What's new

Indo-Pak No-War Pact:A Visit Manmohan must make

I don't beg. I simply point out what is wrong. BTW you did read the news about that Maoist and their way of recruitment. I think you will oppose that.

You can say whatever you like, I will make sure I make my opposition heard.
No you dont point out the wrong.you are partial.infact you were the one among the that lynch mob who were dancing at and abusing the dead bodies right here on pdf even after my repeated requests not to do so.You reap what you sow.

As for indian news media propaganda about maoist i dont believe it.siple you can try hard.
 
.
War or no war pact...should not happen with this government in place. Contrary to the belief Indians have developed and started believing in it, that Pakistan is going to stay like this forever, that is not the case.
People who advocate for no war should encourage things like better economic relations, encouragement of Indian companies to invest in Pakistan, trust will follow suite. Once India has a stake in Pakistan, why would it want to go to war in the first place or destabilize Pakistan through Afghanistan.

Its vice-verse true for Pakistan. Pakistan also would not want to create or sponsor the so called terrorism into India for the same reason mentioned above. The stake is reciprocal.
 
.
I am not a supporter of war..I do want a developed India but not in the cost of our countrymen's blood..Look at the last two major peace process gave us.. Kargil and Mumbai.. How can we achieve peace while these kind of incidents keep happening??
Peace process didn't give us Kargil and Mumbai, we took security for granted when there is talk of peace. No one and I mean no one should lay back even if peace process is ongoing. I even say we must be more vigilant when peace process is on. This not only ensure in making important decisions but act as necessary factor to extend the peace time.

Only way to peace in this world is tighter security and strengthened borders. When Kargil and Mumbai happened, it was our failure to intercept it. Never expect the other party to play fair even in peace time. Chamberlain did this mistake with Hitler and Britain payed a heavy price as he didn't understand the real intention of Hitler.

Your enemy is not like Hitler but that doesn't mean you act like Chamberlain. Learn from China when they built Great Wall to keep Mongol invaders away from their soil. Your neighbors will come around for peace, stability and trade when you fortify your borders. Once they get the message that they can't infiltrate our borders, they will agree for few years of peace. This is what we want.

We become so worked up when few Indians are killed by terrorists but remain indifferent where millions dies due to other problems in our country. We should punish corrupt people in strict fashion as we expect our govt. to deal with terrorists. Life of every Indian is equal, keep keen eyes at borders but get rid of internal problems too. This is more pressing issue.
 
.
Dr. Singh knows what they are. It seems that he has all but abandoned the agenda on which he so bravely worked during his first stint as Prime Minister.
What message is he seeking now to convey to Pakistan and Kashmiris? Expect “nothing from me?”
AG Noorani expects MMS to deliver to Pakistanis when MMS couldn't deliver to his own country to which he is answerable. MMS is economist who could n't keep India economy stable and now Noorani want MMS to do wonders in a field where he clearly has no expertise.
 
.
No you dont point out the wrong.you are partial.infact you were the one among the that lynch mob who were dancing at and abusing the dead bodies right here on pdf even after my repeated requests not to do so.You reap what you sow.

As for indian news media propaganda about maoist i dont believe it.siple you can try hard.
What are you talking about ? Kindly refresh my memory.
 
.
All that is fine bro.

But a no war pact wont change anything. All of those things you said about development have nothing to do with this pact.

Its better to maintain the same status quo, nothing will change. If they attack we will be successful. We are never gonna attack and they are never gonna be able to curb terrorism.

So what is the use of signing this deal? Hogwash and lipservice. Thats all it will be. Our relations wont improve unless and until Pakistan drops its claim to Kashmir, this is a given.

As for defence, cutting defence spending wont alleviate poverty, so whether or not this pact goes through, we should increase spending on defence. A lot. Poverty will only be alleviated with investments, education and job creation. Not by cutting defence spending. We are already spending too less.
I never said cut defense spending. I always supported increase in defense budget. I know one gun and one soldier is necessary for security and hence development of 10 Indians.

Don't take my words otherwise. I want India to be more secure for more economic growth. Stability is must for Economic growth. If there is gun fight every now and then in J&K, we can't expect economic development of the region, generation of employment and increase in tourism. Kindly understand the importance of job and money in curbing supply of young population to extremist organizations.

Its about giving them options along with security. Look at J&K now. The situation is changing as people are now occupied in making money and raising their families. But for that, India has to maintain the security detail intact. People are laying down weapons and many ex-terrorists are now being rehabilitated.

I never supported cut-back of soldiers deployed in border regions. No War pact doesn't mean we are backing off. It means we are more concerned about other aspects too.
 
. .
these liberal facists are too much dreaming, there should be no no-war-pact

this pakistani liberal gang in journalism should be thrown out of media and handed indian citizenship
 
. .
Towards a No-war pact between India and Pakistan

A NO-WAR pact between India and Pakistan is a good idea and Mian Mohammad Nawaz Sharif is very earnest about it. On Dec 11 he told a TV channel in Pakistan, “We should sign a no-war pact for peace.”

Around the same time he said in an interview to Harinder Baweja of Tehelka, “I would say that there should be a no-first-attack pact, a no-war pact between the two countries and this includes both conventional and nuclear (weapons).”

It bears recalling that he had made this very offer on Sept 22, 1997 when he addressed the UN General Assembly as prime minister of Pakistan. “I offer today from this rostrum to open negotiations on a treaty of no-aggression between Pakistan and India.” As it happens ‘aggression’ has a wider connotation than ‘war’. It includes acts short of troops crossing boundaries; methods direct and indirect. He had initiated the peace process that year and the Islamabad joint statement of June 23, 1997 defined the structure of a composite dialogue which is still in place today.

Nawaz Sharif sought to put a seal on that process with a no-war pact. Such offers always have a purpose. When Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru handed to Pakistan’s high commissioner M. Ismail the draft of a no-war pact on Dec 22, 1949, he sought to freeze the status quo in Kashmir. Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan accepted the draft almost verbatim but stipulated an undertaking to “resort to arbitration on all points of difference”. Nehru pointed out that Kashmir was a political question which is non-justiciable.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had a different notion. Reporting to the National Assembly on July 17, 1963 on his talks on Kashmir with Swaran Singh, he said that the pact would enable India to contend that “now that a no-war pact exists, Pakistan has accepted the ceasefire line”. Even at Tashkent in January 1966 he rejected such a pact. Also at Simla in July 1972.

The UN’s charter has an explicit provision enjoining members to “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” The Simla Agreement and the Tashkent Declaration have similar injunctions.

Where, then, is the need for a bilateral pact? The answer is that crimes continue to be committed despite the penal code. But if two feuding neighbours solemnly sign an agreement, in or out of court, not to harm each other, it helps to create mutual confidence.

In 1981 it was Pakistan’s turn to make the offer. But it did so in a statement on Sept 15, 1981 announcing its “formal acceptance of the US package” of military aid to Pakistan. It proposed “mutual guarantees of non-aggression and non-use of force in the spirit of the Simla Agreement”. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi stipulated two conditions — bilateralism and no bases to or alliances with a foreign power. In May 1984 at Murree, representatives of the two countries nearly resolved the issue. The Simla Agreement helped on the first and NAM formulations on the second.

A communication gap prevented accord. The parleys continued till 1987 only to fizzle out. Agha Shahi, minister of state for foreign affairs, and one of the most accomplished diplomats South Asia has produced, categorically said on Jan 28, 1982 “the proposed no-war pact applies to Kashmir and war is ruled out. Only peaceful means would be employed for solution of this problem”. The methods used to resolve Kashmir from 1989 onwards were not exactly an example of peaceful methods.

It is one of those might-have-beens of history as to how events would have shaped if India had accepted the offer in 1984 and also settled Siachen under the June 1989 accord when Benazir Bhutto was prime minister.

Dare one hope that both countries are wiser for the two wasted decades? Mr Nawaz Sharif’s offer today in 2008 also has a purpose; a very good one, indeed. It is to instil confidence which is all but non-existent today. It is however, an integral part of his advice on the TV interview on Dec 11: “Pakistan should seriously engage India. We should invite them and we should go to India to take a look at the evidence (in the Mumbai’s blasts). We should do whatever is possible to help India and combat terrorism jointly. The blame game is not in favour of Pakistan and India”. Without that engagement and a successful one too the no-war pact will have no takers even though neither country desires war.

There is another aspect to the offer of a non-aggression pact. Will it impose a duty on each state to prevent a non-state actor on its soil from committing aggression on the other?

In his excellent book India and Pakistan: The Cost of Conflict and the Benefits of Peace, Maj Gen Mahmud Ali Durrani recommended a list of confidence-building measures. One of them was “reduce the role of intelligence agencies acting against each other”. This can be amplified to cover non-state actors; private organisations which are bent on war. He is now national security adviser and had an excellent meeting with his Indian counterpart M.K.Narayanan in New Delhi on Oct 14.

President Zardari has offered to send “a representative” of the ISI. A delegation can come to India to begin a sincere dialogue on the immediate crisis in an effort to resolve it. We must at some point of time talk about a non-aggression pact which reckons with the realities of our times. But that will have to be an icing on a cake which is yet to be baked. Public opinion in India and Pakistan yearns for peace. It will endorse a no-war pact only after the major disputes are resolved.

That is sad. But that is the reality in 2008. Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz came to New Delhi at the height of the Kargil crisis. A senior minister or official can well come to New Delhi for exploratory talks to pave the way for a full-fledged delegation, which would go into the substance of the differences. Meanwhile rhetoric deserves a good holiday. Quiet, secret and sincere diplomacy is the need of the hour.

Oye Pehan meriii Krait se darnaa mattt yeh tou eik Kabaddi match kii maar haiii ! Sidaaa kar keh rakh duunn ga ! :rofl:
Aye to pahale............
 
.
No you dont point out the wrong.you are partial.infact you were the one among the that lynch mob who were dancing at and abusing the dead bodies right here on pdf even after my repeated requests not to do so.You reap what you sow.
As for indian news media propaganda about maoist i dont believe it.siple you can try hard.
If you are asking me to shed few tears for Maoists so sorry can't do that. I try to be as neutral as I can but when there is case of Maoists, I know the reality. I have seen their true colors. I have seen security situation over there and what level of violence they do.

As I said, you can say whatever you find as better reply, if I find certain lines crossed, I will make my opposition towards it. You can do it too if you want. For me, other posters from my nation and other nations are audience to which I will propagate my views regarding Maoists, No-War Pact or whatever is the issue.

Oye Pehan meriii Krait se darnaa mattt yeh tou eik Kabaddi match kii maar haiii ! Sidaaa kar keh rakh duunn ga ! :rofl:
Tu aajaa maje lene. Teri internship kyun khatam hui. :hitwall:

Sidha kaise karega mujhe tu. Ab ye mat kehna ki tu bhi Tough guy hai Razii ki tarah. :D
 
.
If you are asking me to shed few tears for Maoists so sorry can't do that. I try to be as neutral as I can but when there is case of Maoists, I know the reality. I have seen their true colors. I have seen security situation over there and what level of violence they do.

As I said, you can say whatever you find as better reply, if I find certain lines crossed, I will make my opposition towards it. You can do it too if you want. For me, other posters from my nation and other nations are audience to which I will propagate my views regarding Maoists, No-War Pact or whatever is the issue.
Well then dont expect same for the soldiers and you should have guts to ccept these facts too instead of going crying foul.
 
.
War or no war pact...should not happen with this government in place. Contrary to the belief Indians have developed and started believing in it, that Pakistan is going to stay like this forever, that is not the case.
People who advocate for no war should encourage things like better economic relations, encouragement of Indian companies to invest in Pakistan, trust will follow suite. Once India has a stake in Pakistan, why would it want to go to war in the first place or destabilize Pakistan through Afghanistan.

Its vice-verse true for Pakistan. Pakistan also would not want to create or sponsor the so called terrorism into India for the same reason mentioned above. The stake is reciprocal.

My wish is the same.... things are started to move in Indo-Pak economic front. But i regret to say it, majority of subcontinent does not see this, we people are emotional and mostly take decisions from the heart not the brain.
 
.
My wish is the same.... things are started to move in Indo-Pak economic front. But i regret to say it, majority of subcontinent does not see this, we people are emotional and mostly take decisions from the heart not the brain.

USA is the largest trading partner of China, yet they cant see eye to eye. In the end it all comes down to economics. Both countries cant afford to loose each other. I dont see why it is so impossible to achieve in our case. We can leave the red button for latter.
 
.
09700168209427569.fp.png_v03
 
.
Back
Top Bottom