Pakistan's U-turn on talks with India, says PM Modi's letter doesn't mention offer for dialogue

[Dark-Destroyer]

Modi is not In mood to have dialogue

of course not after drinking tea from his arse gass i would be surprised if he would be in the mood for talks

 

[Sully3]

For Indians on PDF, that's a matter of pride.

i thought for indian men it was the amount of women and children they have raped which is a matter of pride.

 

[randomradio]

And i'm sure they are thrilled when dressed in pink saree and no shame in the desperation of getting back.

There is no reason to feel shame when one does nothing wrong.

 

[Finer]

If the choice is between A, B, C and D, then India will take E. The option that doesn't exist indicates how delusional India can be sometimes. Plus, too many lies in order to cover the first lie can bite you at the end. Not the worth hassle with the delusional India that just joined to be the most rapist nation in the worlds where the women are already fast becoming endangered being in many ways, including female infanticide, as we speak.

 

[randomradio]

if we are to assume it is true, then don't you think it would make sense for india, if they truly want peace and stability, to engage in dialogue despite terrorist attacks?

No, there is no sense in engaging with Pakistan until terrorism stops.

i've seen it argued in indian media that the pakistani army sponsors these terrorist attacks just when the two nations are reaching the point for dialogue in order to prevent peace so they stay in power in pakistan.

That's why it's a waste of time. The reason is the duplicity of the Pakistani establishment rather than anything else.

if this were true then india could get around this by just continuing dialogue with pakistani politicians and even army folk.

Can't when the talks are just an eyewash in the first place.

Pakistan wants talks to continue so they point out that they are working for peace, and they get money and investment in return from Western countries, but at the same time bullets fly when an agreement is nearing.

So Pak Army allows peace talks, which take a while, then they stop peace talks through terror attacks. We have come quite close to war multiple times because of this Pakistani duplicity, at least 2 times in 2002 itself. And also fought a limited one in 1999.

then the pakistani army would lose it's current influence in pakistani social and foreign affairs because the whole reason it has it is because of the perceived threat from our neighbours, mainly india.

There is no chance of that happening. There was a sliver of hope with Nawaz Sharif. He was the only one in Pakistan's entire history who came the closest to bringing military influence down and then he was kicked out. So we expect no change from the civilian leadership for another 20 years.

Right now, our main focus (the military's in fact) is building up a significant conventional superiority over Pakistan. So the next time we come to the table, we will either have successful talks or war. We haven't seen a war yet because the military has not yet completely convinced the political establishment with respect to the cost to benefit of going to war. Meaning, the civilian leadership in India is not yet willing to accept significant losses over a war with Pakistan at this time, while there are still various other alternative options that are available, for example, global economic sanctions on Pakistan.

So while the civilians work towards forcing Pakistan's hand through political and economic means, the military is working towards lowering the cost over benefit of a war with Pakistan. After trying out everything possible, if it turns out the military solution is the quickest way to achieve our objective, then military solution will become more acceptable to India's civilian leadership.

That's why you have even the new Imran Khan leadership now threatening nuclear war on India. This is meant to keep reminding the civilian leadership in India the cost of going to war with Pakistan.

The Pakistani civilian leadership is entirely useless. Just having talks with them, even if successful, without the Pak Army also taking part is pointless. So talks are futile until terrorism stops. Pak Army can come on the table only if terrorism stops.

i dont have any sources right now about india bringing in third parties so i'll leave that.

No such source exists. A third party is exactly the opposite of Indian interests.

What you are referring to and are confused about is using a third party mediator for the Indus Water Treaty. But that's only specific to the water treaty and nothing else.

terrorism has to stop for sure, but general bajwa has made it clear that he is pro-peace and anti terror.

And you believe that?

You can only believe the Pak Army's words of peace when terrorism actually stops.

however, india must concede that cross-border skirmishes will continue to occur and lives on both sides will be lost before any dialogue is finished.

Border skirmishes are different. They are happening because Pakistan is pushing infiltrators into India. If terrorism stops, so will the border skirmishes.

India and China have a border dispute also, you don't see us shooting each other.

 

[SabzShaheen]

No, there is no sense in engaging with Pakistan until terrorism stops.

then there will be no peace. terrorism in this day and age is very subjective due to politics, especially with regard to kashmir. one man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

That's why it's a waste of time. The reason is the duplicity of the Pakistani establishment rather than anything else.

by establishment, do you mean the army or the civilian government? you can't refer to them in the same instance.

Can't when the talks are just an eyewash in the first place.

they are an eyewash when even one of the parties is not sincerely commited to making the talks fruitful.

Pakistan wants talks to continue so they point out that they are working for peace, and they get money and investment in return from Western countries, but at the same time bullets fly when an agreement is nearing.

western investment is more limited by pakistan's refusal to bow down to america's political objectives in afghanistan. india's role in this is limited.

So Pak Army allows peace talks, which take a while, then they stop peace talks through terror attacks. We have come quite close to war multiple times because of this Pakistani duplicity, at least 2 times in 2002 itself. And also fought a limited one in 1999.

this is what i was talking about. if we are to assume that this indian belief is true, then it only be logical to continue peace talks despite these attempts to derail the peace process if india was truly commited to peace. once at least an agreement is reached, pakistan (be it the military or the civilian establishment) would have no excuse to "sponsor" any terror attacks. i'm not claiming it would be justified for pakistan to sponsor terror attacks due to the lack of any agreement, however.

There is no chance of that happening. There was a sliver of hope with Nawaz Sharif. He was the only one in Pakistan's entire history who came the closest to bringing military influence down and then he was kicked out. So we expect no change from the civilian leadership for another 20 years.

yeah no thanks. thankfully we've gotten rid of that traitor who has looted our country and i hope he rots in jail and hell along with all the others who looted pakistan. i'm not a fan of musharraf either, his dictatorship was supported by the US because they needed a strongman to control pakistan so it would help them in afghanistan. india is not the only issue when it comes to the army's justification for its influence in pakistan.

Right now, our main focus (the military's in fact) is building up a significant conventional superiority over Pakistan. So the next time we come to the table, we will either have successful talks or war. We haven't seen a war yet because the military has not yet completely convinced the political establishment with respect to the cost to benefit of going to war. Meaning, the civilian leadership in India is not yet willing to accept significant losses over a war with Pakistan at this time, while there are still various other alternative options that are available, for example, global economic sanctions on Pakistan.

So while the civilians work towards forcing Pakistan's hand through political and economic means, the military is working towards lowering the cost over benefit of a war with Pakistan. After trying out everything possible, if it turns out the military solution is the quickest way to achieve our objective, then military solution will become more acceptable to India's civilian leadership.

That's why you have even the new Imran Khan leadership now threatening nuclear war on India. This is meant to keep reminding the civilian leadership in India the cost of going to war with Pakistan.

i am very well aware of this and have been for a long time now. it fits right into my argument about the influence the pakistan army enjoys in pakistan. it is because of this indian behaviour of engaging in an arms race with pakistan (and china) that the pakistan army can portray itself as such a righteous defender of the homeland of 200+ million people. this is one of the reasons why india does not want to involve a third party and wants to isolate pakistan so that it can engage in a war with pakistan (if the benefits outway the costs like you said) without many consequences. but now, pakistan has involved china in kashmir with CPEC so unlike in the past where they have been reluctant to provide support to pakistan or get involved, china will have to get involved to protect its interests if india tries to start a war. i don't think that india will be in the position to fight a two front war for quite some time into the future, especially if CPEC works out for pakistan.

The Pakistani civilian leadership is entirely useless. Just having talks with them, even if successful, without the Pak Army also taking part is pointless. So talks are futile until terrorism stops. Pak Army can come on the table only if terrorism stops.

even if we are to assume this deluded idea is true, who said india has to engage with the civilian government? if they believe the power lies with the army, they can easily engage with pakistani army officials. pakistan is willing to initiate dialogue despite indian sponsored terrorism in balochistan and kpk.

No such source exists. A third party is exactly the opposite of Indian interests.

we'll see in the future and yes, it is very much against indian interests as it knows any third party involvement would expose its human rights abuses in kashmir among other things and india would ultimately lose out.

What you are referring to and are confused about is using a third party mediator for the Indus Water Treaty. But that's only specific to the water treaty and nothing else.

yes i was getting a bit confused with that

And you believe that?

You can only believe the Pak Army's words of peace when terrorism actually stops.

fair enough. hopefully with new civilian leadership, there will be peace.

Border skirmishes are different. They are happening because Pakistan is pushing infiltrators into India. If terrorism stops, so will the border skirmishes.

by skirmishes i meant ceasefire violation but both sides infiltrate across the border.

India and China have a border dispute also, you don't see us shooting each other.

i have a lot to say about this point but i'll just say that i'm sure you're aware that the differences in the two situations far outweight the similarities so you can't really compare this to pakistan vs india situation

 

[randomradio]

then there will be no peace. terrorism in this day and age is very subjective due to politics, especially with regard to kashmir. one man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

Not when that freedom fighter is being funded by a different country. Then you are breaching our sovereignty.

by establishment, do you mean the army or the civilian government? you can't refer to them in the same instance.

The entire leadership, both civilian and military.

they are an eyewash when even one of the parties is not sincerely commited to making the talks fruitful.

Exactly. We started a bus service to Lahore, you returned the favour with Kargil

western investment is more limited by pakistan's refusal to bow down to america's political objectives in afghanistan. india's role in this is limited.

Actually it is. What you are talking about is just stuff that's recent.

this is what i was talking about. if we are to assume that this indian belief is true, then it only be logical to continue peace talks despite these attempts to derail the peace process if india was truly commited to peace. once at least an agreement is reached, pakistan (be it the military or the civilian establishment) would have no excuse to "sponsor" any terror attacks. i'm not claiming it would be justified for pakistan to sponsor terror attacks due to the lack of any agreement, however.

What I'm saying is India is 100% committed to peace talks. Our demand isn't impossible to achieve, just stop terrorism. It's the Pak Army that has no incentive to have peace.

i am very well aware of this and have been for a long time now. it fits right into my argument about the influence the pakistan army enjoys in pakistan. it is because of this indian behaviour of engaging in an arms race with pakistan (and china) that the pakistan army can portray itself as such a righteous defender of the homeland of 200+ million people. this is one of the reasons why india does not want to involve a third party and wants to isolate pakistan so that it can engage in a war with pakistan (if the benefits outway the costs like you said) without many consequences. but now, pakistan has involved china in kashmir with CPEC so unlike in the past where they have been reluctant to provide support to pakistan or get involved, china will have to get involved to protect its interests if india tries to start a war. i don't think that india will be in the position to fight a two front war for quite some time into the future, especially if CPEC works out for pakistan.

China won't do anything.

even if we are to assume this deluded idea is true, who said india has to engage with the civilian government? if they believe the power lies with the army, they can easily engage with pakistani army officials. pakistan is willing to initiate dialogue despite indian sponsored terrorism in balochistan and kpk.

Indian-sponsored terrorism is a myth. We are not arming or training anybody. Never mind the fact that they don't need either.

we'll see in the future and yes, it is very much against indian interests as it knows any third party involvement would expose its human rights abuses in kashmir among other things and india would ultimately lose out.

The third party has nothing to do with human rights.

by skirmishes i meant ceasefire violation but both sides infiltrate across the border.

I am talking about the same. You infiltrate, it's obvious we will fire.

i have a lot to say about this point but i'll just say that i'm sure you're aware that the differences in the two situations far outweight the similarities so you can't really compare this to pakistan vs india situation

The India-China situation is the same today as India-Pakistan situation was before 1989.

 

[Soumitra]

even if this were true, is it something news worthy or something to be proud of that india did and has not offered dialogue? on one hand india wants kashmir to remain a bilateral issue (even though they hypocritically try to involve third parties from time to time) but won't engage in dialogue. it's as if they don't want to resolve the kashmir issue

1 The status quo favours us ao we can go without talks and dialogue
2 India has always been opposed to any 3rd party mediation be it UN or any other country like US or China

 

[SabzShaheen]

Not when that freedom fighter is being funded by a different country. Then you are breaching our sovereignty.

no concrete evidence of monetary support. india is deluded if it thinks kashmiri freedom movement is based upon pakistani support. it should have occurred to india that it may be due to occupation of their homeland, human rights abuses and their general detachment from the indian republic.

The entire leadership, both civilian and military.

you can't refer to them in in the same instance when you at the same time claim that one is in control (army) but the other is not (civilian). the indian argument is that the army is working against the civilian government which is what you said about nawaz sharif. that's not duplicity.

Exactly. We started a bus service to Lahore, you returned the favour with Kargil

bus service didn't stop even after war broke out, which was the right step. pity that the current indian establishment does not have the same peace focussed logic.

Actually it is. What you are talking about is just stuff that's recent.

how is it related to india? US aid to pakistan is not conditioned around india, but afghanistan. similarly, US (and wider western) investment is conditioned around conforming to their strategic interests in afghanistan. it has been this way since start of afghan war. before that, it was to counter communism in the region.

What I'm saying is India is 100% committed to peace talks. Our demand isn't impossible to achieve, just stop terrorism. It's the Pak Army that has no incentive to have peace.

no, it isn't. you're contradicting yourself. you've admitted that india is looking to gain conventional warfare superiority to the point where benefit outweighs cost. therefore indian commitment cannot be 100% committed towards peace talks and if you ask me, i would say it's not even 50%. the demand is impossible to achieve because india wants it to remain that way. it won't back down on its claim of the entire kashmir region which pakistan hardly stresses on. it's an incentive for everyone in the region to look for peace, and pakistan understands this the most. india is hardly its only concern

China won't do anything.

when countries have to protect their interests, especially after investing billions of dollars, they will protect their interests. china is building islands in the south china sea without provocation to protect its interests so don't you think it will protect its assets if they are attacked or threatened?

Indian-sponsored terrorism is a myth. We are not arming or training anybody. Never mind the fact that they don't need either.

what is indian involvement in afghanistan for then? what about kulbhushan jadhav? hafeez saeed involvement in terrorism is more likely to be a myth than indian sponsored terrorism.

The third party has nothing to do with human rights.

yeah, it does. this article explains it to some depth: https://mediamonitors.net/illogic-o...lvement-of-third-party-in-kashmir-settlement/

I am talking about the same. You infiltrate, it's obvious we will fire.

so before you claimed it was only infiltrators from pakistani side, but now you admit it is both sides?

The India-China situation is the same today as India-Pakistan situation was before 1989.

in what regards? i'm not even going to argue about that since we were and are talking about the present situation for both scenarios. india does not have the guts to start firing on chinese troops as they know the consequences will be dear.

1 The status quo favours us ao we can go without talks and dialogue

yes, i very much know that. india is not committed to peace and is happy to war monger under its delusion that it can pry kashmir from pakistan through force. now that china has much more to lose in the region due to CPEC and if pakistan's economy develops due to CPEC, india will be in for a shock.

 

[randomradio]

no concrete evidence of monetary support. india is deluded if it thinks kashmiri freedom movement is based upon pakistani support. it should have occurred to india that it may be due to occupation of their homeland, human rights abuses and their general detachment from the indian republic.

There's a lot of proof.

bus service didn't stop even after war broke out, which was the right step. pity that the current indian establishment does not have the same peace focussed logic.

It has nothing to do with current govt. Not having talks with Pakistan until terrorism stopped is a bipartisan move with both BJP and Congress supporting the move.

how is it related to india? US aid to pakistan is not conditioned around india, but afghanistan. similarly, US (and wider western) investment is conditioned around conforming to their strategic interests in afghanistan. it has been this way since start of afghan war. before that, it was to counter communism in the region.

Afghanistan started in 2003, terrorism against India began in 1989.

By saying we are discussing peace, Pakistan's market opens up to Western investment.

no, it isn't. you're contradicting yourself. you've admitted that india is looking to gain conventional warfare superiority to the point where benefit outweighs cost. therefore indian commitment cannot be 100% committed towards peace talks and if you ask me, i would say it's not even 50%. the demand is impossible to achieve because india wants it to remain that way. it won't back down on its claim of the entire kashmir region which pakistan hardly stresses on. it's an incentive for everyone in the region to look for peace, and pakistan understands this the most. india is hardly its only concern

As far as the civilian govt is concerned, war is the last option.

so before you claimed it was only infiltrators from pakistani side, but now you admit it is both sides?

I don't know what you understand after reading my posts. I am talking about terrorists infiltrating into India.

in what regards? i'm not even going to argue about that since we were and are talking about the present situation for both scenarios. india does not have the guts to start firing on chinese troops as they know the consequences will be dear.

We have done that so many times in the past. The Chinese did nothing back.

yes, i very much know that. india is not committed to peace and is happy to war monger under its delusion that it can pry kashmir from pakistan through force. now that china has much more to lose in the region due to CPEC and if pakistan's economy develops due to CPEC, india will be in for a shock.

Stop terrorism and then we can talk. It's as simple as that.

It's not in India's interests to have talks. All it does is invite attacks on us, and takes us much closer to war. The day we are ready to fight, we will have one final talk. If that fails, you know what's coming next.

 

[ramu]

The Bhartis are well known for blowing their own trumpet since no one else gives two monkeys to their blabbering.
This is what PTI reported earlier.


"India is looking for constructive and meaningful engagement with Pakistan," the PM said in the letter written on August 18.''


https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...pak-foreign-minister/articleshow/65470265.cms

By nobody you meant Pak Elite on PDF?
Once a prick, ...

 

[SabzShaheen]

There's a lot of proof.

i would like to see it presented. there is a lot of proof of indian sponsored terrorism.

It has nothing to do with current govt. Not having talks with Pakistan until terrorism stopped is a bipartisan move with both BJP and Congress supporting the move.

BJP's agenda is heating up the conflict more than before.

Afghanistan started in 2003, terrorism against India began in 1989.

soviet afghan war started in late 1979. pakistan was involved in it.

By saying we are discussing peace, Pakistan's market opens up to Western investment.

how does it? in indian imagination, yes. not in the real world.

As far as the civilian govt is concerned, war is the last option.

in the present yes, but they are making moves to make war the forefront option.

I don't know what you understand after reading my posts. I am talking about terrorists infiltrating into India.

i specifically told you i was talking about cease-fire violations which you agreed with.

We have done that so many times in the past. The Chinese did nothing back.

no, you really haven't.

Stop terrorism and then we can talk. It's as simple as that.

i've mentioned my arguments about this statement and you've conveniently dodged them. perhaps you don't understand?

It's not in India's interests to have talks. All it does is invite attacks on us, and takes us much closer to war. The day we are ready to fight, we will have one final talk. If that fails, you know what's coming next.

thanks for the heads up mr. armchair general. i hope the lack of logic in this statement is not reflective of the thinking of the indian establishment. the idea that peace talks will lead to a heightening of tensions.

 

[Windjammer]

By nobody you meant Pak Elite on PDF?
Once a prick, ...

Your dick belongs in your pants, not your personality.

 

[randomradio]

BJP's agenda is heating up the conflict more than before.

This has nothing to do with the BJP or the Congress. This decision is made by the NSA and the security apparatus.

in the present yes, but they are making moves to make war the forefront option.

Of course, I already said it. If the military wins the day, then war is possible.

That's why you have statements like this:
https://www.hindustantimes.com/indi...bipin-rawat/story-4IaODMvEShEFoDLs1VSpLJ.html
“We will call the (nuclear) bluff of Pakistan. If we will have to really confront the Pakistanis, and a task is given to us, we are not going to say we cannot cross the border because they have nuclear weapons. We will have to call their nuclear bluff,” Gen. Rawat said.

But we don't have to resort to that option yet.

i specifically told you i was talking about cease-fire violations which you agreed with.

What ceasefire violations? Pakistan has never followed it.

Everything you see in the media is an eyewash.

no, you really haven't.

You need to do your history.

i've mentioned my arguments about this statement and you've conveniently dodged them. perhaps you don't understand?

Terrorism and talks cannot go hand in hand. Talks always fail after terrorist attacks. That won't change.

thanks for the heads up mr. armchair general. i hope the lack of logic in this statement is not reflective of the thinking of the indian establishment. the idea that peace talks will lead to a heightening of tensions.

Of course, it's the Indian establishment's position. That's why there have been no serious talks in a long time.

The demand is simple: End terrorism for talks.

Talks are to Pakistan's advantage, not India's. In fact, India has made its position clear that even if talks are held, the talks will only be for the Pakistani controlled areas of Kashmir. And this position is not going to change. Again, this has nothing to do with BJP or Congress, it's decided by the security apparatus, not the ruling body. So the policy itself won't change simply because Congress comes to power. In fact, the basic rules for dealing with Pakistan that Modi govt is following was set up by the Congress after the Mumbai attacks.

So talks are meaningless anyway.

 

[ramu]

Your dick belongs in your pants, not your personality.

Good one liner but way out of context.

What is the point of talks with a civilian government when the army has its own head in Pak. Even if army is on board, there will always be non state actors that act like dicks at the first note of peace. Better to keep you at bay and be ready for a fight than to offer peace and get Kargil or Mumbai 26/11.