Shed insecurities: India to Pakistan

[username]

Territory being used is different from accusing the State and its institutions of supporting terrorism, which is what Rao argued in her statements here, and other Indian officials have argued in the past. My quibble is with the latter point, of accusing the Pakistani State and institutions without evidence.

As long as Pakistan conveniently uses the term "NON STATE ACTORS" at will, nobody can prove anything.

If you believe in what the GoI says, despite the lack of evidence, then you have no business asking Pakistanis for evidence. When you can condemn GoI statements lacking evidence as I asked, then I can support your position. Till then, we have no need to provide evidence just like the GoI provides no evidence.

There is a basis for belief when GoI says something (think 26/11 in which your conveniently labeled NON STATE ACTORS were involved), but when GoP says something it does not have any such base. You can share what you think as the base except some Hindu, Akand Bharat, etc which I am sure you will not do and I have not noticed YOU saying such things in any post (this message is for others who wants to reply)...

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

After protracted negotiations a cease-fire was agreed to by both countries, which came into effect. The terms of the cease-fire as laid out in the UNCIP resolution. of August 13, 1948 were adopted by the UN on January 5, 1949. This required Pakistan to withdraw its forces, both regular and irregular, while allowing India to maintain minimum strength of its forces in the state to preserve law and order. On compliance of these conditions a plebiscite was to be held to determine the future of the territory.

But u never accepted the ceasefire rules then why should we accept the plebiscite,remember it was u who were the aggressors not as

Incorrect -the UNSC resolutions called for negotiations between Pakistan, India and the UN commissions/rapporteurs on demilitarization - it was not supposed to be unilateral - this is discussed in the UN resolutions explained sticky in the Kashmir section as well as on a thread on the 1948 war in the military history section.

Please continue this discussion on one of those threads after reading through the comments there.

 

[Ganga]

The plebiscite was carried out after India invaded the territory and occupied the State, despite the ruler of Junagadh acceding to Pakistan. Why should Pakistan accept such a plebiscite?
You cannot have it both ways - claim legitimacy by invading one Princely State despite its accession to Pakistan, and claiming foul play when Pakistan did the same in J&K.

You are either an outsider in Junagadh, or an outsider in Kashmir - you cannot have it both ways.

India entered junagadh after the council of ministers of the junagadh requested India to do so.The Nawab had fled Junagadh and moved to Karachi .The ministers now represented the kingdom and not the nawab.In case of Kashmir neither the Maharajah nor the ministers had invited Pakistan.The earlier case cannot be called an invasion but the later one can be called so.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

India entered junagadh after the council of ministers of the junagadh requested India to do so.The Nawab had fled Junagadh and moved to Karachi .The ministers now represented the kingdom and not the nawab.In case of Kashmir neither the Maharajah nor the ministers had invited Pakistan.The earlier case cannot be called an invasion but the later one can be called so.

The accession had already been signed. The Nawab had fled fearing for his life, that does not negate the validity of the accession he signed.

What the minsters did or did not do is irrelevant since they had no authority to overrule the accession signed by the Nawab.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

As long as Pakistan conveniently uses the term "NON STATE ACTORS" at will, nobody can prove anything.

Whatever term Pakistan uses has nothing to do with the lack of evidence. If Pakistani institutions are supporting terrorists and terrorism, as the GoI states, then there should be credible evidence supporting those assertions, which so far the Indian side has failed to provide.

There is a basis for belief when GoI says something (think 26/11 in which your conveniently labeled NON STATE ACTORS were involved), but when GoP says something it does not have any such base. You can share what you think as the base except some Hindu, Akand Bharat, etc which I am sure you will not do and I have not noticed YOU saying such things in any post (this message is for others who wants to reply)...

That is absurd reasoning. Just because you say so does not give the GoI any 'basis for belief'. The only basis of belief is evidence, and there is no credible evidence provided to substantiate Indian accusations.

And if you don't wish to state the GoI's position, despite believing in it, you should refrain from posting on the issue of evidence related to terrorism period. Because so long as other Indians post statements such as these by the GOI and accuse Pakistan of supporting terrorism, accusations against India and demands of evidence from India will continue.

 

[ajpirzada]

lool..... actually wat india really wanted to say was following:

'Shed insecurities and let us stay in Afghanistan'

now i know this thread will get derailed

 

[username]

Whatever term Pakistan uses has nothing to do with the lack of evidence. If Pakistani institutions are supporting terrorists and terrorism, as the GoI states, then there should be credible evidence supporting those assertions, which so far the Indian side has failed to provide.

That is absurd reasoning. Just because you say so does not give the GoI any 'basis for belief'. The only basis of belief is evidence, and there is no credible evidence provided to substantiate Indian accusations.

And if you don't wish to state the GoI's position, despite believing in it, you should refrain from posting on the issue of evidence related to terrorism period. Because so long as other Indians post statements such as these by the GOI and accuse Pakistan of supporting terrorism, accusations against India and demands of evidence from India will continue.

will get back to you ... will read about the Indian dossier to Pakistan and get back... Not sure whether I could get any copy of that dossier, still let me see...

anyways so far from the discussion in this forum with Pakistani members I infer the following.

1. Pakistani territory is being used for terrorism against Pakistan as well as other countries.
2. GoP is not able to excercise full control over whole of Pakistan.
3. The point 2 is applicable for other countries also, but only thing is the combination of point 1 && 2 makes it worse for Pakistan.
4. At present Pakistani's are not accepting that the GoP is involved in terrorism against other countries.
5. Kashmir insurgents are called as freedom fighters which finds support among majority of Pakistanis.
6. These terrorists as well as so called freedom fighters are differentiated based on whom they kill (which I find ridiculous), and nobody seems to be sure about the command and control structure of terrorists doing terrorist activities in Kashmir and other parts of India. Only point made is that when an insurgent kills an Army Jawan he is a freedom fighter and the same guy if he kills any one else he is a terrorist, without knowing the command and control things are differentiated (This is my opinion)...
7. GoP accuses GoI because GoI accuses GoP. --> what a strange thing to do...

and let me know one thing, once I get back, can I open a new thread about these points as well as whether GoP is involved or not ? I would expect you to get involved in that discussion.

 

[nForce]

The Indian Army is the invader in the valley - that is clear from the fact that India has refused to honor the condition of plebiscite in Kashmir, that was a condition of accession as well as part and parcel of the UNSC resolutions. It is the insurgents who are fighting to rid Kashmir of invaders.

The resolution u r talking about asked for complete withdrawal of the tribal forces of Pakistani origin from the Indian territories and ceasefire.But that is something which never happened.Now I dont really see a reason for India to comply to the resolution while its counterpart never did..From that time,a part of Kashmir continues to be a part of India.
I just wonder,why the leaders of the insurgents that u r talking about continue to live in Pakistan..

Check Amnesty International and other HR organizations reports on the issue.

In other words, u dont have a clue....

That is not my logic, since I said that 'whether India wishes to make the presence of insurgents in J&K an issue' is none of my concern. My point was specifically related to the issue of 'disowning' pleas read the posts more carefully next time, you and the other guy.

I have merely drawn a deduction from from ur logic.The way 'disowning' the Pakistani terrorists is ur own issue,in the very similar manner,any decisions related to the Indian security forces on Indian territory is our own issue.Please read the posts more carefully next time....

Indeed terrorism should be denounced, and therefore you should denounce the massacres, rapes and torture of Kashmiris by the Indian Army and security forces, along with denouncing the attacks on civilians by militants.

Did u miss the first part of my previous post???No problem,here it is,again

I think for a fact that Indian Army is present in Kashmir to protect the Indian land from foreign invaders...There has been some incidents of violence of rules by members of the Indian Army.Proper and strict actions has been taken against those specific cases.Any separated,dissected incident cannot be portrayed as a general happening,something that,in my opinion,u r trying to do...

Now dont tell me that the militants conduct grenade attack in busy,civilian populated areas like Lalchawk of Kashmir to protect those very civilians from the Indian Security forces...

We support those militants that fight Indian occupation forces, not attack civilians, just as you I imagine do not support Indian Army troops and other security forces that massacre, rape and torture civilians.

The militants u r talking about dont exist,as it is those very militants who try to hide in a mosques or a civilian building after an attack before being slaughtered,thereby risking the civilian lives....And I m not even talking about the terrorists who directly attack market places or try to threaten the girls not to attend schools and colleges...

Since at no point did I say that those militants who attack civilians should not be considered terrorists, your point is a blatant lie, and I would appreciate it if, again, you read the posts more carefully and not attribute things to people that they have not said.

I gave an analogy of the TTP for better understanding..An attack on any Indian property or any Indian, or a threat by any organization to see things their way is an act of terrorism against the Government of India.Now,since the government is made by the people in India,such an act is an act of terrorism against the people of India...

Anyways...let us say that there has been a terrorist attack in a market place and the terrorists are then engaged by the security forces.Now i dont really understand where ur support lies.......

 

[TaimiKhan]

lool..... actually wat india really wanted to say was following:

'Shed insecurities and let us stay in Afghanistan'

now i know this thread will get derailed

Couldn't agree more, first they went to uncle sam, then went to uncle fahd, nothing came out good for them, they thought to let try it themselves once again, may be Pakistan hears out something.

 

[prototype]

lool..... actually wat india really wanted to say was following:

'Shed insecurities and let us stay in Afghanistan'

now i know this thread will get derailed

correct the second part ,we never asked ur permit to stay in afgan,but i can only say that-shed ur insecrities

 

[foxbat]

Ok so those insurgents will be from Tamil Nadu or Assam ??

Really doesnt matter. If India takes a leaf out of Pakistan's books, they could even be Indian Army men disguised as Insurgents (like Pakistan did in Kargil)

 

[desiman]

lool..... actually wat india really wanted to say was following:

'Shed insecurities and let us stay in Afghanistan'

now i know this thread will get derailed

we never or need Pakistan's permission in the first place, India will do what it wants.

 

[foxbat]

That's like asking the thief what he/she feels about returning the items he/she stole.

Not really since in this case, the one levying the accusation of theft himself is considered a robber by a lot of people and has no justifiable rights over the property he accuses the other of allegedly stealing..

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Not really since in this case, the one levying the accusation of theft himself is considered a robber by a lot of people and has no justifiable rights over the property he accuses the other of allegedly stealing..

Another characteristics of thieves (India), try and get away with the crime by pointing the finger elsewhere ...

Since in this case the accession itself was conditional to a plebiscite (conditions to which India agreed) and the the UNSC also indicated the dispute would be resolved through plebiscite (to which India also agreed), India's unilateral withdrawal from allowing a plebiscite is a clear theft of the rights of Kashmiris and therefore their lives and land.

 

[foxbat]

What you consider or don't consider is irrelevant. Terrorism can only be defined as deliberate attacks on civilians, and by that yardstick the Indian Army and other Indian security forces are the 'biggest terrorists in Kashmir', since Amnesty International and various other human rights groups have documented tens of thousands of rapes, torture cases and murders of civilians by Indian security forces in J&K.

In the same manner what you consider about Indian Army is as irrelevant.. Isnt it? Because if you go that way, there is not a single security force(including your own)which has participated in such operations and can not be accused of human rights violations.