Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
![](/styles/default/xenforo/ranks/admiral.jpg)
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
You are contradicting yourself, sir
'Indian refusal', as you yourself have acknowledged, was the reason behind the exclusion of India
The difference, Sir, is that while you assumed that it gave Pakistan an exclusionary interest, my interpretation is that it is an agreement that allows for any additions or deletions for the future. It did not, from my reading, prevent any additional arrangements, and it certainly did not serve as an exclusive right to Pakistan to negotiate the future of the state.
No, Sir
The legally binding Standstill Agreement was not just "a Commercial Arrangement"
Legally binding? Binding to what? What did it bind, Sir?
Sir, Patiala was India, and by extension, Patiala State forces were Indian State forces![]()
No, Sir, not until command was handed over.
![Biggthumpup :enjoy: :enjoy:](/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/cute/biggthumpup.gif)
Understood, and I am waiting for it. I was merely suggesting that once the foundation is laid down, we might consider concentrating on what is visible through the windscreen rather than the rear-view mirror.![]()
Oh, absolutely.
What I am leading up to is that we have a situation with fixed attitudes on two sides. We need to probe those, and explore their functionality, and ways to render them flexible and even remove them if needed; otherwise we will go into the future stuck each in our own way in the past.