Manmohan Singh's hypocrisy

[RPK]

Manmohan is not sincere with pakistan

Why should he? he is indian elected PM for second term after Nehru. He should only sincere to India & its people

 

[INDIARULES]

Why should he? he is indian elected PM for second term after Nehru. He should only sincere to India & its people

Ya true he is a Indian PM not anyone else

 

[INDIARULES]

Indian PM Dr. Manmohan Singh is have a kind heart, b'cos

If im the PM of India I say to my Counterpart,


"STOP TERROR OR STOP TALKING"

he is a kind man...

 

[HAIDER]

^^^^^^MS can try but he can't , he knows the consequences very well. No way to run, no way to hide. More India run away from dialogue, more it will feel the heat and tension . What privileges Pakistani govt has granted to India for trade to Afghanistan might evaporate, In this era of economic meltdown, India is not capable of taking further financial heat.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Presidents of most nations have advisers to their Pres whose job is to advise him what to say ( & what NOT to say). This is what differentiates them from School children.

The Pres of Pk can get away with anything coz he suffers from verbal diarrhea while others must remain true lovers & not change their minds ??

It does not happen this way in international Politics & not in S Asia.

If you still can't understand the difference between a joint statement and the President suggesting he would send XYZ official somewhere then I really can't help you.

 

[Spitfighter]

Its clear that you don’t have a very good understanding of that event sir. If anyone is responsible for the 'mess' in Kashmir then it was the Hindu Maharaja ruling there. His rule was failing, Muslim soldiers from his army were rebelling, the Muslim population was in an uproar and tribesmen from the western parts of the new Pakistan started joining in the rebellion once the Maharaja decided that India would protect his rule better. The Pakistan Army was NOT allowed to interfere at this time. It was much later, once the Indian military footprint had been established in the valley, was Jinnah able to prevail upon Gracey to send troops to Kashmir to halt the Indian advance.

India didn’t ‘clean’ anything in Kashmir. The Pakistan Army was itching to go to Srinagar and establish order, had Lord Mountbatten allowed us to do so, the situation in Kashmir would’ve been much different today. India took what it could in Kashmir and decided to keep it, in disregard to prior commitments, which was a very ‘messy’ way of solving anything. If you call this ‘solving’ ofcourse…

Someone needs to run Azad Kashmir while India refuses to give the larger Kashmir its freedom. Pakistan doesn't refer to Azad Kashmir as 'Pakistani Kashmir' for a reason. We, unlike India, don't pretend it’s ours and honor its Disputed Territory status. India on the other hand has committed itself to bilateral and illegal annexation.

We will try our best not to let you achieve such a position before you address Kashmir. Not many people will be happy to let you lead the UN if you don't respect its ideals and resolutions. Pakistan has influence in the UN too, in case you forgot.

You tend to rant a lot, you should avoid that. Yes Pakistan wants Kashmir because Kashmiris want Pakistan, but why does India want Kashmir? So Pakistan can't have it? The history of Kashmir speaks for itself. Pakistan has still not claimed Kashmir to be its own, unlike India. You're trying to say Pakistan wants Kashmir and India doesn't?

Pakistan has offered more ideas and compromises than India ever has. Pakistan's not the one riding on a 'high horse' and Pakistan's not the one with an inflexible and denial based policy on Kashmir.

Pakistan has made more efforts to stop the 'bombings' than India has to address Kashmir. Even when talking is done, Kashmir is always avoided and dodged on the Indian side. This is something Musharraf has attested to as well.

E. Pakistan was not Disputed Territory. It was sovereign Pakistani territory.

Technically, Kargil wasn't occupied by the IA either when Pakistan sent its men. Siachen might not have had troops stationed there, but it was still considered Pakistani territory, Pakistan being responsible for facilitating tourist travel there. The primary reason India decided to sneak in…

With all due respect Karskin, I think you're the one that's a tad hazy on the issue.

Ranbir Singh's grandson Hari Singh, who had ascended the throne of Kashmir in 1925, was the reigning monarch in 1947 at the conclusion of British rule of the subcontinent and the subsequent partition of the British Indian Empire into the newly independent Union of India and the Dominion of Pakistan. As parties to the partition process, both countries had agreed that the rulers of princely states would be given the right to opt for either Pakistan or India or—in special cases—to remain independent. In 1947, Kashmir's population "was 77% Muslim and it shared a boundary with Pakistan. Hence, it was anticipated that the Maharaja would accede to Pakistan, when the British paramountcy ended on 14-15 August. When he hesitated to do this, the adjacent Muslims in newly created Pakistan along with many Pashtun began to enter his territory. The Maharaja, appealed to Mountbatten[9] for assistance, and the Governor-General agreed and demanded that the ruler first accede to India before assistance."[10] Once the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession, "Indian soldiers entered Kashmir and drove the Pakistani-sponsored irregulars from all but a small section of the state. The United Nations was then invited to mediate the quarrel. The UN mission insisted that the opinion of Kashmiris must be ascertained, while India insisted that no referendum could occur until all of the state had been cleared of irregulars."[10]

In the last days of 1948, a ceasefire was agreed under UN auspices; however, since the plebiscite demanded by the UN was never conducted, relations between India and Pakistan soured,[10] and eventually led to two more wars over Kashmir in 1965 and 1999. India has control of about half the area of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir; Pakistan controls a third of the region, the Northern Areas and Azad Kashmir.


Now I got that from Wikipedia, pretty basic, I know, but everything has been cited, and they do a pretty good job reviewing all their articles. So I think that its pretty credible.

So like I said, 'non-state actors' from Pakistan invaded Kashmir, India was forced to respond, and the rest is history. Had Pakistan kept its people out of Kashmir, things wouldn't have come to this. India would've never been invited to the party.

You say Pakistan honors Kashmir's disputed status, yet there are no Kashmiri political parties running the show in Kashmir, as they should be, they are 'azad' after all. the northern part of Kashmir is referred to as the 'Northern Areas', you don't even acknowledge the fact that it is part of Kashmir, furthermore Pakistan ceded Kashmiri territory to China.

Is this how Pakistan 'honors' Kashmirs disputed status? who's the hypocrite now?

 

[Coolyo]

just following jinnahs footsteps.

Nah, he was following Gandhi, not Jinnah!

Jinnah stood up against the opposition and worked for the rights of the Muslims of that time, he was an honourable man who sacrificed his all for this nation! How dare you come here and say such a false and blanket statement! You ignorant Indians don't know what the hell your saying most of the time, only Insults and complete nonsense!

But remember, your lies and deceit will always be countered! Insha Allah!

Pakistan Zindabad!

 

[third eye]

If you still can't understand the difference between a joint statement and the President suggesting he would send XYZ official somewhere then I really can't help you.

What makes you feel that I need your help ?

Thanks , but no thanks.

 

[Kasrkin]

Hence, it was anticipated that the Maharaja would accede to Pakistan, when the British paramountcy ended on 14-15 August. When he hesitated to do this, the adjacent Muslims in newly created Pakistan along with many Pashtun began to enter his territory. The Maharaja, appealed to Mountbatten[9] for assistance, and the Governor-General agreed and demanded that the ruler first accede to India before assistance."[10] Once the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession, "Indian soldiers entered Kashmir and drove the Pakistani-sponsored irregulars from all but a small section of the state.

Allow me to correct you there. This account is flawed because it fails to mention that the Pakistan Army DID NOT intervene in Kashmir when the Maharaja was trying desperately to retain autonomy, or when the Muslim population rioted, and when the Maharaja tried to crush said dissent militarily, which is what triggered large scale violence. Muslim soldiers from Maharaja’s own army rebelled, tribesmen sympathetic to their cause joined in the fighting and there was chaos. The Maharaja, whose army was already being lead by an Indian commander, sought help from India and with Lord Mountbatten’s sanction, Indian forces started deploying in great numbers and advancing further west. It was only AFTER this whole thing that the Pakistan Army entered the war, even then with very constrained, very mild orders that meant avoiding pitched battles or heavy confrontation with the Indians.

Pakistan didn’t ‘send’ or ‘order’ these fiercely autonomous tribes into Kashmir. It was the blundering Maharaja who was not only responsible for the unrest, but for the fate of Kashmir to follow. He failed to honor the wishes of his people in regards to the succession, he allowed himself to be coerced into allowing India’s military involvement when Pakistan and the Pakistan Army could have quite easily dealt with his mess, restored order and settled the issue once and for all. Traditionally, it was regiments now belonging to the Pakistan Army that had been assigned to deal with the unruly tribes during the time of the British Raj. Same thing could’ve happened in 1947, things could’ve come to a safe and firm conclusion but unfortunately the Pakistan Army was actively prevented from securing the valley, before and even after the Indians arrived. So it was not our presence that caused the problem of Kashmir sir, it was the other way round. Kashmir is unsettled Disputed Territory today because of Indian involvement in disregard of regional realities and of the notion that partition be along religious and democratic lines.

So like I said, 'non-state actors' from Pakistan invaded Kashmir, India was forced to respond, and the rest is history.

Actually if you read history carefully, India was intent on Kashmir and not ‘forced’ into an intervention by anyone. India had loaned a commander to command Marajaha’s forces after all, and Nehru’s obsession with the state was well known. The tribes that made their way to Kashmir were not only from Pakistan, but from Afghanistan as well. FATA or Afghanistan hardly being a place where the Pakistan’s Army had much control. The Pakistan Army could’ve saved Kashmir from the violence, but in order to do that it needed clearance and orders to advance north, from which it was prevented by the politicking of Indian elements and their supporters in the British.

Had Pakistan kept its people out of Kashmir, things wouldn't have come to this. India would've never been invited to the party.

Hardly the case. The Muslim population was rebelling, that in itself would’ve been a sufficient excuse. The tribals just made the Maharaja more malleable to Indian manipulation.

Your views on the subject are fairly narrow sir. I suggest you go over some impartial texts (no I'm not talking about Wikipedia) which might allow you to mount a more credible defence of Indian involvement.

 

[Su 30mki]

Allow me to correct you there. This account is flawed because it fails to mention that the Pakistan Army DID NOT intervene in Kashmir when the Maharaja was trying desperately to retain autonomy, or when the Muslim population rioted, and when the Maharaja tried to crush said dissent militarily, which is what triggered large scale violence. Muslim soldiers from Maharaja’s own army rebelled, tribesmen sympathetic to their cause joined in the fighting and there was chaos. The Maharaja, whose army was already being lead by an Indian commander, sought help from India and with Lord Mountbatten’s sanction, Indian forces started deploying in great numbers and advancing further west. It was only AFTER this whole thing that the Pakistan Army entered the war, even then with very constrained, very mild orders that meant avoiding pitched battles or heavy confrontation with the Indians.

Pakistan didn’t ‘send’ or ‘order’ these fiercely autonomous tribes into Kashmir. It was the blundering Maharaja who was not only responsible for the unrest, but for the fate of Kashmir to follow. He failed to honor the wishes of his people in regards to the succession, he allowed himself to be coerced into allowing India’s military involvement when Pakistan and the Pakistan Army could have quite easily dealt with his mess, restored order and settled the issue once and for all. Traditionally, it was regiments now belonging to the Pakistan Army that had been assigned to deal with the unruly tribes during the time of the British Raj. Same thing could’ve happened in 1947, things could’ve come to a safe and firm conclusion but unfortunately the Pakistan Army was actively prevented from securing the valley, before and even after the Indians arrived. So it was not our presence that caused the problem of Kashmir sir, it was the other way round. Kashmir is unsettled Disputed Territory today because of Indian involvement in disregard of regional realities and of the notion that partition be along religious and democratic lines.



Actually if you read history carefully, India was intent on Kashmir and not ‘forced’ into an intervention by anyone. India had loaned a commander to command Marajaha’s forces after all, and Nehru’s obsession with the state was well known. The tribes that made their way to Kashmir were not only from Pakistan, but from Afghanistan as well. FATA or Afghanistan hardly being a place where the Pakistan’s Army had much control. The Pakistan Army could’ve saved Kashmir from the violence, but in order to do that it needed clearance and orders to advance north, from which it was prevented by the politicking of Indian elements and their supporters in the British.



Hardly the case. The Muslim population was rebelling, that in itself would’ve been a sufficient excuse. The tribals just made the Maharaja more malleable to Indian manipulation.

Your views on the subject are fairly narrow sir. I suggest you go over some impartial texts (no I'm not talking about Wikipedia) which might allow you to mount a more credible defence of Indian involvement.

Sir Ji,

It is not admitted by PAK gen also in their books that intruded Irregulars was PAK Army in civilian Suit.

About Rebellion, it your own myth, Kindly read 65 Operation by Pak is also rallied by fancy that J&K people revolt , exactly opposite happen they sided Inida.

It is in on all yours mind that J&K people need your help, but they didnt ask nor they didnt need.

their is still no rebellion.

 

[Kasrkin]

It is not admitted by PAK gen also in their books that intruded Irregulars was PAK Army in civilian Suit

True. But this started happening later on given the official orders demanding avoiding direct confrontation. But even then such ‘dressed up’ soldiers were few and far in between, most of them were retired; its not like whole divisions of army men were dressed up like tribals.

About Rebellion, it your own myth, Kindly read 65 Operation by Pak is also rallied by fancy that J&K people revolt , exactly opposite happen they sided Inida.

Not related mate.

It is in on all yours mind that J&K people need your help, but they didnt ask nor they didnt need. their is still no rebellion.

I'll keep that in mind.

 

[Spitfighter]

Allow me to correct you there. This account is flawed because it fails to mention that the Pakistan Army DID NOT intervene in Kashmir when the Maharaja was trying desperately to retain autonomy, or when the Muslim population rioted, and when the Maharaja tried to crush said dissent militarily, which is what triggered large scale violence. Muslim soldiers from Maharaja’s own army rebelled, tribesmen sympathetic to their cause joined in the fighting and there was chaos. The Maharaja, whose army was already being lead by an Indian commander, sought help from India and with Lord Mountbatten’s sanction, Indian forces started deploying in great numbers and advancing further west. It was only AFTER this whole thing that the Pakistan Army entered the war, even then with very constrained, very mild orders that meant avoiding pitched battles or heavy confrontation with the Indians.

Pakistan didn’t ‘send’ or ‘order’ these fiercely autonomous tribes into Kashmir. It was the blundering Maharaja who was not only responsible for the unrest, but for the fate of Kashmir to follow. He failed to honor the wishes of his people in regards to the succession, he allowed himself to be coerced into allowing India’s military involvement when Pakistan and the Pakistan Army could have quite easily dealt with his mess, restored order and settled the issue once and for all. Traditionally, it was regiments now belonging to the Pakistan Army that had been assigned to deal with the unruly tribes during the time of the British Raj. Same thing could’ve happened in 1947, things could’ve come to a safe and firm conclusion but unfortunately the Pakistan Army was actively prevented from securing the valley, before and even after the Indians arrived. So it was not our presence that caused the problem of Kashmir sir, it was the other way round. Kashmir is unsettled Disputed Territory today because of Indian involvement in disregard of regional realities and of the notion that partition be along religious and democratic lines.

Actually if you read history carefully, India was intent on Kashmir and not ‘forced’ into an intervention by anyone. India had loaned a commander to command Marajaha’s forces after all, and Nehru’s obsession with the state was well known. The tribes that made their way to Kashmir were not only from Pakistan, but from Afghanistan as well. FATA or Afghanistan hardly being a place where the Pakistan’s Army had much control. The Pakistan Army could’ve saved Kashmir from the violence, but in order to do that it needed clearance and orders to advance north, from which it was prevented by the politicking of Indian elements and their supporters in the British.

Hardly the case. The Muslim population was rebelling, that in itself would’ve been a sufficient excuse. The tribals just made the Maharaja more malleable to Indian manipulation.

Your views on the subject are fairly narrow sir. I suggest you go over some impartial texts (no I'm not talking about Wikipedia) which might allow you to mount a more credible defence of Indian involvement.

Karskin, maybe you're right, I have read up on the Kashmir issue, but I suspect that that maybe only one side of the coin. Clearly the issue isn't as straightforward as its made out to be (in the texts I've read) so I'll try and get some reading done, not just for the sake of our little debate but for a broader understanding of the issue. Would you be kind enough to direct me to a couple of online sources?

Also, you didn't address the last part of my post about the Northern Areas and the trans-karakorum pact and how Pakistan's stance in this regard reflects its position on Kashmir as disputed territory, unless the dispute is simply that Kashmir should belong to Pakistan.

 

[Kasrkin]

Would you be kind enough to direct me to a couple of online sources?

I am not very good with online sources. I can recommend books though.

Also, you didn't address the last part of my post about the Northern Areas and the trans-karakorum pact and how Pakistan's stance in this regard reflects its position on Kashmir as disputed territory, unless the dispute is simply that Kashmir should belong to Pakistan.

Kashmir is Disputed Territory controlled by India, Pakistan and China. A solution encompassing all three sectors is not unacceptable to either Pakistan or China. The Indians though have never formally raised the issue out of fear that it might encourage a path to a resolution of the Kashmir dispute, were Pakistan and China to put their bits on the table and ask India to do the same. At most it is a technicality, certainly not in itself an excuse not begin negotiation nor is it a negation of the fact that it is still Disputed Territory.

 

[afriend]

Well it was admitted by Mr.Menon, the joint statement in egypt was a case of bad drafting, but underlying intent was actions against terrorists should happen irrespective of composite dialogue. And also he mention the inclusion of balochistan in the joint statement because India had nothing to hide. Prime minister would be knowing it as intelligence agencies of the country reports to him.

So i was it is rather bold move, and to prove to the world that India has nothing to do with Baluchistan and down the lane if Islamabad can't prove it claims it will definitely only boost india's image.

 

[idune]

Instead of "Manmohan Singh's hypocrisy", pathological liar more suites his and indian actions.