What's new

UNGA speech: Nawaz proposes 4-point peace initiative with India

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with the first two points but not with the last two...
India will.not demilitarize kashmir and we will need vacate siachen.either unless Pak.signs a piece of paper which says that the current loc is IB
 
.
I agree with the first two points but not with the last two...
India will.not demilitarize kashmir and we will need vacate siachen.either unless Pak.signs a piece of paper which says that the current loc is IB

The 4 points are not even being considered fit for a response by India. The premise itself is in question since India believes Pakistan to be an illegal occupier of Pak Occupied Kashmir and a state sponsor of terrorism. I dont think India has till date accused Pakistani State to be a sponsor of terrorism formally on the UN forum. This is a significant first.
 
.
I don't see this high risk approach anywhere other than vis-a-vis Pakistan. Other South Asian countries pose no significant security threat and if anything, relations have actually improved under this govt, especially with SL and Bangladesh. Pakistan is a special case. You can be nice, be reserved, be hesitant to state your position, be defensive-- you get appealing optics--the occasional bhaichara-- until something goes wrong which btw always does and it's back to square one. That is the tried and tested approach- the "low risk, low return" approach in your words. The other approach is to be firm, state your position clearly-- talk only if there is a meaningful agenda and cut down meaningless niceties. Is it a high risk approach? Perhaps! But what kind of risk are we talking about here? IMHO it is not a high risk approach but a pragmatic one.

With Pakistan. there is no such thing as low risk. You be a Manmohan Singh & you will still have a 26/11 on your hands..You talk inspite of that & you get your soldiers beheaded. This after following Vajpayee who had his own experience. Why anybody thinks that Modi should necessarily follow the same policy is beyond me? An attempt to test him happened even before his swearing in with the LeT attack on the Indian consulate in Afghanistan. Modi has still made his attempts to work a way out with Pakistan. Hasn't worked but that has less to do with Modi & more to do with the internal dynamics within Pakistan.
 
Last edited:
. . .
Its simple folks. Modi Govt has simply lowered the threshold of responses to Pakistan. Earlier a speech like this would have been responded with noises like "India's internal matter" "Pakistan should not interfere" "Kashmir is India's integral part" etc. etc..

Now its more aggressive. The obvious is not being stated, but the ante' is being upped.
 
.
Where in the speech he says Pakistan Occupied Kashmir must be handed over to India? That means no peace initiatives!! Just waste of time.
 
.
Tell ur pm to say exactly these words in un .

Anyways good for us india ko latka kr jan churai .:).
why should owr PM waste time to respond to PM of a pakistan which is in no position to talk to us on equal basis every parametere of world stature deu disparity in economy , power , trade , health , education ect. ect.:azn:
 
.
Despite being a Modi supporter overall, I think the Indian response is immature and unnecessarily belligerent.

All India needed to say was:

1. We reject Pakistan's stand on 'Occupied Kashmir'.
2. We welcome the call for ceasefire on the LOC, but reject the call for expanding UNMOGIP.
3. We welcome the call for resolving to refrain from the use of force, but this must include Pakistan honouring its commitment to not allow its soil to be used for terrorism against India.
4. Conducive conditions for the demilitarisation of Siachen need to be created through CBMs.

All of this would be consistent with our position, without making us sound like a 10 year old brat.
 
.
Tell ur pm to say exactly these words in un .

Anyways good for us india ko latka kr jan churai .:).
Even worse words have been used to respond in the UN. Pakistan has been called a terrorist state...
 
.
bold part in detail manner or open other thread

Really? Whatever arguments I can offer have all been publicly available for a time and often commented on. I am not a GoI functionary so all my points would be informed speculation.

Russia - Indian Foreign Office has largely been silent on Russia. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out India is increasingly getting closer to USA and this is accompanied by distance from Russia. Modi met quite a few world leaders in NY. Putin who is desperate need for support in diplomatic circles would have welcomed a powerful ally in India endorsing his views if not that then just meeting with him to show acceptance of Russian stance. But zilch nada.

Kindly understand that while it may not be a zero sum game for India, Indian Bonhomie with US and personal chemistry of Modi and Obama surely annoys the hell out of famously mercurial Putin.

Just imagine how would it look like if Russia exhibited similar feeling of brotherhood and shared destiny with Pakistan?

MEA could have smoothed things through by giving a statement acknowledging Russia or arranging a meeting of Modi and Putin but it didn't. Hence my assertions.

China - Malabar exercises, Joint Ministerial TriLateral Meet, Veiled statements of Maritime Security and Freedom of Navigation at regular intervals. India has not been silent on it's criticism of China nor it should be.

I believe Indian Policy on China to be absolutely right and a welcome departure from the earlier one.

UK and Afganishtan - Their were rumors that UK created some mischief in Afganishtan and was a facilitating agent for NDS-ISI ties. The current meeting with David Cameron which was a filler notwithstanding India has rebuffed both Afganishtan's and UK's attempt at rapprochement. It took major Diplomatic Legwork by UK to pacify India and invitation which has been pending since long has finally been accepted though the dates are not out yet. Still this visit by Modi to UK has more to do with connecting with Indian Diaspora than engagement with UK Polity.

I agree with current stance of Government again, India should strongly but silently discourage increasingly irrelevant countries like UK from harming Indian strategic Interest.

Nepal - I have mixed feelings about this. Indian noting of Nepal's constitution has not gone unnoticed. India is creating a space which other countries hostile to Indian interests can fill which India can ill afford given it's strong ties and strategic interests with Nepal. My doubt stems from the fact that I don't think there is much China or Pakistan can do to harm Indian interests in Nepal except scoring some points in short run.

Sri-Lanka - India should tread very carefully here, too much meddling or heavy handed dealings can backfire. Statements like Building a Bridge etc unilaterally which is very unpopular with Island inhabitants should not be made. It is with great difficulty and effort India has clawed back the space it lost in Island Nation. Dealing by back channels is the way to go. Less Public statements on SL then better, India should be a benign elephant miles way rather than stampeding one at at it's gates. Supporting UNHRC resolution would be a step in right direction.
 
.
Despite being a Modi supporter overall, I think the Indian response is immature and unnecessarily belligerent.

All India needed to say was:

1. We reject Pakistan's stand on 'Occupied Kashmir'.
2. We welcome the call for ceasefire on the LOC, but reject the call for expanding UNMOGIP.
3. We welcome the call for resolving to refrain from the use of force, but this must include Pakistan honouring its commitment to not allow its soil to be used for terrorism against India.
4. Conducive conditions for the demilitarisation of Siachen need to be created through CBMs.

All of this would be consistent with our position, without making us sound like a 10 year old brat.
Pussyfooting is not the answer to the regular Pakistani nonsense. I dont think the response is either immature or belligerent. Thought more harsh than what I expected
 
.
Its simple folks. Modi Govt has simply lowered the threshold of responses to Pakistan. Earlier a speech like this would have been responded with noises like "India's internal matter" "Pakistan should not interfere" "Kashmir is India's integral part" etc. etc..

Now its more aggressive. The obvious is not being stated, but the ante' is being upped.
so what is your take on it and what is the current status of so called "dossieres" which sartaj aziz was waving and khwaja asif was so certain in sharing them with the world community in UNGA :azn:
 
.
Really? Whatever arguments I can offer have all been publicly available for a time and often commented on. I am not a GoI functionary so all my points would be informed speculation.

Russia - Indian Foreign Office has largely been silent on Russia. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out India is increasingly getting closer to USA and this is accompanied by distance from Russia. Modi met quite a few world leaders in NY. Putin who is desperate need for support in diplomatic circles would have welcomed a powerful ally in India endorsing his views if not that then just meeting with him to show acceptance of Russian stance. But zilch nada.

Kindly understand that while it may not be a zero sum game for India, Indian Bonhomie with US and personal chemistry of Modi and Obama surely annoys the hell out of famously mercurial Putin.

Just imagine how would it look like if Russia exhibited similar feeling of brotherhood and shared destiny with Pakistan?

MEA could have smoothed things through by giving a statement acknowledging Russia or arranging a meeting of Modi and Putin but it didn't. Hence my assertions.

.

We call it keeping the relations low profile to avoid unnecessary attention towards them, back channels talks with Russia goes on and on and during support, either India supports or remains absent, but does not go against.

Modi is attracting Indian diaspora towards India not USA!
 
.
Nepal - I have mixed feelings about this. Indian noting of Nepal's constitution has not gone unnoticed. India is creating a space which other countries hostile to Indian interests can fill which India can ill afford given it's strong ties and strategic interests with Nepal. My doubt stems from the fact that I don't think there is much China or Pakistan can do to harm Indian interests in Nepal except scoring some points in short run.

This is something on which I too have reservations though what extent the influence of Bihar elections has on this is not very clear. Nepal did go about this in an unnecessarily irritating manner but the Indian reactions has been a bit more heavy handed to my liking.

Despite being a Modi supporter overall, I think the Indian response is immature and unnecessarily belligerent.

All India needed to say was:

1. We reject Pakistan's stand on 'Occupied Kashmir'.
2. We welcome the call for ceasefire on the LOC, but reject the call for expanding UNMOGIP.
3. We welcome the call for resolving to refrain from the use of force, but this must include Pakistan honouring its commitment to not allow its soil to be used for terrorism against India.
4. Conducive conditions for the demilitarisation of Siachen need to be created through CBMs.

All of this would be consistent with our position, without making us sound like a 10 year old brat.

I think the intention is to make it clear that India won't be on defensive with Pakistan. What you have suggested is the more conventional response that India has been offering up (to zero effect) till now. NS brought religion into the speech & called India a foreign power in Kashmir. Bound to get a harsher reaction.
 
Last edited:
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom