What's new

Like UPA, PM Modi on wrong track with Pak: It's not about Kashmir at all

Indian media still insists on preaching this false narrative ever further
Actually our media is not at all anti Pakistan. Our media is sensational.

If there is a terror attack they jump and show the Pak angle.

If there is a love/marriage across border or Aman ki Asha thingy, they jump and stress on the Pak angle.

If there's a school level discussion, a visiting singer/artist/tourist etc the Pak angle is emphasized if present (in a positive way). The public is curious and the papers sell.

It's not hatred, just greed. :D
 
.
False, Pakistan started out as a secular nation, it was only declared an Islamic Republic in 56, and only adopted a state religion in the 70s. Even then, most of the constitution is actually quite secular in nature.


It won't solve the mistrust, but it will stop the fighting. Pakistan and India have been at each other's throats since their independence, of course the mistrust won't disappear over night.


The PA's status won't ever degrade, but I do admit they'd rather not have to deal with India whenever possible. Having said that, if they did not want to solve the trouble between India and Pakistan, Musharraf would never have started to talk with India, when he was in power. This is a misguided belief that simply ignores reality. Besides, even if it was true, the PA no longer has the power it once wielded, it cannot interfere overtly without public backlash.

India isn't the only nation on the planet that (according to you) represents a threat to Islam, there are many other forces, especially today in the form of non-state actors.


No, it hasn't, this is a false narrative. The loss of EP was a tragedy, but an inevitable one. PA of course wants pay back, but it won't do it at the cost of Pakistan's reputation and material loss.



Yeah, no. These are all personal opinions, not facts. If these were facts, there would be clear cut, indisputable evidence, and I wouldn't be able to argue at all, but here we all.

ARE U TALKING PAKISTAN A SECULAR NATION THAN U MUST BE FOOLING YOUR SELF BRO...

OK TELL ME....

HOW MANY HINDU, SIKH OR REST PLAYED FOR PAK CRICKET?

CAN U TELL ME ANY HINDU CM IN PAK?

ETC.ETC........

For Secular definition, u can take example of INDIA. By the way, india is a very big country n there is two part one good n second bad. 90-95% people are secular n rest some people creates somes issues.

But, still much better for all people :)
 
. .
Quaid e azam envisioned a secular nation, thus it started out a secular nation.
He had quite contradictory and confusing views actually. It greatly varied with the audience he was speaking to. Smart and admirable, no doubt, but difficult to understand. He was no Islamist - that's for sure, regardless how much Zarvan claims him to be. :P

Note: Jinnah is actually not vilified in the Indian school books either. In fact he is hardly mentioned, except for the late Pakistan Movement.
 
.
Sweet dreams but again everyone has the right to dream.

India needs to understand that without kashmir solution we wont move an inch forward. Its like two people have a house dispute and one person is suggesting that well lets just not talk about the house but we can talk about other issues lol. What you think rationality says in this case, will the other person agree? Definitely not. India can continue not to talk about kashmir but remember my indian friends it may cost destruction of both countries and many lives lost may it be today, tomorrow or 10 years from now.

like PAK dreaming of Kashmir by hook or crook since its inception.

A) Only way of Kashmir Dispute is to make J&K indolence which neither PAK want ( as it has to loose lot of territory) , india neither can afford but can go for only kashmir.

B) PAK and India can make LOC as border and despite resolved but PA don't want it, if Pace with india happens PAK will break.

Therefore Peace with India cannot happen ever , so let stay at border and fight war for long. Might later after few years India also start sending armed mens across PAK to kill PA and its elements if PAK do not stopped.

Remember PAK supported Punjab Terror even they do not have any dispute their.
 
.
@Contrarian, mate, looks like you were right.
We have to first understand the problem of Pakistan.

The problem is the Pakistan Army. It sets itself up as the true arbiter of Islam, its sword arm and consequently uses and infuses jihad mindset in the Pakistani populace. This in turn (only partially) gives PA the 'right' to do what it wants in Pakistan as the comman people there believe "they are doing what they are for Islam, so it must be good".

A resolution with India removes everything the PA has worked so hard to gain in the last 60 years - its political power, its commercial interests, its unquestioned status in the public. And so they set up their Govt to fail, forcing all international players - from India to US, to talk directly to PA. This is a cycle, they have mastered to perfection.

The ultimate goal has to be to put Pakistan Army in its place - of policy execution, not policy formulation, using any and all means available at our disposal.
We also have to realize that our goal of doing this(for the last 50 years now) has been by means of war or ratcheting up tensions along the border - even defeating Pakistan Army militarily - only enhances PA's position in Pakistan.

Consequently, we have to change our strategy lest we become like Pakistan - doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. We must empower and embolden every civilian Govt of Pakistan while simultaneously preparing our military...because PA will inevitably retaliate to this using either directly or using "non-state actors" and hope that we abandon our talks with the GoP.

Oh, it's these arguments again. -_-

I've heard these arguments millions of times, and I've already shown how ridiculous they, so I shan't be repeating myself.
There is nothing to repeat for you. Christine Fair has hit upon the the exact idea of Pakistan and its problems or what drives Pakistan.

Your repeating the statement whether Pakistan 'was' this in the past or 'that was never meant to be' is as irrelevant to us as is Lithuanias defence problems. We deal with 'what is'.
 
Last edited:
.
India needs to understand that without kashmir solution we wont move an inch forward. Its like two people have a house dispute and one person is suggesting that well lets just not talk about the house but we can talk about other issues lol. What you think rationality says in this case, will the other person agree? Definitely not. India can continue not to talk about kashmir but remember my indian friends it may cost destruction of both countries and many lives lost may it be today, tomorrow or 10 years from now.
Ok, let's get real.

Firstly, only about 2% of Kashmiris want to be amalgamated with Pakistan. If you take the whole of J&K which you claim is disputed, the percentage is even lower.

Secondly, as per the UN Resolutions, a plebiscite is to determine whether the Kashmiris want to be part of either India or Pakistan. There is no third option which some of the Kashmiris want, and that is independence.

Having said that, you guys keeping carping about a resolution. What resolution? Hypothetically even if Kashmir gets independence, what's in it for you? Is that going to banish poverty in Pakistan? Would that make Pakistan a super power? Will there be more food on the table for the poor in Pakistan? Will health and education improve in Pakistan? Would Pakistan become energy self sufficient? Will Pakistan's GDP enter double digits? Will the TTP and terrorism go away? Would the standard of living in Pakistan improve? Will the Shias and Sunnis start living in peace? Will feudalism in Pakistan and crony capitalism vanish?

Simple answer: NO!

In other words, what's in it for the ordinary Pakistani? Nothing! The issue is just an emotional one and that is: Why should a Muslim majority state be in Hindu India? That's what pissing you guys off. Needless to say, Kashmir is the one and only issue that keeps Pakistan together.

Lets face it. Kashmir will never form part of Pakistan. So what's the issue all about? What will Pakistan gain by a resolution that does not give Kashmir to Pakistan? So why keep whipping a dead horse?
 
.
Look. Another example. Pakistan Army is the problem of Pakistan.

Pakistan crisis puts army back in the driving seat
Reuters | Aug 20, 2014, 02.55 AM IST

ISLAMABAD: As tens of thousands of protesters advanced on the Pakistani capital last week to demand his resignation, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif dispatched two emissaries to consult with the army chief.

He wanted to know if the military was quietly engineering the twin protest movements by cricket star-turned-politician Imran Khan and activist cleric Tahir ul-Qadri, or if, perhaps, it was preparing to stage a coup.
According to a government insider with a first-hand account of the meeting, Sharif's envoys returned with good news and bad: there will be no coup, but if he wants his government to survive, from now on it will have to "share space with the army".

Even if, as seems likely, the Khan and Qadri protests eventually fizzle out due to a lack of overt support from the military, the prime minister will emerge weakened from the crisis.

The army may have saved his skin, but its price will be subservience to the generals on issues he wanted to handle himself — from the fight against the Taliban to relations with arch foe India and Pakistan's role in neighbouring, post-NATO Afghanistan.

"The biggest loser will be Nawaz, cut down to size both by puny political rivals and the powerful army," said a government minister who asked not to be named. "From this moment on, he'll always be looking over his shoulder."

40474958.cms


A year ago, few would have predicted that Sharif would be in such trouble: back then, he had just swept to power for a third time in a milestone poll that marked nuclear-armed Pakistan's first transition from one elected government to another.

But in the months that followed, Sharif — who had crossed swords with the army in the past — moved to enhance the clout of the civilian government in a country that has been ruled by the military for more than half of its turbulent history.

He irked the generals by putting former military head Pervez Musharraf, who had abruptly ended his last stint as prime minister in a 1999 coup, on trial for treason.

Sharif also opposed a military offensive to crush Taliban insurgents, sided with a media group that had accused the military of shooting one of its journalists and sought reconciliation with India, the perceived threat that the army uses to justify its huge budget and national importance.

India rapprochement at risk

Sources in Sharif's government said that, with civilian-military relations in such bad shape, Sharif suspected that the street protests to unseat him were being manipulated from behind the scenes by the army.

He also feared that, if the agitations turned violent, the army would exploit the situation to seize power for itself.

However, the two close aides who went to see army chief Raheel Sharif in the garrison town of Rawalpindi last Wednesday were told that the military had no intention of intervening.

40474472.cms


"The military does not intend to carry out a coup but ... if the government wants to get through its many problems and the four remaining years of its term, it has to share space with the army," said the insider, summing up the message they were given.

"Sharing space" is a familiar euphemism for civilian governments focusing narrowly on domestic political affairs and leaving security and strategic policy to the army.

The army's media wing declined to comment on the meeting.

The fact that the military is back in the driving seat will make it harder for Sharif to deliver the rapprochement with India that he promised when he won the election last year.

Indian media speculated this week that Sharif had already been forced by the generals to scuttle peace talks.

New Delhi on Monday called off a meeting between foreign ministry officials of the two countries, which had been set to take place on August 25, because Pakistan announced its intention to consult Kashmiri separatists ahead of the meeting.

The Pakistani army's predominance could also mean it could torpedo the government's relationship with Afghanistan, where a regional jostle for influence is expected to intensify after the withdrawal of most foreign forces at the end of this year.

Paying the price

Few believed that the army would back Khan's bid for power even if it used him to put Sharif on the defensive.

"Even the army knows that Imran Khan may be a great pressure cooker in the kitchen, but you can't trust him to be the chef," said a former intelligence chief who declined to be named.

Sharif may now pay the price for miscalculating that the military might have been willing to let the one-time cricket hero topple him.

"Thinking that Imran could be a game-changer, Nawaz has conceded the maximum to the army," a Sharif aide said.

"From a czar-like prime minister, they (the army) have reduced him to a deputy commissioner-type character who will deal with the day-to-day running of the country while they take care of the important stuff like Afghanistan and India. This is not a small loss."

But Sharif's aides say a stint in jail under Musharraf, followed by exile from Pakistan and five years as leader of the opposition party, have made him realize that he needs to share power to survive.

"This is not the old Nawaz, the wild confrontationalist," said an adviser to the prime minister in Lahore, the capital of his Punjab province power base. "This is the new Nawaz who has learnt the hard way that politics is about living to fight another day."Pakistan crisis puts army back in the driving seat - The Times of India
 
.
Forget about all these theories...As long as Indian Army has a control on Kashmir...It is ours....Rest we do not care..
Well when you illegitimately occupy a region then you need western hypothesis to support you. Nothing surprising with Bharati love affair with Christine Fair bullsh!t.
ac
 
.
Indians - do you think India should have kept its cool with Pakistan when the Sharif is at his weakest?
 
.
True. Kashmir will never ever be resolved because do not want this. Peace with India will be existentialist threat to Pakistan.

Pakistan needs enmity of India for national integration.

Sources in Sharif's government said that, with civilian-military relations in such bad shape, Sharif suspected that the street protests to unseat him were being manipulated from behind the scenes by the army.

He also feared that, if the agitations turned violent, the army would exploit the situation to seize power for itself.

Source: Like UPA, PM Modi on wrong track with Pak: It's not about Kashmir at all | Page 3

If this is what a Govt thinks about its army, nothing to say.

With whom we will make peace? army? govt? people?
 
Last edited:
.
LOL at you and all the other lunatics who think Kashmir belongs to India.

haha it does and there is nothing you can do to get it, Pakistan itself was a creation of partition of India, please go and educate yourself. and leave the subcontinents, so this region can be at peace.
 
. . .
Quaid e azam envisioned a secular nation, thus it started out a secular nation.

Secularism and Two Nations Theory can coexist only in delusion.

Ah that was because of the delay in the adoption of the Constitution, was it not? :) It was actually neither secular nor islamic. It did tilt toward the Islamic (Objective Resolution). Please correct me if I am wrong.

Pakistanis generally see India and Pakistan enmity starting with Muhammad Bin Qasim and Raja Dahir Sen. Kashmir is just a mean to keep this enmity burning, had Kashmir not existed Pakistan would have founded another mean to keep this hate alive.

Indians - do you think India should have kept its cool with Pakistan when the Sharif is at his weakest?

Nawaz or martial law administrator, it makes no difference for Indians. The internal Army-civilian government rivalry in Pakistan will bear no effect on India.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom