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

[roshangjha]

I don't know if you guys can read English properly but someone's "opinion" does not make a UN resolution.
Nice try tho, next time come up with a better lier.

Dude, do you even understand that the use of the word OPINION once in the resolution does not mean that it is an opinion.

If you would look at the first word of the next paragraph, you will see the word RESOLVES

Go figure.

 

[Agni5000]

We can do a plebiscite in kashmire every year for the next 20 years and the results will be the same
why are you guys so scared to fulfill your promise?

The question here is not about the people, as India clearly does not care about them.
The question is about India's aggressive stance in South Asia.

Why there is media blockade in pakistan kashmir?

 

[Icarus]

This is one point that i just don't understand. Your fear is true even today. Right now your point 1 and 2 are already a reality,no??? We own the glacier at the moment and our military is right there...You have tried couple of times and i am sure a conclusion must have been drawn that Siachen cannot be won back with force.

So if we get into an agreement and demilitarize the glacier it is you who will gain something and we are going to loose, which is a direct presence of military....IMHO Recognizing AGPL is not equivalent to ceding the territory to India...It is just stating the actual positions of the troops which will surely help us when it comes to negotiations...but think about it...this benefit is going to be ours even if we don't demilitarize it and yet sit for negotiations, no???

True, however India crossed the declared border in 84, our policy makers are certain that they may try something similar if the glacier is undefended and to quote former IA Chief Shankar Roy Chaudhary: Once your on the wall, you don't go back and allow the other on, you only move forward. The area India now occupies was the buffer zone, without the buffer zone our it becomes imperative for us to maintain a sizeable military force in the event of any military adventure from the Indian side, and you have to maintain to troops to hold what we call the 'The Buffer Zone', a useless piece of ice where life cannot be sustained.

 

[deckingraj]

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.

Then say that...how is goa related to any aggressive stance of India??? why are you mixing the issues??? I would have replied about your comments but i guess i am late to the party and also this one is off topic.....However should you chose to open a thread do invite me.

 

[deckingraj]

True, however India crossed the declared border in 84, our policy makers are certain that they may try something similar if the glacier is undefended and to quote former IA Chief Shankar Roy Chaudhary: Once your on the wall, you don't go back and allow the other on, you only move forward. The area India now occupies was the buffer zone, without the buffer zone our it becomes imperative for us to maintain a sizeable military force in the event of any military adventure from the Indian side, and you have to maintain to troops to hold what we call the 'The Buffer Zone', a useless piece of ice where life cannot be sustained.

I am not sure if i am not following you or you did not??? Listen i just want to understand why is it not possible for pakistan to agree to Indian demands which will pave the way for demilitarizing the glaicier..which is recognition of AGPL...Whatever i have heard or read makes me believe the counter argument is that it would legitimize India's claim on the glacier...I am not able to comprehend how???? If the Indian military presence is not legitimizing the glacier as Indian one then how come recognition of where we are will??? The other argument is that if we recognize AGPL then india will have upper hand when it comes to negotiation table(if at all we reach there)...Again i am at loss of words here...bcoz right now it is under out control...so there is no extra mileage we get of Pakistan chose to mark the current positions...

Please explain me your POV on this...I am sure there are some legitimate reasons due to which you are not agreeing to our demand...it is just i am not able to comprehend them properly...

Just to set the records straight India did not cross any declared border in 84...had it been declared there was no issue....b/w can you also throw some light on this northward vs eastward theory which is the root cause of both parties claiming it...What does "Hence Northwards" means...Why is Pakistan saying that if we go eastward then Siachen is ours...Is northward/eastward same thing when it comes to demarcation???

 

[Solomon2]

Nehru was an undying idealist and if he went to war it means all options at diplomacy had already been exhausted...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...

Diplomacy failed and then we used the military means to get...

...I observed both sides had sown wind and now reaping whirlwind of disaster. What with Mujahideen operations since August 5, Paks not clear of responsibility. Pres [Ayub] agreed but pointed to constant Indian harassments in area, and Bhutto interjected GOI since death Nehru has treated Kashmir as closed question refusing even discuss it - (187)

...I asked about GOP position of implementation cease fire and withdrawal as first step. Bhutto replied this happened in past with very same language, cease fire, UN resolution and promises to bring full weight to bear. Now people have made sacrifices and India has committed aggression. With all that should we repeat mistakes of past and accept cease fire? What is different element to assure India would take different position? Eighteen years ago it was easier accept cease fire, now it much more complicated - (198)

...Bhutto said with conviction that it would not be possible to ask the brave Pakistani soldiers or the Kashmir freedom fighters who had sacrificed so much to accept a capitulation by the GOP to the old status quo which would certainly mean a repetition of the intolerable delays, defiances, and deceptions of the Indians over the last 18 years...The difficult meeting ended on a somber note with an oppressive feeling on my part that more ominous developments may be in the air. (200)

- FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1964–1968 VOLUME XXV, SOUTH ASIA, DOCUMENTS 187, 198, 200 [declassified], telegrams from the Office in Pakistan to the Department of State. link

You see, the Pakistanis picked up on India's example and applied it to renew the conflict in Kashmir. Goa wasn't a security issue but a matter of national pride and the personal desire of Indian leaders for glory. That was the sort of thing the U.N. was meant to stop, and India (with Soviet collusion) destroyed that mission. Bhutto and Ayub picked up on that and saw no reason why they shouldn't try the same thing.

Wouldn't it have been better to let sleeping dogs lie?

I'm not asking India to withdraw from Kashmir at the moment. But a unilateral withdrawal right now from the Siachen area would be a good move if India truly desires peace.

 

[Lyrical Mockery]

peace certainly won't suit the internet warriors. But it is in the interest of million of common folks in India and in Pakistan

 

[H.A.W.K]

We are in no hurry to solve anything. Status quo serves India just fine. Next year the defence budget will be close to $45 dollars.



Sure as hell, Pakistan can't. And that is why these call of peace.[/QUOTE]

Keep dreaming mate..will ya.

 

[Abhishek_]

I'm not asking India to withdraw from Kashmir at the moment. But a unilateral withdrawal right now from the Siachen area would be a good move if India truly desires peace.

we must humbly decline your suggestions. the Indian stand remains.

 

[deckingraj]

You see, the Pakistanis picked up on India's example and applied it to renew the conflict in Kashmir. Goa wasn't a security issue but a matter of national pride and the personal desire of Indian leaders for glory. That was the sort of thing the U.N. was meant to stop, and India (with Soviet collusion) destroyed that mission. Bhutto and Ayub picked up on that and saw no reason why they shouldn't try the same thing.

Do you even know what you are saying??? If someone is unlawfully keeping control of your land and even after 14 years is still not willing to give it back to you then what are your expectations from the country whose land is being occupied...Wait for another 14 years??? What was UN doing for all these 14 years??? Are you for real man???

If tomorrow India occupies texas then what should be US reaction??? Go to UN and wait for their verdict which may take 2 decades given that India is not a security threat?? How stupid is this argument.

b/w i can put any number of excuses to put my point forward...That doesn't mean it is logical and correct...As said if using force is a bad precendent then as far as SA is concerned then it started in 47 and it was Pakistan who attacked J&K...So how come it is India who set a bad precedent...How about the numerous other conflicts that were going aroung b/w 1947-1961?? Do you want to say that those conflicts were good precedent?? I cannot even explaing how absurd your interpretations are....There is no connection b/w Goa and Kashmir....Let's just not be asurd here...There is nothing wrong in accepting a mistake and moving forward...I hope you get the message...

Wouldn't it have been better to let sleeping dogs lie? I'm not asking India to withdraw from Kashmir at the moment. But a unilateral withdrawal right now from the Siachen area would be a good move if India truly desires peace.

I know you are talking about Siachen but what you not are answering is withdrawal should happen from where to where...There is no demarcation of this area....You simply cannot pack your bags and move out to pre-84 location. This is insane expectation. As far as peace is concerned then we are doing lot of efforts in the form of CBM's....We are ready for a withdrawal but once the current positions are acknowledged...I am not finding anything illogical here...Let me ask once again - can you point out one here??

Another thing...Demilitarizing Siachen is a very very big ticket item...One has to be a fool to even think of this happening anytime soon...The reason we have failed so many times when it comes to resolving our issues is that the expectations of the people are unrealistic...Exactly like one that you are trying to justify....The need of the hour is start very small and move step by step...Thankfully we are moving in that direction...From about to kill each other now is a time when we will see a Pakistani bank operating in India(and vice-versa)....There is no need to do anything fancy since it is going to be detrimental for the overall peace process....

 

[paksim]

I second you , these people who are taking about peace and cordial relations are traitors and means politics and their own personal gains.

 

[Solomon2]

Do you even know what you are saying??? If someone is unlawfully keeping control of your land and even after 14 years is still not willing to give it back to you then what are your expectations from the country whose land is being occupied...Wait for another 14 years??? What was UN doing for all these 14 years??? Are you for real man???

That's what the Trusteeship Council was working on. The Portugeuse were gradually losing ground. But Indian leaders wanted to gather glory from immediate results.

If tomorrow India occupies texas then what should be US reaction???

Pick another state; don't mess with Texas! And that's not the question. The correct analogous question is, What should the U.S. reaction be 400 YEARS AFTER India occupies Texas?

it was Pakistan who attacked J&K...So how come it is India who set a bad precedent...

Just because Pakistan acted badly doesn't make India into an angel.

How about the numerous other conflicts that were going aroung b/w 1947-1961??

Go ahead and check me on this and I think you'll find all territorial disputes were all handled through the U.N. system during this period.

There is no connection b/w Goa and Kashmir -

Haven't you read Rusty's posts? Pakistanis and Indians aren't that different. Rusty understands India's actions on moral grounds. The West that didn't accept that - as India's leaders surely knew at the time. As seen from the quoted diplomatic record, Z.A.B. & Ayub Khan cited the same justifications in 1965 that India did in the Goa invasion.

You simply cannot pack your bags and move out to pre-84 location.

These are tactical and logistical considerations, not strategic ones.

We are ready for a withdrawal but once the current positions are acknowledged...I am not finding anything illogical here...Let me ask once again - can you point out one here??

Sure.The course the parties have been following since independence (i.e., geography is more important than people, so eat all the oysters you can) doesn't lead to peace. Time to shift and try a different tack, then: start slow and loud and see how Pakistan responds. But don't listen to excuses for not acting that have no impact on security. It's the job of the professional military to find such excuses and the job of the civilian leadership to evaluate them.

we must humbly decline your suggestions. the Indian stand remains.

That is indeed the stance I have come to expect from Indians: once they run out of justifications they politely say no thank you we'll keep on doing what we're doing anyway.

Walrus!

 

[Abhishek_]

That is indeed the stance I have come to expect from Indians: once they run out of justifications they politely say no thank you we'll keep on what we're doing anyway.

not quite, we say that once we see you aren't ready to see our point of view.

 

[Icarus]

I am not sure if i am not following you or you did not??? Listen i just want to understand why is it not possible for pakistan to agree to Indian demands which will pave the way for demilitarizing the glaicier..which is recognition of AGPL...Whatever i have heard or read makes me believe the counter argument is that it would legitimize India's claim on the glacier...I am not able to comprehend how???? If the Indian military presence is not legitimizing the glacier as Indian one then how come recognition of where we are will??? The other argument is that if we recognize AGPL then india will have upper hand when it comes to negotiation table(if at all we reach there)...Again i am at loss of words here...bcoz right now it is under out control...so there is no extra mileage we get of Pakistan chose to mark the current positions...

India has transgressed boundaries in the past, if we accept status quo we leave the Indian boundary dangerously close to the Karakoram Highway(Vital for supplies/Good bargaining chip) and 8 of our highest peaks(Good Vantage Points). That's a risk that may prove fatal in case of future hostilities. That is why Pakistan does not accept status quo and insists on return to the pre-1984 positions.

Please explain me your POV on this...I am sure there are some legitimate reasons due to which you are not agreeing to our demand...it is just i am not able to comprehend them properly...

These reasons are not obvious at present, to the common man, it is just a stretch of ice, however to a military tactician, it's a buffer zone. If we remove the bufferzone, Indians will start from our doorstep, giving us very little to fall back on without strategic loss is case of future hostilities.

Just to set the records straight India did not cross any declared border in 84...had it been declared there was no issue....b/w can you also throw some light on this northward vs eastward theory which is the root cause of both parties claiming it...What does "Hence Northwards" means...Why is Pakistan saying that if we go eastward then Siachen is ours...Is northward/eastward same thing when it comes to demarcation???

After the signing of the Simla Accord, it was agreed that from the peak NG274E(Correct me if I am mistaken) the border would proceed "Hence Northwards". Now, the border up till NG247E was charted and decided by a commission, Pakistan claims that by "Hence Northwards", it means due north as a continuation of the border (geographically NE) as the crow flies, where as India claims that this refers to the Geographical North, the position at which they stand (in most cases). So the two words "Hence Northwards" are the root of this conflict.

 

[Solomon2]

not quite, we say that once we see you aren't ready to see our point of view.

I see that India is willing to preach morality to others while acting with amorality in the pursuit of its own aggrandizement. Am I missing something? Do I need a new prescription for eyeglasses?