The great American betrayal

[Bang Galore]

Yes a great deal of "If" and "buts" what I do find curious is that all of these are expressed by one side, don't you think that curious?

Maybe that is because all the compromises that will happen on ground will be made by India. Pakistan will only make compromises on claims that it makes, no real change in ground position is asked for or is on offer. This is how it has been; on Siachen, Sir Creek, Kashmir (as a wider issue), IWT etc. Pakistani mindset see even the offer of MFN as a compromise & India having already given the same MFN as somehow insignificant. Pakistan is believed to have compromised greatly if it does not tom-tom daily the Kashmir issue to uninterested audiences but India's response to the difference in wordplay is expected to be significant concessions on the ground. Take for example, the Siachen issue. India should withdraw from Siachen is the constant chorus (actually both should withdraw is the claim- the fact that Pakistanis are nowhere near Siachen makes that infructuous) and no reason is offered as to why India should bestow such fortune on Pakistan. On the IWT, Pakistanis routinely make charges of water stealing & yet are not able to prove it to any independent authority. They keep complaining about the IWT, probably one of the most generous in terms of the Upper riparian state giving up its rights to the water. Pakistanis have never shown the slightest appreciation that India could disregard the IWT & ask for a new treaty drawn according to accepted international principles on water sharing, something that will get Pakistan a lot less than now. Yet we see Pakistan taking positions that are untenable almost as a routine.


On Kashmir specifically, as it relates to your question, what is Pakistan compromising on actually?

 

[muse]

So perhaps if Pakistan were to militarily seize Indian territory, then perhaps it would be a more even playing field? After all Indians were nowhere near Siachen before they decided that they were going to be there - I don't really know what doable nd IWT was negotiated with the world bank's assistance - but sure why should India not try for a better deal, but keep in mind India and Pakistan do not interact in vacuum - head waters for some rivers in India are not in India - best to tread carefully lest an example is set for others to follow

 

[Bang Galore]

So perhaps if Pakistan were to militarily seize Indian territory, then perhaps it would be a more even playing field? After all Indians were nowhere near Siachen before they decided that they were going to be there - I don't really know what doable

They did try, it is just that India beat them to it by days. Would they have been agreeable to give it back if they had possession?

They attempted it in Kargil again. The fact that they failed cannot be the basis for rewarding them with a withdrawal from Siachen.

 

[muse]

So th unless they are dislodged militarily there is nothing to talk about - seems to me that would make negotiating a pointless exercise to begin with

 

[Bang Galore]

@muse, I would very much appreciate your opinion on the Kashmir issue/Siachen/IWT as to what in your opinion constitutes a fair reasonable, doable deal.

 

[Bang Galore]

So th unless they are dislodged militarily there is nothing to talk about - seems to me that would make negotiating a pointless exercise to begin with

India cannot be dislodged from Siachen, it is the only reason Pakistan wants India to withdraw. What in your opinion, is the raison d'etre with a siachen deal? What is the reason India must agree for a withdrawal?

Btw, it is a pointless exercise. India has no real reason to withdraw except to placate Pakistan, something that no one is in a tearing hurry for anymore.

 

[muse]

Honestly, I don't know - and I think we'll only know in negotiations - I do know that so long as the peoples in Kashmir or rather Captive to distinguish it from Azad or liberated kashmir, express the affiliation they seem to express and the sense of grievance they hold on to, this will be a problem - but then again, this affiliation and sense of grievance does not extend to the entirety of J & K - and similarly with head waters, if confidence continues to suffer between the two and the threat is perceived that the situation is one in which Pakistan can die without fighting orat least have a chance with fighting, I really do think the latter is the position to be adopted - which in the context of nuclear armed nations is, nuts -- I really do think it's a very very serious issue and because it's between to w nuclear armed powers, it will become international in a heartbeat. people already think we are nuts for being nuclear armed and adversarial with large populations exposed to nuclear annihilation.

 

[Kazhugu]

Is there a thinking in India which can accommodate Pakistan on Kashmir and on removing and barriers? .

Afghanistan is a sovereign country and not a disputed territory between india and pakistan........i find your comparison with kashmir disingenuos.......

 

[muse]

India cannot be dislodged from Siachen, it is the only reason Pakistan wants India to withdraw. What in your opinion, is the raison d'etre with a siachen deal? What is the reason India must agree for a withdrawal?

Btw, it is a pointless exercise. India has no real reason to withdraw except to placate Pakistan, something that no one is in a tearing hurry for anymore.

I think India can be dislodged, but it will end up war - So evacuation of Siachen or whatever deal is arrived at is vital, otherwise it will remain a constant source of worry - Pakistan is not always going to be an economic basket case, as a matter of fact if Pakistan manage to get their economic house in order and do not have improvement in relations with India, with greater resources going to the armed forces, well there is potential for a mess.

But why do India need a general agreement with Pakistan? Indian friends say they have Chah bahar and the Zaraj Dula Ram (Del Aram) road - but this road can be very troublesome, it already is with Afghan groups charging what they can make and Chah Bahar mean getting past Pakistani naval presence - So for India, not only is a general piece desirable because of the possible linkage with the Pakistan economy and beyond, but further such a development will allow her to reduce her defense expenditures and increase her security -- is this thinking alien in India or do people think along these lines?

Afghanistan is a sovereign country and not a disputed territory between india and pakistan........i find your comparison with kashmir disingenuos.......

I assure you it's not disingenuous - I was pointing out linkages

 

[Bang Galore]

Honestly, I don't know - and I think we'll only know in negotiations - I do know that so long as the peoples in Kashmir or rather Captive to distinguish it from Azad or liberated kashmir, express the affiliation they seem to express and the sense of grievance they hold on to, this will be a problem - but then again, this affiliation and sense of grievance does not extend to the entirety of J & K - and similarly with head waters, if confidence continues to suffer between the two and the threat is perceived that the situation is one in which Pakistan can die without fighting orat least have a chance with fighting, I really do think the latter is the position to be adopted - which in the context of nuclear armed nations is, nuts -- I really do think it's a very very serious issue and because it's between to w nuclear armed powers, it will become international in a heartbeat. people already think we are nuts for being nuclear armed and adversarial with large populations exposed to nuclear annihilation.

The problem with that argument is that Pakistan wishes India to do something for nothing. I simply fail to see why that should be done. Any internationalisation of the IWT & a new treaty being drawn up will only benefit India, Pakistan is presently objecting to dams designed to generate power, it would be much worse for Pakistan if India were to claim rights over the water itself, something that no international panel would have serious objections to.

Whether the people of Indian administered Kashmir feel grievance or not cannot be the sole argument for India doing what Pakistan wants. Nation states work on interests, what would be India's in compromising with Pakistan in that manner.

 

[Kazhugu]

. The fact that they failed cannot be the basis for rewarding them with a withdrawal from Siachen.

its been the case from 1947....it was pakistan which first accepted the accession of junagadh to pakistan even before india got kashmir's accession....but difference is we militarily enforced that accession (or atleast a significant part of it), it could no do so in kashmir.....

I assure you it's not disingenuous - I was pointing out linkages

the point i wanted to stress is who has a place in afghanistan must be the ultimate decision of afghanistan and not pakistan....while india getting into p-o-k or pakistan getting into j&K is upto pakistan and india respectively.....

 

[Bang Galore]

I think India can be dislodged, but it will end up war - So evacuation of Siachen or whatever deal is arrived at is vital, otherwise it will remain a constant source of worry - Pakistan is not always going to be an economic basket case, as a matter of fact if Pakistan manage to get their economic house in order and do not have improvement in relations with India, with greater resources going to the armed forces, well there is potential for a mess.

Not really. India cannot be dislodged from Siachen. The Saltoro ridge, the heights of which India occupies made it impossible even in the late 1980's & early/mid 1990's for Pakistani forces to overcome, when India was in a much more precarious state there, both militarily & economically. The difference between the two forces now in that conflict zone and the natural advantages residing with Indian forces make it all but impossible for Pakistan to carry out a successful operation. Pakistan was not about to sustain even the reverse in Kargil, there is little or no hope for even the most optimistic Pakistani to sustain that dream.

But why do India need a general agreement with Pakistan? Indian friends say they have Chah bahar and the Zaraj Dula Ram (Del Aram) road - but this road can be very troublesome, it already is with Afghan groups charging what they can make and Chah Bahar mean getting past Pakistani naval presence - So for India, not only is a general piece desirable because of the possible linkage with the Pakistan economy and beyond, but further such a development will allow her to reduce her defense expenditures and increase her security -- is this thinking alien in India or do people think along these lines?

That is all very well but these are not absolute requirements. Yes, it would be great to have all that but what is the asking price for such an offer? Let me point out that no one objects to peace & friendship between India & Pakistan (even if there were no direct material gains) but asking what is the price being sought & whether the asking price is worth paying. I repeat once again, what is it that Pakistan offers India (India can offer Pakistan guaranteed water & peace to allow Pakistan to concentrate on its internal bleeds), what does Pakistan offer that is tangible?

 

[Black Widow]

In diplomacy no one is true frnd,

1. French and English fought for 1000 years, now sitting on same couch.
2. Pak and America sleeping together are waiting for divorce.
3. China which was no-one to Pakistan turn to be new fiancée for Pakistan.
4. Afghan 'the right hand' of Pakistan now turning away and blaming pakistan for all problem.

Its all about strategic gain, emotion has no place in international arena..

 

[muse]

Not really. India cannot be dislodged from Siachen. The Saltoro ridge, the heights of which India occupies made it impossible even in the late 1980's & early/mid 1990's for Pakistani forces to overcome, when India was in a much more precarious state there, both militarily & economically. The difference between the two forces now in that conflict zone and the natural advantages residing with Indian forces make it all but impossible for Pakistan to carry out a successful operation. Pakistan was not about to sustain even the reverse in Kargil, there is little or no hope for even the most optimistic Pakistani to sustain that dream.



That is all very well but these are not absolute requirements. Yes, it would be great to have all that but what is the asking price for such an offer? Let me point out that no one objects to peace & friendship between India & Pakistan (even if there were no direct material gains) but asking what is the price being sought & whether the asking price is worth paying. I repeat once again, what is it that Pakistan offers India (India can offer Pakistan guaranteed water & peace to allow Pakistan to concentrate on its internal bleeds), what does Pakistan offer that is tangible?

That does certainly focus the mind, and I cannot think of anything other than a general peace and freedom out of the subcontinental cage

 

[indushek]

Pakistanis ......search for new master

That wasn't adding to the discussion at all and will bring in the brigade in. Suggest you to delete the post.
@nuclearpak @Aeronaut please delete this post.