Pakistan protests India glacier tourism plan

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Icecold,

You are absolutely right that the situation can only change if there is a war and one side wins.

I can only request you to see the terrain of Kashmir.

Ask any military man as to how long it takes to cross valleys, attack a pinnacle and capture it and then hold on it!

Unless one clears a ridge of many posts, it become difficult to hold that ridge.

Salients are dangerous for defence!

To my way of looking at it, neither India nor Pakistan can clear all the valleys and ridge lines completely and it will only be you bite a chunk here and I bite a chunk here and this will go on and on even after we have left this earth.

That is why I don't advocate war.

But if it comes, who can stop it?

 

[shaikh_spair]

Whatever maybe the contentions of aired here, Kashmir will remain in India and with India.

That is the ground reality and very little will change the situation.

60 years, four wars and no change!

That is the truism.

Gorba Chof of USSR used to think like that about USSR's states. humans nenver know what the future is going to be speically who are drunken of powers

 

[haviZsultan]

Icecold,

You are absolutely right that the situation can only change if there is a war and one side wins.

I can only request you to see the terrain of Kashmir.

Ask any military man as to how long it takes to cross valleys, attack a pinnacle and capture it and then hold on it!

Unless one clears a ridge of many posts, it become difficult to hold that ridge.

Salients are dangerous for defence!

To my way of looking at it, neither India nor Pakistan can clear all the valleys and ridge lines completely and it will only be you bite a chunk here and I bite a chunk here and this will go on and on even after we have left this earth.

That is why I don't advocate war.

But if it comes, who can stop it?

True, but the situation will change if the Kashmiris and minority groups in India are so discontent that they raise arms against you people! If the Kashmiris and minorities continue to be oppressed and find no other solution but to fight to ecape the misery and oppression then the situation can and will surely change! I've always said this and I still say this! If India will treat its own people as citizens and not subjegate them to the worst tortures and hold them against their will (e.g. Kashmir) then India has nothing to fear as Pakistan is a peaceful nation!!! India should give the Kashmiris freedom as is their basic right!

And It is India that has always been threatening us from the beggining!

On Tuesday reports quoted Indian Defence Minister George Fernandes as saying that in any nuclear exchange India would easily absorb a nuclear hit whereas Pakistan would "cease to exist."

India could "take a bomb or two or more... but when we respond there will be no Pakistan," the Press Trust of India quoted him as saying.

 

[bhangra12345]

On Tuesday reports quoted Indian Defence Minister George Fernandes as saying that in any nuclear exchange India would easily absorb a nuclear hit whereas Pakistan would "cease to exist."

India could "take a bomb or two or more... but when we respond there will be no Pakistan," the Press Trust of India quoted him as saying.

You probably dont understand the meaning of the bolded word? Is that threatening? IF you attack us with a nuke, we will use enough nukes to destroy you, is what he said. You only see the second part of that statement, but you seem to overlook the first part.

Show me even one statement from any minister of India/ Indian Government that we will use nukes on Pakistan without being first nuked?
We have NFU policy, understand what that means.

whereas this is direct from the head of Pakistan

In a December 30 speech Musharraf said that he had warned India that it "should not expect a conventional war" if Indian troops moved across the Line of Control that divides the disputed province Kashmir.

CNN.com - Pakistan, India trade nuclear war of words - Jan. 8, 2003

So even if India keeps the war conventional, Pakistan will not keep it conventional, i.e. will use nukes.

 

[shaikh_spair]

can any one give me the list of books on sia chan in any urdu and english

 

[haviZsultan]

You probably dont understand the meaning of the bolded word? Is that threatening? IF you attack us with a nuke, we will use enough nukes to destroy you, is what he said. You only see the second part of that statement, but you seem to overlook the first part.

Show me even one statement from any minister of India/ Indian Government that we will use nukes on Pakistan without being first nuked?
We have NFU policy, understand what that means.

whereas this is direct from the head of Pakistan
CNN.com - Pakistan, India trade nuclear war of words - Jan. 8, 2003

So even if India keeps the war conventional, Pakistan will not keep it conventional, i.e. will use nukes.

Excuse me? Did'nt you start threatening us? Don't be absurd!!! He said India should not expect a conventional war if you invaded Kashmir and you just picked out anything as its meaning! Did you do inky pinky ponky to decide what he might have meant?

He said in response to your comments about your right to have Kashmir the retired soldiers living there would be enough to fight for Kashmir! He was saying that the Pakistan army would not even have to act!

 

[haviZsultan]

Let me just post the article and everyone can decide!

Pakistan, India trade nuclear war of words

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- Pakistan has responded angrily to comments by India's defense minister on his country's nuclear weapons prowess, warning of an "unforgettable lesson" if India were to launch a nuclear attack.

Hitting back at the Indian claims, Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed told reporters Wednesday Pakistan had no wish for a conflict but warned "we know how to defend ourselves."

"India will be taught an unforgettable lesson if they ever launch a nuclear attack on Pakistan," he said.

"Our response will be a historic lesson for them if they used the nuclear option."

On Tuesday reports quoted Indian Defence Minister George Fernandes as saying that in any nuclear exchange India would easily absorb a nuclear hit whereas Pakistan would "cease to exist."

India could "take a bomb or two or more... but when we respond there will be no Pakistan," the Press Trust of India quoted him as saying.

His comments followed remarks by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf implying that he had been prepared for a nuclear showdown with India when tensions flared between the two South Asian rivals last year.

'No conventional war'
In a December 30 speech Musharraf said that he had warned India that it "should not expect a conventional war" if Indian troops moved across the Line of Control that divides the disputed province Kashmir.

"They [Pakistan] should not make such irresponsible statements," Fernandes said of the Pakistani leader's speech.

When we respond there will be no Pakistan
-- Indian Defence Minister George Fernandes

"They don't help them, don't help us, don't help the world," he added.

Musharraf had in the mean time clarified that he did not mean to imply that Pakistan was prepared for a nuclear confrontation

Rather he said he had meant that some 150,000 retired Pakistani military personnel living in Kashmir would have risen up to repel any Indian invasion.

But that explanation does not appear to have convinced India.

Responding to Fernandes' claims, Ahmed accused India of dangerously upping the rhetoric.

'Hostile statements'
"We want to live peacefully with India, but the problem is that they keep making irresponsible and hostile statements," he said.

"Pakistan is a reality and cannot be wiped out through nuclear weapons ... We know how to defend ourselves, and respond to the nefarious designs of the enemy," Ahmed warned.

Tensions between India and Pakistan flared up dramatically last year following a militant attack on India's national parliament on December 13, 2001.

India accused Pakistan of arming and supporting the militants involved in the parliament raid and several other attacks -- a charge repeatedly denied by Islamabad.

As tensions rose the two countries deployed around a million troops between them along their shared frontier.

The moves raised fears among the international community that even the slightest spark could result in a full-blown war that might then spiral into a nuclear conflict.

Although the two sides have since pulled back, New Delhi and Islamabad have continued to exchange barbed verbal attacks raising little hope for direct talks to resolve the simmering disputes between them.

Since achieving independence from Britain in 1947 India and Pakistan have fought three wars, including two over Kashmir.

The two sides both became declared nuclear powers in 1998 when they conducted a series of tit-for-tat nuclear tests.

 

[bhangra12345]

Let me just post the article and everyone can decide!

see the original by indian defence minister to check what India said and not the selection of parts which Pakistan responded to. The original interview and the context in which our minister said it.

Q&A / George Fernandes : India and Pakistan are not 'imprudent' on nuclear option - International Herald Tribune

[Q.] Both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons. Are you concerned that a conventional conflict with Pakistan could escalate into a nuclear exchange with devastating consequences for both sides?

[A.]I don't agree with the idea that India and Pakistan are so imprudent and excitable that they'll forget what nuclear weapons can do. India's nuclear doctrine says that it will never be the first to use a nuclear weapon and will never use one against a non-nuclear state. We look at our nuclear weapons purely as a deterrent.

Pakistan's President General Pervez Musharraf did say recently, in trying to raise the stakes, that he could use his nuclear weapons if India attacked. I made the point at the time that no man in his senses would ever mean this. I also said in response to his saber rattling that if he should finally take that kind of step, perhaps out of desperation, he should realize that India can survive a nuclear attack, but Pakistan cannot.

Basically our minister was calling mushy's bluff.

Read what he said in first person and realize its context and not a version in which the editorial team of the newspaper put its spin

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Agnostic, although you have made a good argument, but you disregarded a very important fact. From your reasoning, i think you mean that if Pakistan keeps growing economically at its current rate, there will be a stage when Pakistan will become a significant global player. At that time, Pakistan would be able to wield much greater influence in its quest for Kashmir than presently.

What you disregard it, that if India also keeps growing at the same rate that it is growing now, the relative economic gulf would become so enormous that infact Pakistan will have lesser bargaining power vs India than it has today. An example is, with a 9.5% GDP growth rate, India adds almost 70% of the entire Pakistani GDP EVERY YEAR to its economy. The gulf is widening, not narrowing !! Looking at GDP growth figures don't show the true picture, untill you also keep the scale and size in perspective. The end product of Indian and Pakistani economic expansion would be a much wider differential between the relative economic, political and military capability of the two nations than it is today.

As for negotiations, well, ummm, what can i say ? I might sound like evil incarnate whenever i utter this, but it is my belief that this world still abides by the law of power, it always will. Not that i agree with it, it shouldn't be so, but thats how it is. Id rather not fool myself. Siachen is Indian as long as its under Indian control. *** is Pakistani as long as its under Pakistani control. I don't think Pakistan deserves any part of Kashmir, but no matter how many times might i sucessfully convince you or anyone else, would it really make any difference ? After all all this bullshit about claims and counter claims is based on selective history, don't you agree ? I mean you say Kashmir should be with Pakistan because its muslim majority, but i will say that it was Hindu majority before and Hindus were forcibly thrown out from there. You will ask how ? And i will say that Islam didnt exist before the 7th century, and there were obviously people living in Kashmir even then Do you see the absurdity of these claims ? Its all based on at which point of time in history does one begin from. Thats why, Siachen is Indian because Indians control it, simple really.

Now if Pakistan can change this basic fact of life, it can stake its claims etc etc. But i HIGHLY doubt it.

I haven't ignored India's growth at all Blitz. The reality is that due to sheer difference in population size, Pakistan will never get close to India in economic size, but it can nonetheless continue growing and establishing relationships with the world and become a sizable economic and military power. Then the argument of "interests" works both ways - the world will have enough "interests" locked up in both India and Pakistan that neither side will be able to jockey any meaningful international pressure onto its side.

So what advantage does this stalemate have for Pakistan? That question is better answered with another one; What advantage is there for Pakistan to accede to the implicit Indian demands of accepting the LOC and currently held positions as the official border? (I personally don't buy the Economic benefits one - especially with ROZ's with the U.S and SEZ's with China coming on line, and the other reasons I have mentioned before)

Since accepting current Indian demands does not offer Pakistan anything, why not wait. Continue negotiating and dialog, encourage people to people contacts, and who knows, fifty years from now a new generation and a new government in India may decide that a jointly administered or Independent Kashmir is worth a better relationship with a vibrant economic and technological power next door. Then again, this is all "crystal ball gazing", the next gen. of Kahmiris may well decide that they want to remain with India, but then what has Pakistan lost? Nothing. The status quo will remain - but its worth a shot.

 

[Always Neutral]

I think India and Pakistan would not have bothered about Kashmir if there were no strategic equations involved. First water which India controls and second direct access to China for Pakistan.

India is cleverly building dams etc in the name of development which is partly true but can at a later stage be used to divert the water which is a precious commodity for both India and Pakistan. Status Quo benefits India for the moment.

Best Regards

 

[blitz]

I haven't ignored India's growth at all Blitz. The reality is that due to sheer difference in population size, Pakistan will never get close to India in economic size, but it can nonetheless continue growing and establishing relationships with the world and become a sizable economic and military power. Then the argument of "interests" works both ways - the world will have enough "interests" locked up in both India and Pakistan that neither side will be able to jockey any meaningful international pressure onto its side.

So what advantage does this stalemate have for Pakistan? That question is better answered with another one; What advantage is there for Pakistan to accede to the implicit Indian demands of accepting the LOC and currently held positions as the official border? (I personally don't buy the Economic benefits one - especially with ROZ's with the U.S and SEZ's with China coming on line, and the other reasons I have mentioned before)

Since accepting current Indian demands does not offer Pakistan anything, why not wait. Continue negotiating and dialog, encourage people to people contacts, and who knows, fifty years from now a new generation and a new government in India may decide that a jointly administered or Independent Kashmir is worth a better relationship with a vibrant economic and technological power next door. Then again, this is all "crystal ball gazing", the next gen. of Kahmiris may well decide that they want to remain with India, but then what has Pakistan lost? Nothing. The status quo will remain - but its worth a shot.

Oh don't you see ? By keeping the issue alive, Pakistan risks loosing PAK too, just as much as India risks loosing IAK in the future. Indian official maps still claim the entire Jammu and Kashmir as Indian territory. The water flows both ways.

 

[jin]

One can answer facts, but not fiction, that too of a fevered imagination!
Pakistan has never tried to wrest Kashmir. The wars were fought because Pakistan did not have a firing range? And of course, now you will say the wars are never started by Pakistan even though enough links have been bandied about in this forum proving to the contrary!
Keep giving support and in any form, if you will. The result will be the same.
These emotional grandstanding does not impress since it is usually done for bringing solace to a failed pursuits!
Thundering on forum does not change the facts on the ground nor it ever will.

.Its not reply if you hide facts of root causes of war. Beside i am sorry if you feel my posts thundering against your bullying posts.

Being secular and being under the poverty line are not the same thing. This is an example of flawed co-relation and facts.
It is amusing that you attribute the poor economy of Pakistan to corrupt politician and you display immense perceived insight when it come to India, wherein you equate secularism with poverty!
Do read the economic situation of Pakistan from the posts in "Will we Miss Musharraf" thread.
Are you aware of the conditions of the poor in the US? Does it mean that the US is a failed state?

Ok thanks to Musharaf if he uplifted the economy and no dispute if you dont balme religion.

If lavatory for you is the index of economic prowess, what can one say?! By your logic and indirect insinuation that Pakistan is doing well comparatively because of a surfeit of lavatories in Pakistan I take it that this is your index of wealth and an indicator that you are doing better? Normally, lavatories are used for natural call and in no way indicates a significance of wealth, unless what emanates is considered as wealth!

Yes India's econmic indicators going well but ignoring this one which should be criticised for the sake of our heavnly earth polluted by millions of her inhabitants.

I have no time to bash any religion since I do not believe in religion and its dogmas and the vice like grip the clergy has over people. I think it inhibits rational thinking, but then I also believe, each to his own way.

Its your problem if you sick of religions or dont have any respect for. But in last thanks, you let people to their way.

May I request you to desist in attributing your perceived inferences to me as my character faults? The fact that it remains paramount in your mind, it indicates your jaundiced state.

I did not ponder much over your character though seems bullying. But go ahead friend dont catch complex.

I wonder if Maliks, Chaudhuries, Bugtis, Nawabs Shaibs and the situation of the rural poor is indicative of social justice and distribution. There is a lot of difference in desires and facts! Sooner you understand that, it will be for the better.

Situation is improving and improved because of institional and non institutional education . I referred only those aspects of religion which dont let people to extent or to prevent them from committing suicide with the hope. That is Zakat which is distributed in billions among Muslims every year without advertizing or show up.

I am delighted to learn that Islam is not a religion of the poor. Indeed, do Indians run to Moslem countries to fill their stomach? And the Pakistanis who also are in huge numbers there are there because they wish to visit their mosques and religious head?
Please for Heavens sake, read what you write or else you do come out as having very convoluted ideas, which does not face the acid test. Though I will concede it does bring humour relief in the overheat generated in discussions!
Have you ever thought that these Indians (and Pakistanis, if you don't mind) go to these land because they have the skills which the natives don't have or are bone lazy and not ready to indulge in?

Indeed religoins are not being the cause of poverty as you testifying where Pakistanis and Indians go for to fill their vaccumes in those countries of religion. They are abundant in resources or they have acquired the resouces with their hardwork have better ground if they point others for their failures and claim their own success.

I am touched by your concern about India's expenditure and its aftermath.
Mobilisation taught many a thing and out of it came what is known as the Cold Start or so I learn from the media.

For that reason you did not need such useless mobilization, as we belive in peace and want resolve every issue through talk if the other party is sincere. But it was false ego you were unhurting it at the cost of billions.

Indeed you did.
Clinton praised India.
Would you be kind enough to equate Bush's visit and his rapping Pakistan on its knuckle for not shaping up?

Good, You got Shabash. good for you.

In your blind hatred, do not fall into the trap of having to eat your words.
If I had the same venom as you, I could have flooded facts and figures in every thread, but then I try to remain civil since many a Pakistani here are not consumed as you and some of your ilk are and it would not be fair to them.

Itsupto you if you want let yourself loose more.
Shabash to your civility and control over yourself with no threatning tone.

It does not in any way add to credibility that you live in tribal area or you belong to a tribe there.
The honesty of some of the people there is suspect. Musharraf, much against US advice, took a bold step and had a pact with the tribal folks there. And they stabbed him in the back! So much, for the requirement to give credibility if tribal see US aircraft or not. I presume none have been killed there either!

No wish of credit. It was symbolic that there is no treason in tribal area on the scale as you keen to see in media. We are unite and do our best to defend our country. By the way thanks on commenting our problem by using your stomach.

If you only understood about flying an aircraft.

My brothers know it very well.

That is not what I am alluding to.
It is the press conference wherein later Bush was taught how to play cricket!

Again repeated , be happy with Bush and Clinton.....sometime ''White Satan.''

You can't deny. Asal Uttar is full of such derelicts and which even foreigners have seen!
True, you paid hard cash!
Give us another!

whats this?

Rambling!
I am afraid I have not understood this geopolitical nugget!

Its upto you but i suggest try to understand.

 

[Shivakumar]

.... and who knows, fifty years from now a new generation and a new government in India may decide that a jointly administered or Independent Kashmir is worth a better relationship with a vibrant economic and technological power next door. Then again, this is all "crystal ball gazing", the next gen. of Kahmiris may well decide that they want to remain with India, but then what has Pakistan lost? Nothing. The status quo will remain - but its worth a shot.

How do you think that we will change our policy in future when Pakistan is not? What makes you confident that we won't adopt a tough policy in the future?

Your post shows your obsession with Kashmir. You people always want a decision in favour of you. You always want us to give up Kashmir. Why should we give up? We have the resource to hold it.

You tried all possible ways. You used wars, militancy and even asked us to give up Kashmir as a goodwill gesture.

I don't believe that next generation Indians will give up Kashmir just to please Pakistanis.

 

[Spring Onion]

How do you think that we will change our policy in future when Pakistan is not? What makes you confident that we won't adopt a tough policy in the future?

because policies are changed according to circumstances and becasue continuing Pakkistan phobia by India wont help her get anything positive.
and because due to Indian recent edventur to add to her powers globally by siding with US, she had to coupe with coming challanges as a result of formation of possible new blocks arround the world.

Your post shows your obsession with Kashmir. You people always want a decision in favour of you. You always want us to give up Kashmir. Why should we give up? We have the resource to hold it.

Your own founding fathers had carried the issue of Kashmir to United Nations and your own forunding fathers Promised to give independence to Kashmiri people according to their wishes.
Its another matter that India is still continued with oppressing poor Kashmiris in Indian Held Kashmir.

So there is no question of obssesion with Kashmir Issue rather its matter to giving Kashmiris their rights.
And indeed as you said you have the resources to keep millions of Indian soldiers in Held Kashmir to keep doing State Terrorism in IHK.

You tried all possible ways. You used wars, militancy and even asked us to give up Kashmir as a goodwill gesture..

Kashmir was never part of India hence no question of giving it as good will gesture rather Pakistan wants solution to this issue according to Kashmiri people. And for that we had even offered to accept an Independent Kashmir

I don't believe that next generation Indians will give up Kashmir just to please Pakistanis.

We dont need you to please us neither you have the guts to accept your mistakes.
And next generation Indians would have too many social problems if people like you continue with such policies of oppressing, so they wont have time to ponder over Kashmir much.

 

[Shivakumar]

So there is no question of obssesion with Kashmir Issue rather its matter to giving Kashmiris their rights.

.....
.....

And for that we had even offered to accept an Independent Kashmir

Who the hell give you the authority to speak on behalf of Kashmir? If India is oppressing Kashmiris, then UN should do the business and not you. Get out of P-o-K, stop supporting them and UN will do the business.

And indeed as you said you have the resources to keep millions of Indian soldiers in Held Kashmir to keep doing State Terrorism in IHK.

If there is state terrorism, then it UN's responsibilty, not yours.

Kashmir was never part of India hence no question of giving it as good will gesture rather Pakistan wants solution to this issue according to Kashmiri people.

Legally Kashmir is part of India. Go and check the facts.