Pak nixed US idea of non-aggression pact with India

[sanibhagwan]

Its not US idea US doing this on the behalf of indian government, indians thought after such peace pact they can walk freely in Afghanistan.

Its not US idea US doing this on the behalf of indian government

Great discovery. Deserves the nobel prize. Somewhere in the forum a senior poster (Jana) said it was originally a pakistani idea. Now it became a U.S idea. On second thoughts discovered its an India idea.

indians thought after such peace pact they can walk freely in Afghanistan

This pact is mutual between two disputed neighbors, why does Afghanistan figure in this discussion. Afghanistan is what your 6th province.

No, Indians are skeptical walking in Afghanistan/ Pakistan due to recurring bomb blasts, suicide attacks.

This is precisely why a non-aggression pact with India will help you focus on extremists and free your country men from the clutches of extremism.

 

[somebozo]

This is precisely why a non-aggression pact with India will help you focus on extremists and free your country men from the clutches of extremism.

Not when the extremism and suicide blast is done by the agents of same country offering non-aggression pact. India cannot be trusted politically. They will talk something and walk something. And their most desired act would be to dupe Pakistan into a feeling of peace and friendship while attacking from behind. Remember "moo me ram ram bagal me churi"

 

[sanibhagwan]

Not when the extremism and suicide blast is done by the agents of same country offering non-aggression pact. India cannot be trusted politically. They will talk something and walk something. And their most desired act would be to dupe Pakistan into a feeling of peace and friendship while attacking from behind. Remember "moo me ram ram bagal me churi"

Not when the extremism and suicide blast is done by the agents of same country offering non-aggression pact

If you think so, lets include that as a part of non-aggression pact. Lets address each others concerns of extremism and suicide blast in the pact.

Outright rejection of the pact is escapism buddy

 

[MJaa]

Hesitant Rapprochement, Wary Diplomacy in South Asia



The fifth anniversary of the tests thus arrived at a time of comparatively high hopes for a serious improvement in relations. India, however, was quick to dispel any expectation that denuclearisation formed part of its agenda. On May 8, as US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage began a visit to the region, Vajpayee rejected the latest offer from Pakistan - made repeatedly since 1998, and most recently by the country's President, General Pervez Musharraf, in early May (see last issue) - for a nuclear-weapons-free relationship. Presumably referring to China's nuclear arsenal, the Indian Prime Minister commented: "We don't accept Pakistan's proposal... Pakistan's nuclear programme is India-specific, but we are concerned about other states as well." Vajpayee added, omitting to mention India's massive conventional military superiority: "Our nuclear doctrine is no-first-use, while Pakistan has no such provision - but they call for a no-war pact..."

 

[MJaa]

What USA wants from Pakistan is to move forces from the Indian border unilaterally without taking into account the massive arms purchases by the Indians which has never accepted Pakistan's nuclear-weapons-free zone and no-war pact.

 

[Dalai Lama]

Mmmm... Signing a no-aggression pact would hold little value in the minds of both parties. Nevertheless it would be a step in the right direction. GoP's reason for not signing it is based on pure suspicion. GoP needs hard evidence against India's alleged activities in Afghanistan before making decisions based on what they suspect.

 

[Malik Usman]

The non-aggression pact already exists in different nomenclature (via the erstwhile Shimla Agreement).



Pakistan tends to violate bilateral agreement. Officially once (Kargil) and unofficially (Terrorist attacks) several times. This is precisely why our government is pessimistic about talks with pakistan.

You need to get admission again in School to read the history.

First time India attacked on Pakistan in 1948 right after one year to eliminate the existence of Pakistan but she failed.

Second time India again attacked on Pakistan in 1965.

Third time India again attacked Pakistan and Bangladesh become new country due to Indian involvement in that part (In the form of Mukti Bahni) and Pakistan lost its one arm.

Then again due to Indian brutality in Kashmir peoples of Kashmir raised weapons in 1980 and Kargil war is aftermath of that brtality.

Still India is doing bad things in Pakistan's province Balochistan (Even recetly disclosed by Wikileaks).

India is trying to play games in Afghanistan having more than 100 Councilor Sections to operate terrorist camps in Afghan and Pakistan.

 

[mehboobkz]

Its not worth it, should you know of Simla Agreement, which is trashed by Pakistan;

QUOTE:

The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan are resolved that the two countries put an end to the conflict and confrontation that have hitherto marred their relations and work for the promotion of a friendly and harmonious relationship and the establishment of durable peace in the subcontinent so that both countries may henceforth devote their resources and energies to the pressing task of advancing the welfare of their people

 

[mehboobkz]

First time India attacked on Pakistan in 1948 right after one year to eliminate the existence of Pakistan but she failed.

From WIKI:
The princely state forces were unprepared for the initial assault of the Pakistani forces.

Second time India again attacked on Pakistan in 1965.

From WIKI:

The war began following Pakistan's Operation Gibraltar, which was designed to infiltrate forces into Jammu and Kashmir to precipitate an insurgency against rule by India

Third time India again attacked Pakistan and Bangladesh become new country due to Indian involvement in that part (In the form of Mukti Bahni) and Pakistan lost its one arm.

From WIKI:

Indian, Bangladeshi and international sources consider the beginning of the war to be Operation Chengiz Khan, Pakistan's December 3, 1971 pre-emptive strike on 11 Indian airbases.

Then again due to Indian brutality in Kashmir peoples of Kashmir raised weapons in 1980 and Kargil war is aftermath of that brtality.

From WIKI:


The cause of the war was the infiltration of Pakistani soldiers and Kashmiri militants into positions on the Indian side of the LOC, which serves as the de facto border between the two states. During the initial stages of the war, Pakistan blamed the fighting entirely on independent Kashmiri insurgents, but documents left behind by casualties and later statements by Pakistan's Prime Minister and Chief of Army Staff showed involvement of Pakistani paramilitary forces, led by General Ashraf Rashid.

 

[sanibhagwan]

^^^ I was about to give the same reply. Thanks mehboobkz.

@ Malik Usman

"You need to get admission again in School to read the history"

Not in pakistani schools please. Taliban would blow it up anytime...

 

[rubyjackass]

Hesitant Rapprochement, Wary Diplomacy in South Asia



The fifth anniversary of the tests thus arrived at a time of comparatively high hopes for a serious improvement in relations. India, however, was quick to dispel any expectation that denuclearisation formed part of its agenda. On May 8, as US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage began a visit to the region, Vajpayee rejected the latest offer from Pakistan - made repeatedly since 1998, and most recently by the country's President, General Pervez Musharraf, in early May (see last issue) - for a nuclear-weapons-free relationship. Presumably referring to China's nuclear arsenal, the Indian Prime Minister commented: "We don't accept Pakistan's proposal... Pakistan's nuclear programme is India-specific, but we are concerned about other states as well." Vajpayee added, omitting to mention India's massive conventional military superiority: "Our nuclear doctrine is no-first-use, while Pakistan has no such provision - but they call for a no-war pact..."

This article was from 2003. Barely one year prior to this, both countries were on the brink of war after an attack on Indian parliament. Do you expect Indian public to support the no-war pact then?
Also read the full article. Vajpayee says the pact is a 'down the path' possibility.

 

[GUNS-N- ROSES]

Not when the extremism and suicide blast is done by the agents of same country offering non-aggression pact. India cannot be trusted politically. They will talk something and walk something. And their most desired act would be to dupe Pakistan into a feeling of peace and friendship while attacking from behind. Remember "moo me ram ram bagal me churi"

then can u explain wat happened in kargil? our prime minister takes a bus route to lahore to improve ties and u people stab us in the the back.

 

[rubyjackass]

1998:
NEW DELHI, May 29: Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee today said that India would be prepared to consider a no-war pact with Pakistan if the latter made a new offer. "Normally, Pakistan's offer for a no-war pact has been predicated on a solution to the Kashmir issue. But if a fresh offer is made, we are ready to probe it," he said.