Onus of Creating Environment for Talks is on Pakistan, Says Arun Jaitley

[ito]

I have read that, a paper that has no witnesses, no ceremony, no handling over, taking over, ho historical reference and no authenticity in the international court of justice. There was a reason UN asked both India and Pakistan to do plebiscite in Kashmir and its because this document has no authenticity. Pakistan doesn't accept that, Kashmiris don't accept that, UN doesn't accept that - so place it on the wall and give yourself a sense of ownership as this is the only thing which says Kashmir belongs to India as entire Kashmir otherwise says it doesn't.[/QUOTE]

Wrong again...there was no doubt on the authenticity of the document either in India, or in UN. Even Pakistan officially never doubted the authenticity of the document. Pakistan position is that as Kashmir is a Muslim majority state, it should have cede to Pakistan and not on 'dubious' nature of the instrument of accession.

 

[graphican]

Wrong again...there was no doubt on the authenticity of the document either in India, or in UN. Even Pakistan officially never doubted the authenticity of the document. Pakistan position is that as Kashmir is a Muslim majority state, it should have cede to Pakistan and not on 'dubious' nature of the instrument of accession.

Okay ask yourself this question to get my perspective... if the document is considered legitimate, Pakistan's claim that Kashmiris would decide mustn't had been accepted - or - if India's legal ownership was proven, UN must had asked Pakistan to give its territory to India and that would've been the end of the case. The way this dispute stands, fate of Kashmir is still to be decided by Kashmiris and its ownership is under question.

For India, ownership of Kashmir is so flimsy that it has "special status" in Indian constitution and you being an Indian cannot buy land or a tree there. What ownership do you claim in the forum when your own constitution doesn't acknowledge that it is Indian territory, it claims it is affiliated state and its identification is still separate from the rest of India.

 

[SrNair]

PM Nawaz Shareef visited India on Modi's oath taking ceremony and with this gesture, Pakistan tried to improve relationship. We've done our bit. Now onus is on India, on Modi to visit Pakistan and on its street tongue minister to keep their dripping holes shut, all the times.

So you are saying that we should forget that terrorist attack in Mumbai and look for a peace with Pakistan.Not going to happen.Now or Never.


We dont need a relation like that.Pakistan is an irrelevant subject to us.
One of the question from that think tank was about Indias foreign policy towards Pakistan.So he answered it.

Keeping Pakistan unstable is understandable but not improving relationship is now against India's own interest. We are their gateway to trade and energy needs. Where Pakistan stands today, it doesn't need India for anything at all but India needs Pakistan for multiple good reasons.

In terms of terrorism, India has lost on all the fronts it had invested on. Namely Afghanistan, TTP terrorists in FATA and western front and Political Terrorists in Karachi. Look where is any of its interest standing today? This is rather time for Pakistan to strike-back and I don't see why India should be spared. Good relationship or not, India will be paid for the service it offered. Now if India steps ahead and tries to improve relationship, that is for the 4th time in its best interest instead of ours.

We dont need Pakistan for our energy needs and trade.We already proven that.We dont need yoursupport for our growth.

 

[graphican]

We dont need Pakistan for our energy needs and trade.We already proven that.We dont need yoursupport for our growth.

India wanted to be part of IPI and then perceiving problems from Pakistan, it desired to place a cable under the ocean which too is rendered infeasible because of extended Pakistan's ocean territory. I might had believed you if these two incident's had not happened.

For trade, other than sea route, India has no option as the only two other territories which could connect India with the western world is Pakistan and China and India doesn't have sufficient terms with them to make it happen. Even in the case of war or war-like scenarios, we can block your trade through Arabian Ocean.

 

[vegav]

PM Nawaz Shareef visited India on Modi's oath taking ceremony and with this gesture, Pakistan tried to improve relationship. We've done our bit. Now onus is on India, on Modi to visit Pakistan and on its street tongue minister to keep their dripping holes shut, all the times.

Most important thing is free business to happen,until and unless that happens nothing ll happen.

Why are these pathetic dogs keep barking, dont they have anything else to do, why do their life depends around Pakistan. Do they wake up every morning and Their Mom reminds them to say something about Pakistan to Bhagwan ki kerpa hogi.
I am so puzzled by the pathetic state of mind of these people, Did Pakistan call you and ask who has the onus Mr. 5 feet.
Someone please get these moron a life that they can enjoy, I know being born in India is no joy

why are u reacting,if he is just another mr.5 feet?

 

[SrNair]

India wanted to be part of IPI and then perceiving problems from Pakistan, it desired to place a cable under the ocean which too is rendered infeasible because of extended Pakistan's ocean territory. I might had believed you if these two incident's had not happened.

For trade, other than sea route, India has no option as the only two other territories which could connect India with the western world is Pakistan and China and India doesn't have sufficient terms with them to make it happen. Even in the case of war or war-like scenarios, we can block your trade through Arabian Ocean.

Pakistans authority in seas will just limited to 12 nm.You cant do anything to stop us from our trade activities in EEZ .
We dont need to your IPI ,a good decision .Through Chabhar we can trade with entire west.
And you are not in a position to stop us from underwater pipeline project.
And Chinese are smart businessmen and will see things only through the eyes of profit and loss.
And if we determine to increase their losses they will backoff from all of their grant efforts.
We have diplomatic,military,economic might to do that.

 

[GURU DUTT]

Who ever said we will stop trade. Trade does not bother us, and as far as India creating trouble for Pakistani vessels, well enjoy trying to stop other countries ships because we hardly send anything to your side any more. And as it is our waters we can decide by law to see who can and who can not pass through.

Ah yes but after the refusal to provide troops things have changed, again hyped up media reports are not a good thing to read

actually most countries are neutral with more leaning towards Pakistan and China and Kashmir, read real reports, not the feel good guide to the country

1. pakistan has starategik location and shortest way to central asia but we know pakistan will never give us "rahdaari" so why waste money and time over it and thats new indian doctroine towards pakistan now and in future

2.india will /has trade &good relations with every nation in Mashrik e ghusta exept pakistan and if pakistan tries to play sabotage to owr new alternate routet o central asia/chabahar corridoar pakistan has much much more to loose than india and pakistan knows it

3.as for G&B pakistanies have "kabza" overitand as they say Kabza sachha jhagra jhoota so there is very little india can do about it but this time if pakistan tries what it did in 1948,1964&1999 it just might get "partitioned"again

 

[OrionHunter]

In his address at the New York-based think-tank Council on Foreign Relations, Mr Jaitley said: "I think the message in the context of Pakistan is that India is interested in improving the relationship with Pakistan and therefore the onus of the responsibility for creating an environment in which the relationship can grow would also depend much more on Pakistan and the kind of provocation that comes from there."

Does the PA really want to improve relations with India? No! Otherwise the PA would be out of business! They need a conflict situation to be relevant in society.

 

[GURU DUTT]

@Armstrong logic in comics
View attachment 230758

just like very recentlli your court aquitted the 10 men who were guilty of attacking malalla yusufzai ....

 

[tsinga]

For trade, other than sea route, India has no option as the only two other territories which could connect India with the western world is Pakistan and China and India doesn't have sufficient terms with them to make it happen. Even in the case of war or war-like scenarios, we can block your trade through Arabian Ocean.

For the last time, no. Even in a war, Pakistan cannot block Indian trade through Arabian sea.

For a variety of reasons:
1. Your navy is far too small
2. Your marine size is far too small
3. Indian navy is far too big
4. Even if Pakistani navy expanded to 3 times its current size, it would still not be able to stop Indian trade ships from the arabian sea because ships have to be boarded to acertain their destination and ledgers can be falsified and Indian sailors are found in practically every ship in that area regardless of whether the trade ship's destination is japan or US.
5. India imports only oil of any significant value from middle east and India is creating a 90 day strategic oil storage in India for war.


On the other hand, India does have the ability to blockade the entire Pakistani sea trade at will.
Since Pakistan has 3 ports in its entirety, the mere hint of an Indian naval action will ensure that all international shipping lines stop their route to Pakistan. A de-facto embargo without shooting a bullet.

I have mentioned this before, India is far too large economically and militarily for such timid actions to be possible against India.

 

[Sipahi]

Pakistan should support all the terrorist and separatist movements with in Indian Territory as they are doing the same, we perform best on offensive not defensive.

 

[Narendra Damodar Modi]

Pakistan should support all the terrorist and separatist movements with in Indian Territory as they are doing the same, we perform best on offensive not defensive.

Oh do not worry. You already are doing that. For decades I might say.

 

[Sipahi]

Oh do not worry. You already are doing that. For decades I might say.

We are not doing that since decades when we were doing you were on your toes

I repeat we should support every separatist in India

 

[graphican]

For the last time, no. Even in a war, Pakistan cannot block Indian trade through Arabian sea.

For a variety of reasons:
1. Your navy is far too small
2. Your marine size is far too small
3. Indian navy is far too big
4. Even if Pakistani navy expanded to 3 times its current size, it would still not be able to stop Indian trade ships from the arabian sea because ships have to be boarded to acertain their destination and ledgers can be falsified and Indian sailors are found in practically every ship in that area regardless of whether the trade ship's destination is japan or US.
5. India imports only oil of any significant value from middle east and India is creating a 90 day strategic oil storage in India for war.


On the other hand, India does have the ability to blockade the entire Pakistani sea trade at will.
Since Pakistan has 3 ports in its entirety, the mere hint of an Indian naval action will ensure that all international shipping lines stop their route to Pakistan. A de-facto embargo without shooting a bullet.

I have mentioned this before, India is far too large economically and militarily for such timid actions to be possible against India.

Aren't you really forcing me to accept what you are saying Really pushing as "for the last time" or else :p

Size of navy matters less when you have to pass through sea touching our coast for hundreds of miles. Even couple of JF-17s with anti-ship missiles would block India's trade route.

 

[tsinga]

Aren't you really forcing me to accept what you are saying Really pushing as "for the last time" or else :p

Size of navy matters less when you have to pass through sea touching our coast for hundreds of miles. Even couple of JF-17s with anti-ship missiles would block India's trade route.

Once again, no. They can't.

No trade route can be blocked because that trade route has thousands of ships going all over the world. To be able to block that trade route, Pakistani ships would have to board each ship individually to check where it is headed.
Lets assume Pakistani navy magically increases to 10 times its current size - and we are talking about surface ships here!

Even then it won't be halfway close to the strength required to ensure that India bound ships are stopped!
Even there it is easy to change the ledgers to show other destinations!

And most of those ships have Indians serving in some capacity in that region!

Lastly, on the other hand, consider this, India can within the first 24 hours of hostility bomb the 3 Pakistani ports - of which only 1 currently has major unloading infrastructure though the second one is getting it slowly- and declare Pakistan off limits for international shipping. That alone would ensure that 99% of all international shipping lines (the ones that carry majority of your trade) stop immediately and don't come close to Pakistan!

That ensures 2 things:
1.International Shipping lines themselves stop going to Pakistan
2. Pakistan's own merchant shipping lines who will defy the Indian blockade will not find a place to land bulk cargo! Because bulk cargo cannot be unloaded on beaches, they require major port infrastructure to be unloaded! And all three of Pakistan's ports come within Surface launched missile range of Indian mainland!

All this accomplished without a single Indian Navy ship getting involved!

Do you understand the difference now. It is to Pakistan's misfortune that your enemy has not just dozens of major ports across a coastline of thousands of kilometers but also a Navy and Airforce that makes India the singular nation in the entire Indian Ocean Region that does not depend on USN to ensure its Sea Lanes of Trade remain open.