How not to hold India-Pakistan talks

[HRK]

Any official document to support this conclusion ... ??

till then no need to tag me .....

regards,

 

[Bang Galore]

Stratfor GUpta ? I have stopped reading his articles

Not a good decision even if you don't agree on his positions. One of the very best, most other journalists simply lack that depth of knowledge. Everybody from Narsimha Rao to Atal Behari Vajpayee & Jaswant Singh had very high respect for his knowledge & also his integrity. If he takes a position, you can be certain that it is because he believes that & not because of extraneous reasons. Listen to him talk about the North East for instance, don't think there is another top journalist in Delhi who has as much knowledge.

 

[Star Wars]

Not a good decision even if you don't agree on his positions. One of the very best, most other journalists simply lack that depth of knowledge. Everybody from Narsimha Rao to Atal Behari Vajpayee & Jaswant Singh had very high respect for his knowledge & also his integrity. If he takes a position, you can be certain that it is because he believes that & not because of extraneous reasons. Listen to him talk about the North East for instance, don't think there is another top journalist in Delhi who has as much knowledge.

Do you know why i call him Stratfor Gupta?

 

[halupridol]

Any official document to support this conclusion ... ??

till then no need to tag me .....

regards,

actually ,,I was lookin forwrd to ur opinion regarding the omission of Kashmir frm unresolved disputed territory list of UN.
does this technically translates to the dispute no longer being under UN consideration?
@Bang Galore

 

[HRK]

actually ,,I was lookin forwrd to ur opinion regarding the omission of Kashmir frm unresolved disputed territory list of UN.
does this technically translates to the dispute no longer being under UN consideration?
@bangalore

oh bhai I don't know about which list you are talking as I haven't seen any such list .... if you have that list then plz post (from official source i.e. from UN documents) ... otherwise I find myself unable to comment in this regards ....

As of Nov 2010 UN has removed J&K from its list of disputed territories, why is Sartaz Aziz even crying about it now. Total waste of time and energy.

I am looking forward for Official UN document or that list .... hope you will not make me wait for so long ....

 

[!eon]

India will not give up the Kashmir that it holds. That will be the biggest political suicide for the century for any ruling political party. That's the bottom line I can tell you both.

My own POV is a bit extremist types, but that does not matter, leave that.. So, what do you guys think can be a feasible solution ?

On the other hand, Pakistan is also not going back on her POV. India took Kashmir issue in UN not Pakistan. Now, how can Pakistan forget all that ? You may not consider it betrayal but it is actually.
You may have seen BBC news mentioning, Indian is considering war options. I personally think war is inevitable and India will start it.

 

[nForce]

On the other hand, Pakistan is also not going back on her POV. India took Kashmir issue in UN not Pakistan. Now, how can Pakistan forget all that ? You may not consider it betrayal but it is actually.

It's funny that you call it a betrayal.
1. It was betrayal that day when Pakistan decided to attack Kashmir not conforming to the Mountbatten plan.
2. It was betrayal that day, when Pakistan attacked without provocation in 1965.
3. Why do we don't take Pakistan seriously ? Because Pakistan has a history of not respecting agreements. What happened with Shimla agreement ?
4. Why there are terrorists in the valley ? Pakistan can bomb the TTP terrorists with jets but why not even a single policeman with a decent stick in his hand can be sent to Bahawalpur to bring Masood Azhar to justice ? You take us for complete fools ?

You may have seen BBC news mentioning, Indian is considering war options. I personally think war is inevitable and India will start it.

As of now, we have better options to control Pakistan, better than active war. If Pakistan continues to support terrorism then we will continue to isolate Pakistan economically.

It's extremely sad that things are coming down to this, but our hands are tied. We cannot give in to terror tactics.

 

[!eon]

It's funny that you call it a betrayal.
1. It was betrayal that day when Pakistan decided to attack Kashmir not conforming to the Mountbatten plan.
2. It was betrayal that day, when Pakistan attacked without provocation in 1965.
3. Why do we don't take Pakistan seriously ? Because Pakistan has a history of not respecting agreements. What happened with Shimla agreement ?
4. Why there are terrorists in the valley ? Pakistan can bomb the TTP terrorists with jets but why not even a single policeman with a decent stick in his hand can be sent to Bahawalpur to bring Masood Azhar to justice ? You take us for complete fools ?


As of now, we have better options to control Pakistan, better than active war. If Pakistan continues to support terrorism then we will continue to isolate Pakistan economically.

It's extremely sad that things are coming down to this, but our hands are tied. We cannot give in to terror tactics.

1. So, what is that if not betrayal ? Was that not an agreement in UN and thrown away by India? Now, why should Pakistan trust India? And all that was before 1965. 1965 war came far later than agreement and after India's betrayal.
   
2. Go back to time of partition, you will find that Muslim majority states were joining Pakistan. That were Indian forces not Pakistani, who first entered Kashmir.
3. Don't talk about proxy war. India is equally involved in that. And that's actually not issue. Issue is only and only Kashmir. These proxy war would have been not there if Kashmir issue had solved timely.

As of now, we have better options to control Pakistan, better than active war. If Pakistan continues to support terrorism then we will continue to isolate Pakistan economically.

It's extremely sad that things are coming down to this, but our hands are tied. We cannot give in to terror tactics.

You can't do that.
And you will start a war. But only start, without end.

 

[bloo]

Is Baluchistan a disputed territory between India and Pakistan ? As for the 'spirit of what was agreed upon' - I've already repeated the 'spirit' in 'black and white' many times !

Face it India's intransigence of 'our issues being issues and all other issues being non issues' and 'our interpretation - nay twist of things - being the only canonical definition of what happened or will happen' is what will, has and regrettably will continue to destroy any Indo-Pak talks !

But because you clearly think that paraphrasing the same thing over and over again somehow makes your argument stronger; I've got better things to do so I'd bow out of this conversation.

Good day to you !

What black and white, things were grey to begin with and would have been grey even if these talks would have happened, I'm not hypocrite enough to believe that any ongoing discussions right now would have bore any results.
My point was to show everyone Pakistan's pathological attempt at bowing out of the talks using underhanded methods again and again bringing in new factors you know wouldn't be acceptable to us or anyone else in our position.
Any issues of peace between India and Pakistan in the 21st century is more terrorism related than anything else which is why Pakistan refuses to these talks. Its not India's intransigence its Pakistan's ambiguity with the subject matter of the talks that "continues to destroy any Indo-Pak talks".
I only think that I'm paraphrasing the truth.

oh bhai I don't know about which list you are talking as I haven't seen any such list .... if you have that list then plz post (from official source i.e. from UN documents) ... otherwise I find myself unable to comment in this regards ....



I am looking forward for Official UN document or that list .... hope you will not make me wait for so long ....

United Nations Official Document
Para 4 onwards.

 

[nForce]

1. So, what is that if not betrayal ? Was that not an agreement in UN and thrown away by India? Now, why should Pakistan trust India? And all that was before 1965. 1965 war came far later than agreement and after India's betrayal.

1. 
   Which one ? UNSC resolution ? You need to check the clauses. Pakistan never evacuated their part. Why did you even agree to that resolution if you are not going to abide by it. Even before that, why did it even come to UN Resolution ? Why did Pakistan attack by force ? Oct. 1947 Pakistan attacks. People of the subcontinent did not even have a proper idea of the maps of the country at that time. And you thought, you will take things by force ? That was the biggest mistake for which you are paying feeding an oddly sized army. Kashmir most probably would have gone to Pakistan anyways if it was given a little more time.
   

   [*]Go back to time of partition, you will find that Muslim majority states were joining Pakistan. That were Indian forces not Pakistani, who first entered Kashmir.

   Pakistani militia attacked Kashmir on the dawn of 26th October 1947. Hari Singh panicked and acceded to India only after that, 3 days later, thus making Kashmir a part of India and thereby the attack by Pakistan on Kashmir an attack on Indian sovereignty. Only after that Indian forces landed in Srinagar. Hari Singh never wanted to join India. He despised Nehru and feared land-reforms. You need to check the history. Your understanding is a bit lacking in that area.
   

   [*]Don't talk about proxy war. India is equally involved in that. And that's actually not issue. Issue is only and only Kashmir. These proxy war would have been not there if Kashmir issue had solved timely.

That's just Pakistani media feeding you. India's military budget is more than the entire federal budget of Pakistan. If we wage a proxy war, then there would have been much more trouble in Pakistan than it is presently. You have to come up with concrete evidence! Your govt. is playing tricks with you, creating a boogeyman out of India.

You can't do that.
And you will start a war. But only start, without end.

I'm extremely sorry things have come down to this. But as I said, we cannot afford to see Pakistani terrorists running amok in our cities killing people at will.

 

[Greaves]

The talks in my opinion were scheduled with good intentions by both PMs, The mistake was the long lead time given for them.

This gave vested interests on both sides to do what they are best at doing .

n i think the best way to do is off camera n public attention media on bothsides ruins it completely

 

[!eon]

1. 
   Which one ? UNSC resolution ? You need to check the clauses. Pakistan never evacuated their part. Why did you even agree to that resolution if you are not going to abide by it. Even before that, why did it even come to UN Resolution ? Why did Pakistan attack by force ? Oct. 1947 Pakistan attacks. People of the subcontinent did not even have a proper idea of the maps of the country at that time. And you thought, you will take things by force ? That was the biggest mistake for which you are paying feeding an oddly sized army. Kashmir most probably would have gone to Pakistan anyways if it was given a little more time.
   
   Pakistani militia attacked Kashmir on the dawn of 26th October 1947. Hari Singh panicked and acceded to India only after that, 3 days later, thus making Kashmir a part of India and thereby the attack by Pakistan on Kashmir an attack on Indian sovereignty. Only after that Indian forces landed in Srinagar. Hari Singh never wanted to join India. He despised Nehru and feared land-reforms. You need to check the history. Your understanding is a bit lacking in that area.

That's just Pakistani media feeding you. India's military budget is more than the entire federal budget of Pakistan. If we wage a proxy war, then there would have been much more trouble in Pakistan than it is presently. You have to come up with concrete evidence! Your govt. is playing tricks with you, creating a boogeyman out of India.

I'm extremely sorry things have come down to this. But as I said, we cannot afford to see Pakistani terrorists running amok in our cities killing people at will.

You don't trust us, we don't trust. You blame our media, we blame yours.
You see war is there, just around the corner.
If India could do something else, she had already in last 60 years.

 

[HRK]

United Nations Official Document
Para 4 onwards.

I hope you have read the attach link in your own post thoroughly (Para-5, particularly)

hope ...this one line is enough to burst some myths ....

 

[bloo]

I hope you have read the attach link in your own post thoroughly (Para-5, particularly)

View attachment 249559
hope ...this one line is enough to burst some myths ....

That's a given, that was one of the reason why UN was made to begin with, I never said indefinitely.
But the fact of the matter is that it hasn't deemed 'The India-Pakistan question' necessary since the last 5 years despite Pakistan insisting on it almost every year since.
No myth busting really, only simple facts.

 

[HRK]

That's a given, that was one of the reason why UN was made to begin with, I never said indefinitely.
But the fact of the matter is that it hasn't deemed 'The India-Pakistan question' necessary since the last 5 years despite Pakistan insisting on it almost every year since.
No myth busting really, only simple facts.

its because the The Kashmir issue was not presenting any critical circumstances due to Pak-India composite dialogue during the period; therefore no debate was conducted during those 3 year tenure, so for setting the agenda for next tenure it was put out of the active list that does not translate Kashmir as SETTLED or RESOLVED issue .... as some of the Indian members are portraying here on the forum & as the Indian media reported previously, this point can be understood further by the exclusion of The Palestine question (item 56) as well.

I hope you also don't want the situation in Kashmir to go critical just to make it a part of item list of Security Council meeting .... further this shows the importance of Pak-India dialogue regarding Kashmir for India ....