What's new

Dirty war on LoC preceded deadly Poonch ambush

Status
Not open for further replies.
As long as the Simla Agreement is valid, there is ZERO percent chance of the Kashmir issue being internationalized or even a third party mediator, let alone a referendum. So the rest of the your proposed resolution is simply impossible unless we abrogate the Simla Agreement.

The agreement below.

The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan are resolved that the two countries put an end to the conflct and confrontation that have hitherto marred their relations and work for the promotion of a friendly and harmonious relationship and the establishment of durable peace in the sub-continent, so that both countries may henceforth devote their resources and energies to the pressing task of advancing the welfare of their peoples.

In order to achieve this objective, the Government of India and the Govern- ment of Pakistan have agreed as follows:

(i) That the principles and purposes off the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the countries;

(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organization, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations.

(iii) That the pre-requisite for reconciliation, good-neighbourliness and durable peace between them is a commitment by both countries to peaceful co-existence, respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty and non-interference in each other's internal affairs, on the basis of equality and mutual benefit;

(iv) That the basic issues and causes of conflict which have bedevilled the relations between the two countries of the last twenty-five years shall be resolved by peaceful means;

(v) That they shall always respect each other's national unity, territorial integrity, political independence and sovereign equality;

(vi) That in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, they shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of each other;

(II) Both Governments will take all steps within their power to prevent hostile propaganda direcdted against each other.

Both countries will encourage the dissemination of such information as would promote the development of friendly relations between them;

(III) In order progressively to restore and normalize relations between the two countries step by step, it was agreed that;

(i) Steps shall be taken to resume communications, postal, telegraphic, sea, land including border posts, and air links including overflights;

(ii) Appropriate steps shall be taken to promote travel facilities for the nationals of the other country;

(iii) Trade and co-operation in economic and other agreed fields will be resumed as far as possible;

(iv) Exchange in the fields of science and culture will be promoted.
In this connextion delegations from the two countries will meet from time to time to work out the necessary details.

(IV) In order to initiate the process of the establishment of durable peace, both Governments agree that:

(i) Indian and Pakistani forces shall be withdrawn to their side of the international border;

(ii) In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the cease-fire of December 17, 1971 shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat of the use of force in violation of this line;

(iii) The withdrawals shall commence upon entry into force of this Agreement and shall be completed within a period of thirty days thereof.

(V) This Agreement will be subject to ratification by both countries in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures, and will come into force with effect from the date on which the Instruments of Ratification are exchanged.

(VI)
Both Governments agree that their respective Heads will meet again at a mutually convenient time in the future and that, in the meanwhile, the representatives of the two sides will meet to discuss further the modalities and arrangements for the establishment of a durable peace and normalization of relations, including the questions of repatriation of prisoners of war and civilian internees, a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir and the resumption of displomatic relations.


Sd/- Sd/-
Indira Gandhi Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto
Prime Minister President
Republic of India Islamic Republic of Pakistan

I do not see the exact clause that prohibits the U.N from taking notice of the situation and jumping in through what I mentioned before(if you read by earlier post) on India's choices on responding to the current scenario.

Moreover, most of the articles have ALREADY been violated and those outlined in red are being violated as we speak.
 
The agreement below.



I do not see the exact clause that prohibits the U.N from taking notice of the situation and jumping in through what I mentioned before(if you read by earlier post) on India's choices on responding to the current scenario.

Moreover, most of the articles have ALREADY been violated and those outlined in red are being violated as we speak.

Please pay attention to Clause 2 and its precise wording:

(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organization, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations.

After this Agreement, Kashmir was changed into a bilateral issue, and no third party including UN will be allowed in unless both Pakistan and India agree to it. Zero chance of that happening.

But you are right in that the provisions are being violated, but as long as the accord in technically in place ...... unless we or they abrogate it.
 
Please pay attention to Clause 2 and its precise wording:



After this Agreement, Kashmir was changed into a bilateral issue, and no third party including UN will be allowed in unless both Pakistan and India agree to it. Zero chance of that happening..

Please pay attention to the bold part , and the posts by me and Sandy on the option for India in this scenario.
 
Please pay attention to the bold part , and the posts by me and Sandy on the option for India in this scenario.

Yes Sir. But there is no realistic chance of India agreeing to third party mediation. The best either party can hope for is to convert the LoC into a recognized international border and go on from there. And that is a best case scenario. Otherwise the status quo will remain for another 100 years may be.
 
Yes Sir. But there is no realistic chance of India agreeing to third party mediation. The best either party can hope for is to convert the LoC into a recognized international border and go on from there. And that is a best case scenario. Otherwise the status quo will remain for another 100 years may be.

Which is why at this point, India is stuck between a rock and hard place without even a Hobson's choice to go for.
 
Yes Sir. But there is no realistic chance of India agreeing to third party mediation. The best either party can hope for is to convert the LoC into a recognized international border and go on from there. And that is a best case scenario. Otherwise the status quo will remain for another 100 years may be.

From unsigned notes revealed in 2009, we know the two men agreed to a four point deal: the transformation of the Line of Control into a border, though with adjustments to rationalise access to both countries’ forward positions; free movement across the LOC; greater federal autonomy for both sides of Jammu and Kashmir; and phased cutbacks of troops as jihadist violence declined.

It wasn’t quite a done deal: though India was willing to devolve power to sub-regional and regional bodies across Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan said it needed more time to discuss devolution of powers in the Northern Areas—a region Islamabad argues shouldn’t be treated as part of the pre-1947 Princely state. Lambah wanted limited cross-border cooperative management of assets like watersheds, forests and glaciers; Aziz called for a more expansive “joint management” of Jammu and Kashmir. Key questions, like the sequencing of the four points, do not appear to have been discussed—and neither side wanted to go public

Pushed by his generals, and prodded by the United States, Musharraf authorised secret meetings to explore how future crisis might be averted. The two governments worked out the terms of a ceasefire along the Line of Control, bringing an end to lethal artillery exchanges that had claimed hundreds of lives. Lieutenant-General Ehsan-ul-Haq, the then-Inter Services Intelligence Directorate chief, met with his Research and Analysis Wing counterpart, CD Sahay, to discuss cross-border terrorism. RAW, on one occasion, even supplied communications intelligence to the ISI on a plot to target Musharraf, earning it a thank-you message.

Pakistan new army chief, Parvez Ashfaq Kayani, backed off, saying he couldn’t afford to be charged by Islamists of treachery.

http://www.firstpost.com/india/loc-...k-wont-hurt-but-wont-help-either-1016987.html
 
Which is why at this point, India is stuck between a rock and hard place without even a Hobson's choice to go for.

You well know that attrition does not materially harm India whatsoever and we are and always will be in a far better state to engage in a proxy war with Pakistan. So why is it a sticky situation for India- specially when casualties can be paid back for in kind- as has been done before?:what:
 
Which is why at this point, India is stuck between a rock and hard place without even a Hobson's choice to go for.

I agree with that. But please note it is not just India that is stuck. We are, too.

I think that India is taking a long term view, hoping that gradual changes in economic opportunity and demographics will slowly tilt the odds in its favor, but that is more of a prayer rather than a plan at this point in time.
 
Which is why at this point, India is stuck between a rock and hard place without even a Hobson's choice to go for.


That would be odd, I would think that India is extremely pleased with her position. Take a few losses? Sad as it is, it can be absorbed. We already have what we want. The longer we engage in this game, the worse Pakistan's position becomes. There is no practically conceivable way that this could turn in your favour, how you don't see that is beyond me.
 
That would be odd, I would think that India is extremely pleased with her position. Take a few losses? Sad as it is, it can be absorbed. We already have what we want. The longer we engage in this game, the worse Pakistan's position becomes. There is no practically conceivable way that this could turn in your favour, how you don't see that is beyond me.

You are taking a very nationalized and defensive view on this, while my comment is specifically based on the discussion me and Sandy have been having on incidents like these becoming the norm for both nations. If you as an Indian are okay with 5 of your fellow Indian nationals being killed now and then .. then that is your choice. I am not supportive of my troops getting killed by yours in such tit for tats.
 
Is Pakistan Army involved in J&K attack? Army and Antony differ

kargil.jpg


The Defence Minister defended himself after being criticised by the BJP for giving Pakistan an escape route by calling the attackers ‘terrorists’ and hinting that they were not Pakistani army regulars. Antony said that he had made the statement on the basis of the limited information that he had.

http://www.firstpost.com/india/is-p...jk-attack-army-and-antony-differ-1014983.html
 
How ? What i said is a fact ,You dont know about the minority appeasement of this Congress party ..

And what about Majority you do know that who is in majority??? and is craving for war with Pakistan.
 
Chankya only spoke of 3 types of war: open, closed, and silent. Keep this dirty war in your pants and not in society.
 
And what about Majority you do know that who is in majority??? and is craving for war with Pakistan.

Fragmented Majority ,Politically They are weaker than the organized minorities ....And about War ,We are not advocating a war We wish for a same scale retaliation,otherwise it will be regarded as a weakness and such incidents will repeat in the future also
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom