Stubborn or Persistent? Will India ever make nice with Pakistan?

[Neutron]

How can anyone state this without proof? Is there still any proof needed in the 21st century that the civilian administration in Pakistan is a collection of figureheads, and that the military decides foreign policy, decides policy towards India and decides policy towards Kashmir? To say that the civilians call the shots and the Army advises when it comes to sensitive issues is disingenuous.

Why it makes no sense is still not clear. It has been announced that it makes no sense; nothing more. Asking us to believe that due to some mysterious alchemy, the military is now de-fanged, and Nawaz Sharif is now calling the shots will at best raise an eyebrow or two, at worst lead to a wan smile.



It did. Are you aware under what provision, and what it signals as India's intentions?

Please, @WAJsal I say this as a fan of yours and as a friend and well-wisher, don't get into the details of the Kashmir conflict without knowing the details. No hard feelings, but most of the people who bring up the subject simply don't know the facts.



Wrong.

India offered a plebiscite as a condition for the Maharaja acceding to India, even though legally the accession would have been and is complete in itself.



This is why I asked you to read up and then get involved.

1. Pakistan objected to the resolutions from the first moment. There was a resolution of the 13th August; it might enlighten you to find out why it suffered an untimely fate.
2. The Plebiscite Commission was to be set up by whom? Are you aware?
3. When the Plebiscite Commission was set up, one of the two concerned parties refused to comply with the instructions of the Commission. Guess who that was?
4. The terms of the resolution are crystal clear. Have you read it? Have you any comment, after reading it, about which party stone-walled it?

The facts do NOT favour Pakistan, @WAJsal ; sorry to do this to such a nice guy, but that is the truth, and you will find out if you do even some cursory study.



Not according to the recorded Proceedings of the Plebiscite Commission, which I beg you to read, before you are carried away by enthusiasm and ignorance of the details into repeating your statements. There are these proceedings, they bear a full record of who refused, point blank, the orders of the commission.



Don't place it at India's door before reading what happened.



(1) Which occupying force was this, @WAJsal
(2) Neither of these statements is true:

(a) All Kashmiris are Muslims;
(b) All Muslims (living in Kashmir the former princely state) are Kashmiris.​

Please read the Indian Independence Act. You will be enlightened.



Are these exclamations points you are making, or sentiment and emotional outbursts? Just asking.

New Delhi's allegation of assistance to the Kashmiri people from the Pakistan side is unfounded.

Pakistan upholds the right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to self-determination in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. These resolutions of 1948 and 1949 provide for the holding of a free and impartial plebiscite for the determination of the future of the state by the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

 

[21 Dec 2012]

New Delhi's allegation of assistance to the Kashmiri people from the Pakistan side is unfounded.

Pakistan upholds the right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to self-determination in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. These resolutions of 1948 and 1949 provide for the holding of a free and impartial plebiscite for the determination of the future of the state by the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

Check 1:09:15 and offer a rebuttal if you can.

 

[Joe Shearer]

New Delhi's allegation of assistance to the Kashmiri people from the Pakistan side is unfounded.

Pakistan upholds the right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to self-determination in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. These resolutions of 1948 and 1949 provide for the holding of a free and impartial plebiscite for the determination of the future of the state by the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

It is strange how many infiltrators turn out to be of Pakistani origin. Apparently these are all to be counted in the non-assistance, according to your definition. Apparently also Musharraf's TV interviews admitting that Pakistan has done so (practically singularly maintained the insurrection) for decades is also unfounded.

Your remark about Pakistan upholding the right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to self-determination in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council are highly amusing. Apparently you are new to the field and have not had the pleasure of looking at the records of the proceedings of the UN Plebiscite Commission during its meetings to organise the plebiscite.

You are aware, of course, that the current demand of the separatists is for the option of a free Kashmir, which is, even by the terms of the UN resolution, not a legitimate option. Or should I have said,"You are possibly aware....".

Check 1:09:15 and offer a rebuttal if you can.

"Every Pakistani refers to that resolution, but not a single one has read it."

 

[Gauss]

The way Pakistanis keep harping the Kashmir mantra makes wonder if they don't know any history. In this world the powerful has its way. Today America is in Asian pacific because it is powerful, when china becomes powerful enough it will kick America out of Asian part of pacific. Similarly India gets to keep Kashmir because it is far more powerful. When Pakistan becomes powerful enough it can try to take Kashmir or at least force India to the table. For now Pakistan need to take a hike.

 

[salarsikander]

The way Pakistanis keep harping the Kashmir mantra makes wonder if they don't know any history. In this world the powerful has its way. Today America is in Asian pacific because it is powerful, when china becomes powerful enough it will kick America out of Asian part of pacific. Similarly India gets to keep Kashmir because it is far more powerful. When Pakistan becomes powerful enough it can try to take Kashmir or at least force India to the table. For now Pakistan need to take a hike.

@waz @Oscar @Horus can we run an Ip check please

 

[Joe Shearer]

The way Pakistanis keep harping the Kashmir mantra makes wonder if they don't know any history. In this world the powerful has its way. Today America is in Asian pacific because it is powerful, when china becomes powerful enough it will kick America out of Asian part of pacific. Similarly India gets to keep Kashmir because it is far more powerful. When Pakistan becomes powerful enough it can try to take Kashmir or at least force India to the table. For now Pakistan need to take a hike.

I think you are being unfair to all sides in this question - please note my preference to call it anything but a dispute.

You believe that India gets to keep Kashmir because it is far more powerful. That raises questions:

1. What do you mean by saying India gets to keep Kashmir? Does Pakistan not get to keep Kashmir? What is your definition of Kashmir?
2. You say India gets to keep Kashmir because it is far more powerful. Does Pakistan not get to keep Kashmir because it is far more powerful? Did India get into Kashmir because it was far more powerful? Who has used force? Who has succeeded? Who has failed?

I believe that summarising a situation at quite such a broad level is misleading.

 

[Gauss]

I think you are being unfair to all sides in this question - please note my preference to call it anything but a dispute.

You believe that India gets to keep Kashmir because it is far more powerful. That raises questions:

1. What do you mean by saying India gets to keep Kashmir? Does Pakistan not get to keep Kashmir? What is your definition of Kashmir?
2. You say India gets to keep Kashmir because it is far more powerful. Does Pakistan not get to keep Kashmir because it is far more powerful? Did India get into Kashmir because it was far more powerful? Who has used force? Who has succeeded? Who has failed?

I believe that summarising a situation at quite such a broad level is misleading.

I will try to better articulate my opinion:

Kashmir is a part of India just like any other of its provinces, Bihar or maharashtra or tamil nadu. Pakistan is claiming a part of India for itself. There is nothing wrong in claiming and seizing the territory of other countries, it has happened from time immemorial. But in this world if a country wants to claim another country's territory, it must be atleast as strong as that country, if not stronger. So Pakistan should keep quiet on this issue until it has formidable strength to back its claim.
An analogy from the jungle can be given. The lion can claim a share from a leopard's kill because it is physically stronger than a leopard. But a leopard cannot demand a share from a lion's kill. Only another lion can demand share from a lion's kill.

 

[Hussain Farooqui]

Stop fooling yourself and others. I you think Pakistan is not sponsor and breeder of terrorism then you are either NUTS or a terrorist sympathizer. Even a small kid living in Europe will say about lots and lots of terrorists killed in Pakistan than anywhere else. Who do you think OSAMA was? And why do you think and what do you think he was doing at the heart of PA military establishment?
Or PA is so weak that it can't spot a huge multi storage apartment? Get real.

And stop whining about you being victim of terror! You are victims of your own strategy of becoming a terror hub to aid super powers with dirty works. You will never learn any lessons of your mistakes. No one cares if you are drunk and driving. You life you play with and die or whatever but the problem is your drunk and drive could kill innocent soul who has nothing to do with it!!!

The game of sponsoring terrorism was started by Bharat in the former East Pakistan. If you Bharatis think that you are entitled to play a single sided game of sponsoring terrorism, then it may be against any logic. You are the biggest country in this region, your positiveness may produce positive results and your negativity will definitely produce negative results. Look at the foreign policy of Bharat. No a single neighbor of Bharat is really happy with its foreign policy.

Osama was a blue eyed boy of the Western countries as long as he was working for them. When he turned against them because of their policies towards his country Saudi Arabia, then he was characterized by them as some villain. These double standards must be avoided for the global peace.

 

[nForce]

So what is it? Is it persistent or is it stubborn? Why the joy over failure to resolve Kashmir for over 6 decades? Kashmir is an independent issue - independent from terrorism or hatred or blame games.. Its a longstanding issue.. Wars have been fought over it. What more does it need? Find an articulately written piece attached below.

Stubborn India – Will they ever make Nice with Pakistan? | Today in Pakistan

Failure ? hmm.. How do you define failure ?
I will give you some food for thought-

Pakistan, so far has fought at least 3 wars, countless skirmishes and supported a full fledged insurgency for Kashmir. So far more 60,000 terrorists only have been killed in Kashmir, terrorists only, not counting civilian or police. Earlier, most of these terrorists used to be of Kashmiri origin, but as their numbers dwindled, the ranks were filled up more and more by Pakistani Punjabi youth.
60,000, that's the figure, not counting the casualties in wars, not those NLI men, who infiltrated into India disguised as mujahideen. This count alone makes it comparable to some of the largest military operations of modern times, say Operation Overlord, the allied invasion of France, in World war 2. All this, span over a period of 6 decades and counting ?

And yet, Pakistan has been unable to take a single inch of land, but as a result of the ensuing enmity, has lost more than half of the country in process, has lost control over Kargil, which was originally in the Pakistani side, has lost Siachen and a couple of other places ? Now, that is one of the biggest failures for any military in the history of modern warfare. That is what the failure is.

Now, to answer your question, we have walked a bit too far on our respective paths and now, I don't think there is any going back.

The game of sponsoring terrorism was started by Bharat in the former East Pakistan. If you Bharatis think that you are entitled to play a single sided game of sponsoring terrorism, then it may be against any logic. You are the biggest country in this region, your positiveness may produce positive results and your negativity will definitely produce negative results. Look at the foreign policy of Bharat. No a single neighbor of Bharat is really happy with its foreign policy.

Osama was a blue eyed boy of the Western countries as long as he was working for them. When he turned against them because of their policies towards his country Saudi Arabia, then he was characterized by them as some villain. These double standards must be avoided for the global peace.

Your history is very weak. Do you know how the '65 war started ?

 

[WAJsal]

Nobody buys that line, not even the Americans. It's why they are waiting for the real Sharif to visit. Your military got NS to change his NSA to a guy who just retired from the army and the reason given was that the army thought Sartaj Aziz had his plate full. Army thought? There you go.....

Bhai, this is a retarded logic to apply. Either say there is a soft coup in simpler way, no need to go up and down. If that is what you believe i can't change that. It is still not a good reason to ditch talks. Do you have any proof of your statement, just curious? I state your PM is a terrorist and didn't get a visa to US before he was PM of India, i say this. Since i have no proof of it, it makes no sense, now does it?

Read the resolution, the first part was that Pakistan should completely remove its army from it part of Kashmir, you guys never did that. You didn't do what you were asked to do but expect us fulfill ours. The world does not run that way sir.

My dear friend, India too has to vacate it's army and keep very limited amount of force to maintain law and order. While local forces will maintain law and order in Pakistan side of Kashmir, for example GB scouts and etc,etc...
"the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission."
U.N.Resolution on J&K August 13, 1948
Secondly, my good friend you cannot expect us to move our forces just for the sake of it, there has to be a formal understanding between the two states first. Say we remove our forces and India doesn't do what it is suppose to, or that it takes advantage of the situation and attacks us. There have to be talks first, once both party agree to following the resolution, only then it can be implemented. And India doesn't want to talk Kashmir, just shows it's position when it comes to this issue.

How can anyone state this without proof? Is there still any proof needed in the 21st century that the civilian administration in Pakistan is a collection of figureheads, and that the military decides foreign policy, decides policy towards India and decides policy towards Kashmir? To say that the civilians call the shots and the Army advises when it comes to sensitive issues is disingenuous.

Why it makes no sense is still not clear. It has been announced that it makes no sense; nothing more. Asking us to believe that due to some mysterious alchemy, the military is now de-fanged, and Nawaz Sharif is now calling the shots will at best raise an eyebrow or two, at worst lead to a wan smile.

salam, or hi...how do you do?
This part of the post was quite amusing. If this is what you believe, which has no backing and makes no sense, it's your belief that i can't change. Even then it is quite a poor excuse to ditch talks, don't you think? while in reality we all know the reason Indian government doesn't want to talk Kashmir, it can't take it's chances with a referendum in Kashmir. Let's face the reality.

It did. Are you aware under what provision, and what it signals as India's intentions?

Please, @WAJsal I say this as a fan of yours and as a friend and well-wisher, don't get into the details of the Kashmir conflict without knowing the details. No hard feelings, but most of the people who bring up the subject simply don't know the facts.

Joe my good friend, i am very young, i do not care about politics of the situation, i have limited knowledge on the issue. Limited, only. To move onto your post i guess it did so to end the Kashmir war, if i am not wrong. Did Nehru not promise a referendum in Kashmir? please enlighten me, i am not truly aware of the facts. If he did so, it truly is a shame that to this day people of Kashmir have not been given their well-deserved right to decide for themselves.

India offered a plebiscite as a condition for the Maharaja acceding to India, even though legally the accession would have been and is complete in itself.

It doesn't change the fact that there is a dispute. Indian state has agreed to UN resolution when it was passed, please correct me if i am wrong. Then why is it not being followed? and why not try to sollve the issue? while it is us who is always saying, "Kashmir, Kashmir....!" why is that, it should be the Indian state who should be on the front foot.

The facts do NOT favour Pakistan, @WAJsal ; sorry to do this to such a nice guy, but that is the truth, and you will find out if you do even some cursory study.

Pakistan wants to solve the Kashmir issue by the given Kashmir resolution- this has been our policy for years...elaborate.

Not according to the recorded Proceedings of the Plebiscite Commission, which I beg you to read, before you are carried away by enthusiasm and ignorance of the details into repeating your statements. There are these proceedings, they bear a full record of who refused, point blank, the orders of the commission.

enlighten me, i would wish to read on the issue.

(1) Which occupying force was this, @WAJsal

I was referring to the events that took place on 1947, when Dogra forces, mostly Sikhs were driven out of GB. I do not think there are any Hindus or Sikhs in Pakistan side of Kashmir, if there are any they are enjoying the same rights as others, i was replying to a post.
If you want to take this discussion to Analyst forum, feel free.
Overall it does not change the fact that India doesn't want to solve the issue, i can guarantee you one thing, it will never agree to hold a referendum.

no you are wrong TT sirji hindus were always part of so called azad kasmir and gilgit-balistan ... the khokhars , the chibbars are just a few to name but you dont want to talk about them as they were all killed or hunted owt of there mother land by muslims in 1947 mainli afridies and punjabies and then you talk about human rights and then you want me to edit my post no wonder why pakistanies are such .... khair jane do sanu ki

p[oint is kashmir belongs to all those kahmiri pandits , other kashmiri hindu castes and sikhs who were hunted owt of there motherland and muslims dont have a copy right over kashmir and we indians will never give kasmir to pakistan or extremeists supported by in name of peblisite or whatever you call it if you have power come and take it or else forget it .... period

Last i checked Gilgit was liberated by GB scouts, not some Afridis and Punjabis-get your facts rights, you do not know basic history and you are posting, enough with the bullshit. Only sikhs that were targeted had decided to rebel against GB scouts. It is to note that Hari singh wasn't killed. Stop your bullshit, talk with facts and facts only..present a source to back your post please. and if you do not have source i will urge you to delete your post, as i have been more than reluctant with you, you never stop trolling.

 

[WAJsal]

ok ji what about kashmiri hindus like chibbars an khokhars who were driven owt of G&B/AZK i am saying as i know some what about kashmiri pandits who were targeted by pakistan backed millitants and had to leave J&K in 1990s as for facts go google it i hope you can do that

Kashmir History and Politics

1998 Wandhama massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kashmiri Pandits offered three choices by Radical Islamists » Indian Defence Review


genocide of kashmiri pandits « kashmir blogs-Truth about Kashmir-" kashmir blog""

Beg to read what you post. This was done in IOK, there was never a good amount of Hindus in GB, never. Only state officials who were allowed to peacefully migrate to India, i have formal documents of this fact. Even Hari singh who laid his arms was not killed. This is either is what took place in IOK, and i do not support this. Maybe some in AJK, slim chances.
which place is this, do read your sources and tell me, these places fall under IOK.
1998 Wandhama massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and other links.....
Talking about genocide let's not forget what dogras were involved in, or your state for that matter..
Dogras were involved in killings of thousands, this is a documented fact, i can provide proof for it. Even old newspapers, such as Calcutta Statesmen have stated the same fact, according to which at the time of partition, thousands of Muslims were killed, etc,e tc atrocities. Then mashallah is your state's doings, i will not start on what your army men have been involved in. Point being Muslims suffered the same atrocities as Hindus did. But you stated initially what of the rights of Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan side of the Kashmir, please direct me to the atrocities committed on them here. To the contrary they were treated well..according to Major Brown, who was a leading figure in liberation of GB. Again i say do not troll, or provide me with sources to back your claim.

 

[Bang Galore]

Bhai, this is a retarded logic to apply. Either say there is a soft coup in simpler way, no need to go up and down. If that is what you believe i can't change that. It is still not a good reason to ditch talks. Do you have any proof of your statement, just curious? I state your PM is a terrorist and didn't get a visa to US before he was PM of India, i say this. Since i have no proof of it, it makes no sense, now does it?

Yawn.......
Powerful General Raheel Sharif Eclipses Pakistan’s Prime Minister

 

[WAJsal]

so in short you mean sources i produced are not right but what pakistanies think is right source.... are you trying to bully me TT sir ?

AS expected, you troll and troll and troll, i have been very lenient with you but this one you asked for... You provide false information and if asked for some proof you haven't got any, happy trolling. Either delete your incorrect post or i will rate them, simple. I won't tolerate misinformation.

Yawn.......
Powerful General Raheel Sharif Eclipses Pakistan’s Prime Minister

Yawn, if you are feeling sleepy get some rest. Good source. Again not a very good excuse to avoid talks now is it..?

 

[Bang Galore]

Yawn, if you are feeling sleepy get some rest. Good source. Again not a very good excuse to avoid talks now is it..?

Yawned because you are being disingenuous after participating in that thread. You know what the article said and how clear it was about the General being the one in charge, including using his own words -


"Speaking to a small group recently at the Royal United Services Institute, a defense think tank in London, Gen. Sharif said Pakistan’s lack of good governance had “created a vacuum” and required him to play a wide-ranging role as “a soldier-statesman”

In a recent meeting in Rawalpindi, Gen. Sharif told a visiting U.S. delegation how important it was to him “not to be seen as the main power” in Pakistan

The army chief backed Prime Minister Sharif. But the price, some senior government officials say, was high: the prime minister agreed to relinquish some powers, letting the military take charge of defense and foreign policy.


I'm not opposed to talks per se. I just don't see it going anywhere because of this dichotomy in the Pakistani establishment.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating - NS signed up to Ufa, only to be overruled at home. What does that say?

 

[Joe Shearer]

The game of sponsoring terrorism was started by Bharat in the former East Pakistan. If you Bharatis think that you are entitled to play a single sided game of sponsoring terrorism, then it may be against any logic. You are the biggest country in this region, your positiveness may produce positive results and your negativity will definitely produce negative results. Look at the foreign policy of Bharat. No a single neighbor of Bharat is really happy with its foreign policy.

Osama was a blue eyed boy of the Western countries as long as he was working for them. When he turned against them because of their policies towards his country Saudi Arabia, then he was characterized by them as some villain. These double standards must be avoided for the global peace.

I do believe that I will adopt a policy of not responding to mail unless a basic minimum level of knowledge and information is displayed.