‘Pak army wants dialogue with India but with all options open’

[ares]

And i have already acknowledged this fact that India has the upper hand and therefore feels no need to engage however also note the fact that it was the Indian army that proposed such an idea in the 1st place, heck even your government officials have echoed these ideas to engage Pakistan army in a dialogue. @nair has summed it up pretty good that ultimately its the government who has to handle hard liners on both sides. And no its not the plan B for us as long as there is dialogue however would you not agree here with me that one cannot engage in meaningful dialogue from a position of weakness and when you yourself say that India has no compunctions in engaging in a dialogue with Pakistan and i agree because India has the upper hand, seeing it from our perspective we want to engage India in dialogue and a meaningful dialogue and not just for the sake of it however ultimately the ball is In India's court since India is the strong party here how it wants to respond.

Pakistan has a clear shift in its policies, now it remains to be seen how far has India's policies changed, seeing from the recent statements of the next man coming to power, i am however very skeptical if anything at all has changed when it comes to Pakistan.

@nair how do you see your new government of Modi w.r.t Pakistan, how will they control any hardliner when they are themselves when it comes to Pakistan

Problem is, your perceived position of strength isn't position of strength at all, but a nuisance to any ongoing dialogue.

Just look at our history, every time we engage in any meaningful dialogue, you resort to sub conventional warfare to attain an 'imagined position of strength'

In 1999 we took huge step , our PM traveled to your country via bus to make peace, you resort with Kargil.

Next we invited your dictator/president to out country to hold dialogue ..our parliament gets attacked.

Next we reach basic understanding on the four point plan to sort out Kashmir and then all talk break down as Pakistani terrorist attack Mumbai.

Now take example of India and China, China is many times stronger than us in almost all aspects, but we have never let this fact deter us into thinking that we are on weaker grounds, or let them bully us into resolution, or resorted to supporting an insurgency/terror in China to 'even out the odds'...however we have had a continuous, uninterrupted talks with them for many years.

As they say 'fool me once.. shame on you, fool me twice ..shame on me'. We have been fooled one too many times.
You want to prove you are serious about these talks.. You have to take the extra step.

You have to abandon your old ways and not just put them on hold.

 

[Zarrar Alvi]

Talks and more talks.
Haven't we been talking to them since 1947and then sharing sweets on festivals??
And then a day later on the border there is a KABOOM!!

Kashmir issue can not be solved with just talks...IMO.

dont tell me 1971 was done by somalia?? ur comment reflect ur ignorance that u are always the agressors not Pakistan... kargil was done to take revenge of Siachen .. and we armed kashmiri mujahideen because in 1971 u armed mukti banis ...... so plz dont act as innocent creatures we know what u people are made of and what ur Chanakya taught you .... mu pa RAM RAM bagal me CHURI

 

[nair]

I get the point you are trying to make But there is a giant IF involved as the first call from within the government hard liners would be to teach Pakistan a lesson. I don't see how that can be a good sign for talks. Going by the recent remarks from Modi, he seems to be pretty keen on doing just that.

We cannot forget the fact that the best time in our relationship was during Vajpayee's time (during his time he had Advani who was considered to be a hardliner)..... The foreign policies doesn't change majorly in india with the change of government.... Normally government follow the path of previous government..... I dont see a shift in policy and chances are that there would be a meaningful talks during this regime....

 

[SarthakGanguly]

dont tell me 1971 was done by somalia?? ur comment reflect ur ignorance that u are always the agressors not Pakistan... kargil was done to take revenge of Siachen .. and we armed kashmiri mujahideen because in 1971 u armed mukti banis ...... so plz dont act as innocent creatures we know what u people are made of and what ur Chanakya taught you .... mu pa RAM RAM bagal me CHURI

"we know what u people are made of and what ur Chanakya taught you .... mu pa RAM RAM bagal me CHURI " - Good that you know it. If that is the prevailing position, I wonder why your Government wants or even expects talks in the first place.

 

[INDIC]

dont tell me 1971 was done by somalia??

Before 1971, Pakistan was arming militants in North-East India from East Pakistan.

 

[Zarrar Alvi]

Before 1971, Pakistan was arming militants in North-East India from East Pakistan.

name the militant organization plz it will add to my knowledge thanks

 

[INDIC]

name the militant organization plz it will add to my knowledge thanks

Pakistan was doing it on behalf of the Chinese to train and arm different militant groups like Naga and Mizos from North-East India in East Pakistan. So, loss of the East Pakistan was the price you paid for all those badmashi. Infact, Pakistan also supported Rohingyas Mujahid separatists in Arakan in Burma in 1950s, at that Rohingyas were considered Burmese nationals.

 

[Bang Galore]

I get the point you are trying to make But there is a giant IF involved as the first call from within the government hard liners would be to teach Pakistan a lesson. I don't see how that can be a good sign for talks. Going by the recent remarks from Modi, he seems to be pretty keen on doing just that.

Lesson for what? Modi won't bother with Pakistan unless there is a fresh terrorist attack - a big one. Pakistan would otherwise be low on his priorities, he would have been (if he is) elected to handle the economy, not to get into a fight with Pakistan. However as you pointed out, what exactly does Pakistan hope to get with "talks"...?(India being comfortably placed etc...) I have asked this question repeatedly (of Kashmir, of Siachen) what Pakistanis here think would be a feasible outcome (India too must be interested) and all such a question does is to cause the Pakistani members here to simply run away from that discussion.

 

[Zarrar Alvi]

Pakistan was doing it on behalf of the Chinese to train and arm different militant groups like Naga and Mizos from North-East India in East Pakistan. So, loss of the East Pakistan was the price you paid for all those badmashi. Infact, Pakistan also supported Rohingyas Mujahid separatists in Arakan in Burma in 1950s, at that Rohingyas were considered Burmese nationals.

after three years of our independence we started supporting rohingyas?? if that was the case then i think now we are in a much better position to support them and maynamar cant do a shit... so i mean its a lie we didint support any separatists movement in Burma...

 

[INDIC]

after three years of our independence we started supporting rohingyas?? if that was the case then i think now we are in a much better position to support them and maynamar cant do a shit... so i mean its a lie we didint support any separatists movement in Burma...

It seems you aren't aware of it, that's why denying, you can use google to look for Mujahid insurgency in Arakan of Burma 1948-54 which was supported from East Pakistan.

 

[IceCold]

Problem is, your perceived position of strength isn't position of strength at all, but a nuisance to any ongoing dialogue.

Just look at our history, every time we engage in any meaningful dialogue, you resort to sub conventional warfare to attain an 'imagined position of strength'

In 1999 we took huge step , our PM traveled to your country via bus to make peace, you resort with Kargil.

Next we invited your dictator/president to out country to hold dialogue ..our parliament gets attacked.

Next we reach basic understanding on the four point plan to sort out Kashmir and then all talk break down as Pakistani terrorist attack Mumbai.

Now take example of India and China, China is many times stronger than us in almost all aspects, but we have never let this fact deter us into thinking that we are on weaker grounds, or let them bully us into resolution, or resorted to supporting an insurgency/terror in China to 'even out the odds'...however we have had a continuous, uninterrupted talks with them for many years.

As they say 'fool me once.. shame on you, fool me twice ..shame on me'. We have been fooled one too many times.
You want to prove you are serious about these talks.. You have to take the extra step.

You have to abandon your old ways and not just put them on hold.

You know ares i am not here to accuse anybody but if you want to accuse us of terrorism, than we have our very own list of same, sponsored by India. 71 was a prime example of that but lets not go there. My point is that before PA was always accused of sabotaging peace initiatives, now they want to be part of it, i don't see where the problem is. Damn if you do damn if you dont is what i am getting the impression from your post.
Pakistanis are not interested in any form of warfare against India and the huge shift in our vision of threats is a testimonial to that but again it is India who needs to come clear on its stance on Kashmir. You cannot say you want to resolve all issues and than in the same breath call Kashmir your atoot Ang and accuse Pakistan of initiating sub conventional warfare against India.

 

[IceCold]

Lesson for what? Modi won't bother with Pakistan unless there is a fresh terrorist attack - a big one. Pakistan would otherwise be low on his priorities, he would have been (if he is) elected to handle the economy, not to get into a fight with Pakistan.

Lesson for everything we are blamed for. The recent statements from Modi suggests contrary to what you state above as obviously Pakistan seems to be high on his agenda even before coming to power.

However as you pointed out, what exactly does Pakistan hope to get with "talks"...?(India being comfortably placed etc...) I have asked this question repeatedly (of Kashmir, of Siachen) what Pakistanis here think would be a feasible outcome (India too must be interested) and all such a question does is to cause the Pakistani members here to simply run away from that discussion.

The answer to what exactly would be a feasible outcome for India to be interested when its already in a comfortable position, i would say the position is of upper hand as it controls the area but far from comfortable. Moreover this depends upon India's priorities and where it stands and how would it like the region to be, Prosperous or under the fear of a possible war?

Kashmir does not belong to India, if India accepts that, than many feasible outcomes can be possible including making the region autonomous, removing forces,making it a visa free zone etc. There are economic benefits and than there are other benefits most importantly human lives. On the contrary maintaining a continuous foot hold of army which involves huge cost, human lives that is beyond any other thing and i am not mentioning the lives of Kashmiris but the lives of Indian army men among other factors including a possibility of war that may go nuclear. At the end of the day,none other but only India can chose a feasible outcome for herself as it currently has what you call a comfortable position to make that call.

 

[madooxno9]

low quality...ok if you say so.

It was good post dude You rightly identified the purpose of this fake talks

There can never be peace coz it's not in the interest of Pakistan's FAUJ . If there will be peace then FAUJ and ISI's monopoly will decline.

 

[Levina]

dont tell me 1971 was done by somalia?? ur comment reflect ur ignorance that u are always the agressors not Pakistan... kargil was done to take revenge of Siachen .. and we armed kashmiri mujahideen because in 1971 u armed mukti banis ...... so plz dont act as innocent creatures we know what u people are made of and what ur Chanakya taught you .... mu pa RAM RAM bagal me CHURI

Hmmm then the sins began from your side when you sent in armed poshtun to kashmir in 1947.Major General Akbar Khan (in his book) and Sir Zafarullah Khan admitted (to the UNCIP) admitted this fact.
And India always took the defensive stance.
So its "bagal me churi and mu pe katar"

 

[Bang Galore]

Lesson for everything we are blamed for. The recent statements from Modi suggests contrary to what you state above as obviously Pakistan seems to be high on his agenda even before coming to power.

I disagree. There have been no more than a couple of mentions about Pakistan in what has been the most grueling campaign anyone has undertaken. Hardly a priority.

The answer to what exactly would be a feasible outcome for India to be interested when its already in a comfortable position, i would say the position is of upper hand as it controls the area but far from comfortable. Moreover this depends upon India's priorities and where it stands and how would it like the region to be, Prosperous or under the fear of a possible war?

Kashmir does not belong to India, if India accepts that, than many feasible outcomes can be possible including making the region autonomous, removing forces,making it a visa free zone etc. There are economic benefits and than there are other benefits most importantly human lives. On the contrary maintaining a continuous foot hold of army which involves huge cost, human lives that is beyond any other thing and i am not mentioning the lives of Kashmiris but the lives of Indian army men among other factors including a possibility of war that may go nuclear. At the end of the day,none other but only India can chose a feasible outcome for herself as it currently has what you call a comfortable position to make that call.

That is why I said a solution that India is interested in. What you have stated is the standard Pakistani wishlist, not something that India would much care for. Fear of possible wars, economic benefits are not really things that India alone should be concerned with. Cost is another non-issue, the army will have to still be deployed somewhere. Peace won't mean disarmament. Nothing I have seen suggests any logical reasoning for a change in the Indian position. As usual Siachen doesn't get touched even. The point here is for those Pakistanis who keep suggesting that talks are necessary to offer up any theoretical position that could even remotely interest the party that has the "upper hand". Wishes & dreams are not about to cut it.