Era of wars over, ready to resolve all issues with India: Pakistan

[Tamizhan]

It was under Portugeuse rule for hundreds of years. The U.N. Trusteeship Council would probably have transferred it to India eventually, but India preferred conquest instead. India's action ruined the U.N.'s system of peaceful arbitration of such disputes and thus created a gunpowder keg in Kashmir that Pakistan was soon to light and probably encouraged the Chinese attack before that (the sparseness of period Chinese records from this period does make this claim uncertain but it is plausible.

Before that Indian kings ruled that region for thousands of years. Also it was not an invasion, but a reclamation, liberation.

The liberation of Goa was in 1961, whereas damage in Kashmir had already been done before that.

Goan war not invasion, but liberation. Something like GWB said about Saddam's iraq.

 

[deckingraj]

But according to the wordings itself the LoC extends North to the glaciers, not to the pass. So interpretations may be limited to which part of Siachen belongs to whom and not the Pakistani claim of just extending to the KKP which is nowhere even near the glacier.

Anyway as I previously said there is no use arguing over this as it is finally upto Pakistanis to decide if both sides demilitarize or not.

My only question...have you read the document??? There are enough material out there which tells you why northwards can become eastwards...b/w why don't you ask this question right here...After all this is what this forum is all about...learn from them and teach them a few things...


Pakistani friends....can someone please explain what is the fuss about northwards/eastwards???

 

[Tamizhan]

My only question...have you read the document??? There are enough material out there which tells you why northwards can become eastwards...b/w why don't you ask this question right here...After all this is what this forum is all about...learn from them and teach them a few things...


Pakistani friends....can someone please explain what is the fuss about northwards/eastwards???

I have asked them atleast thrice,but no one has answered

 

[Solomon2]

Before that Indian kings ruled -

It doesn't change the fact that this was a matter that could have been resolved through diplomacy but was not because India decided to invade as a matter of macho self-assertion, a deed with long-term ill effects that were perceived in advance - in short, by invading the Indians knew they were making the world a worse place, not a better one.

...not invasion, but liberation.

At my first lesson with Noam Chomsky decades back we argued that very point. He dressed me down good by pointing out that to liberate you have to invade first!

 

[Tamizhan]

It doesn't change the fact that this was a matter that could have been resolved through diplomacy but was not because India decided to invade as a matter of macho self-assertion, a deed with long-term ill effects that were perceived in advance - in short, by invading the Indians knew they were making the world a worse place, not a better one.

Solomon read about that issu before lecturing us. Nehru was an undying idealist and if he went to war it means all options at diplomacy had already been exhausted.

Wiki is a good starting point. India tried to drive sense into the Portuguese for about 10 years by trying to solve the issue peacefully without war. Guess what ? The portuguese rebuffed every offer and war was the last option to India.

India

Anyway UNGA resolution 1514 urged all member countries to put their overseas possession on the path to self-determination and that was rejected by Portugal which claimed according to its constitution the status of Goa as a sovereign territory of Portugal is non-negotiable. Hence the liberation.

At my first lesson with Noam Chomsky decades back we argued that very point. He dressed me down good by pointing out that to liberate you have to invade first!

Trust NC to play with words.. Anyway I repeat Goa was not an invasion, but a liberation of Indian territory held by a colonial power who refused to surrender it peacefully.

 

[deckingraj]

I have asked them atleast thrice,but no one has answered

@Oscar, @Kalgeta - can one you please help us here....Please explain the Pakistan's claim of extending the line eastward as compared to northwards???

Thanks

It doesn't change the fact that this was a matter that could have been resolved through diplomacy but was not because India decided to invade as a matter of macho self-assertion, a deed with long-term ill effects that were perceived in advance - in short, by invading the Indians knew they were making the world a worse place, not a better one.

Hahahahhaa....what an interpretation man!!! kudos to you....as explained earlier we waited for 14 years...Diplomacy failed and then we used the military means to get what was lawfully ours....If you have any problems then go blame UN and the portugals who by not acting the way one should have made the world a worst place to live, not a better one....b/w i am still waiting for your reply on my previous post...do share your thought there....

For god sake - don't give me lame reasoning.....countries spend on their military for some reason....let's not challenge the logic behind it....

 

[Rusty]

It doesn't change the fact that this was a matter that could have been resolved through diplomacy but was not because India decided to invade as a matter of macho self-assertion, a deed with long-term ill effects that were perceived in advance - in short, by invading the Indians knew they were making the world a worse place, not a better one.

At my first lesson with Noam Chomsky decades back we argued that very point. He dressed me down good by pointing out that to liberate you have to invade first!

what's going on.........I feel so conflicted......for the first time ever I find myself agreeing with Solomon....
I don't even know who I am anymore...

 

[AbhijitSingh]

what's going on.........I feel so conflicted......for the first time ever I find myself agreeing with Solomon....
I don't even know who I am anymore...

Wonder how long will it take some of my Pakistani Bros to start calling this stand of Solomen as Zionist Psy-ops on this forum

 

[deckingraj]

what's going on.........I feel so conflicted......for the first time ever I find myself agreeing with Solomon....
I don't even know who I am anymore...

Do you agree with him just because he is saying something against India...or do you also believe India's liberation of Goa was a bad precedent???

 

[Rusty]

Do you agree with him just because he is saying something against India...or do you also believe India's liberation of Goa was a bad precedent???

India invaded Goa, there is no ifs, ands or Buts.
On a moral grounds, I do understand why India did it.
But As a Pakistani, the invasion of Goa re-affirms to me India's aggressive stance in South Asia. And also explains why they invaded Kashmir.

 

[rashtriya.rifles]

India invaded Goa, there is no ifs, ands or Buts.
On a moral grounds, I do understand why India did it.
But As a Pakistani, the invasion of Goa re-affirms to me India's aggressive stance in South Asia. And also explains why they invaded Kashmir.

Yeah that's why we stopped before annexing the Khyber-pakhtoonwala region..

 

[deckingraj]

India invaded Goa, there is no ifs, ands or Buts.
On a moral grounds, I do understand why India did it.
But As a Pakistani, the invasion of Goa re-affirms to me India's aggressive stance in South Asia. And also explains why they invaded Kashmir.

Alright..if i go by your logic then i think the bad precedent was set by Pakistan...It was pakistan who showed their aggressive stance in South Asia by invading Kashmir in 1947-48....Whereas goa happened in 61...

Please accept/reject a point on its merit...not because it is being used against what flag...

 

[Rusty]

Alright..if i go by your logic then i think the bad precedent was set by Pakistan...It was pakistan who showed their aggressive stance in South Asia by invading Kashmir in 1947-48....Whereas goa happened in 61...

Please accept/reject a point on its merit...not because it is being used against what flag...

ok let's look who did what.

The deal was that every state would get a vote to join Pakistan or India right?
There was no 3rd option, no independence. right?
For the most part the states with the corresponding population went with that country.
Now lets look at the outliers. Many Muslim sultans chose to go with Pakistan instead of India even though their population was mostly Hindu. India forced these Sultans to go with India. We Muslims don't have a problem with this because their population was Hindu and it rightfully belonged to India.

Furthermore, we also agreed to divide 2 provinces because Muslims only had a slight majority. We could have fought to keep Punjab and Bengal in tact, but once again, we realized that a large Hindu/Sikh minority wanted to go with India, so we were happy to let them go.

But when it came to Kashmir, India showed no flexibility or regards to Muslims and forcibly annexed Kashmir.
Just by looking at these facts, it is clear that India is indeed an aggressive state. And it only wanted to expand it's borders at the cost of it's morality, neighbors and most importantly, the local people.

 

[roshangjha]

ok let's look who did what.

The deal was that every state would get a vote to join Pakistan or India right?
There was no 3rd option, no independence. right?
For the most part the states with the corresponding population went with that country.
Now lets look at the outliers. Many Muslim sultans chose to go with Pakistan instead of India even though their population was mostly Hindu. Indian forced these Sultans to go with India. We Muslims don't have a problem with this because their population was Hindu and it rightfully belonged to India.

Furthermore, we also agreed to divide 2 provinces because Muslims only had a slight majority. We could have fought to keep Punjab and Bengal in tact, but once again, we realized that a large Hindu/Sikh minority wanted to go with India, so we were happy to let them go.

But when it came to Kashmir, India showed no flexibility or regards to Muslims and forcibly annexed Kashmir.
Just by looking at these facts, it is clear that India is indeed an aggressive state. And it only wanted to expand it's borders at the cost of it's morality, neighbors and most importantly, the local people.

Do not start the Kashmir debate again dude.

The whole world knows that Pakistan conspired and sent its army in the form of tribals trying to show it as an act of uprising. They assumed that the King would flee and Kashmir would automatically go to Pakistan.

The King asked for India's help and THEN, India sent its soldiers to protect the integrity of Kashmir.
Now, Pakistan sent its own soldiers and the war started. IN this fight, some part was annexed by Pakistan and King decided to merge Kashmir with India.

From then, the territories held by each country has been seen as the Line of Control. If you had not conspired, maybe the situation would have been different.

 

[Rusty]

Do not start the Kashmir debate again dude.

The whole world knows that Pakistan conspired and sent its army in the form of tribals trying to show it as an act of uprising. They assumed that the King would flee and Kashmir would automatically go to Pakistan.

The King asked for India's help and THEN, India sent its soldiers to protect the integrity of Kashmir.
Now, Pakistan sent its own soldiers and the war started. IN this fight, some part was annexed by Pakistan and King decided to merge Kashmir with India.

From then, the territories held by each country has been seen as the Line of Control. If you had not conspired, maybe the situation would have been different.

The whole world? really? I didn't know the whole world consisted of India.

You never addressed the rest of my article, why is that?
could it be that even you can't deny those facts.
As for invading, once again, India invaded the Sultanates which decided to go with Pakistan and it also invaded kingdoms that wanted Independence.
We Pakistanis are not as hypocritical as some people, so we agree with India invading those places. Independence was not on the table for the states and the Sultans had mostly Hindu population. Indians chose to ignore this because they are an aggresive state and simply want to expand their borders.

As for Kashmir, India also promised a plebiscite. Where is it?