make a reference to Balochistan being admissible for discussion, a remark made in innocence of the outcome, naive, perhaps, but exploited to the full by the Pakistani ministry. The next thing we knew, an empty folder was brandished in public to prove to the world that India was guilty of interference in Baloch affairs.

You should think of how Pakistan flouted every peace effort, or initiative, or even the initial willingness of this dreadful government to allow free access to Indian facilities to needy Pakistani citizens. You should recall the Kargil adventure, what it entailed, the way Indians were treated after capture, and the way Pakistanis were recommended to their higher echelons for gallantry deserving of recognition (something that reached a count of ten or more, when I used to keep count in the past, all from India, not even on a single occasion from Pakistan).

If today, you face a hostile, unrelenting atmosphere in New Delhi, you have earned it. Even those of us who want peace with Pakistan, and friendly relations with her citizens, have given up, temporarily, as we are unable to sustain the barrage of insults from our countrymen for being Pakistan's patsies.

I would love the situation to improve, but এক হাতে তালি বাজে না।

Nehru wrote to Sheikh Abdullah in 1952:

“We are superior to Pakistan in military and industrial power,” With the passage of time Pakistan will “accept a settlement which we consider fair, whether in Kashmir or elsewhere”.

^^ This pretty much sums up the Indian attitude towards the Kashmir issue that has virtually remained unchanged for the last 75 years

The journey towards solving complex issues demands a willingness to engage with reality as it is, free from the veils of bias and preconceived notions. In the context of the Kashmir dispute, it is the refusal of India to even acknowledge the issue as a dispute that presents a significant challenge to any resolution efforts. This stance, while understandable from a nationalistic perspective, has hindered the progress toward peace in the region.

The refusal to acknowledge Kashmir as a dispute perpetuates the cycle of conflict and exacerbates the suffering of those caught in the middle. The path toward peace requires a willingness to confront the reality of the situation and work toward a resolution that is just and equitable for all parties involved.

While Pakistan's acceptance of the impracticality of redrawing international boundaries during Musharraf's era represented a more pragmatic approach toward finding a resolution, India's subsequent actions (esp. revocation of Art. 370) have only further complicated the situation. India is not invested in finding a solution and appears to be content with maintaining the status quo until the time when Pakistan finally decides to accept Indian superiority and hegemony in the region.