India has no desire to wage war

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Supporting mukhti bahini and LTTE cant be called an act of war . They were not indian and neither were they soldiers

India supported violent terrorists that committed unspeakable atrocities against the people of Pakistan and Sri Lanka - that is quite clearly an act of war, far more than 9/11, since no State took responsibility for supporting those attacks, but India actually celebrates its support for terrorism in East Pakistan in 1971.

If that were true then Pakistan has been waging war on India for the last 22 years since 1989 in Kashmir . That leaves you with no ability whatsoever to say to anything to us .

Actually not so true - in the absence of an Indian desire to implement a plebiscite and the UNSC resolutions, the territory remains disputed and therefore not 'Indian'. East Pakistan and Sri Lanka were never recognized as 'disputed'.

Junagadh too was quite clearly part of Pakistan, since the instrument of accession had been signed and delivered months before the Indian invasion and occupation, and India was well aware of it given the diplomatic cables exchanged between India and Pakistan at the time.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Read the thread title: "India has no desire to wage war."

Yeah so any country that doesn't have such a constitutional guarantee , does it mean it intends to wage war ?

If Pakistan doesn't do the same then it means it is the aggressor as usual in the relationship in that case.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

this doesnt sound like a question to me. just more of empty rhetoric

No, the empty rhetoric would be that issued by your political leadership, in the absence of any redeployment of the massive Indian military along the Pakistani border, and in the absence of any legal/constitutional restrictions on 'waging war'.

So I am assuming that your answer is 'No, India will not legally commit to not waging war without international legal sanction'?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Yeah so any country that doesn't have such a constitutional guarantee , does it mean it intends to wage war ?

No guarantee means just that - no guarantee.

Why would it mean anything else?

 

[Rafi]

And why should dear sir Pakistan not do the same ?

---------- Post added at 05:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:22 AM ----------



When you can't continue debating you resort to cheap religious insults which for the most as you know damn well are not even true .

Answering your question , no us Indians dont eat rats atleast most of us but we do know how to flush them out damn well like in 1965 and 99 .

You do worship them sonny, I have seen pictures.

---------- Post added at 05:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:33 AM ----------

Actually you did, or at least played the role of aggressor and initiator of conflicts:

1. Junagadh 1947 - through support for rebels/terrorists, and later military invasion and annexation of the State in violation of the instrument of accession signed by the ruler of the State in favor of Pakistan.

2. East Pakistan 1971 - again through support for rebels/terrorists that committed huge atrocities and in fact contributed towards the massive refugee crisis that was subsequently used as an excuse to justify Indian intervention in East Pakistan, despite the fact that Indian intervention started long before the refugee crises assumed serious proportions.

3. Siachen - In violation of the Simla Declaration

4. LTTE - India supported and trained perhaps the worlds most deadliest terrorist organization.


Far from 'clean' hands, India's....

Not to forget they had the largest Chinese rebel group the DL since 1959.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Intent is more than enough in the current circumstances .

What intent? You mean you actually think a speech by a political leader of little consequence should be taken as some sort of 'guarantee'?

Intent can only be demonstrated through tangible and meaningful actions - redeployment away from the border/LoC, or some sort of legal constitutional commitment to not wage war without international legal sanction. Outside of the above Indian 'intent' means nothing.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

India supported violent terrorists that committed unspeakable atrocities against the people of Pakistan and Sri Lanka - that is quite clearly an act of war, far more than 9/11, since no State took responsibility for supporting those attacks, but India actually celebrates its support for terrorism in East Pakistan in 1971.

Actually not so true - in the absence of an Indian desire to implement a plebiscite and the UNSC resolutions, the territory remains disputed and therefore not 'Indian'. East Pakistan and Sri Lanka were never recognized as 'disputed'.

Nobody recognises mukti bahini as a terror group . They are known all across the world except Pakistan as freedom-fighters . The only people who commited terrorism in East-Pakistan was the Pak army and that is well documented and accepted across the board by a majority of the civilised world .That had to be stopped.



About LTTE , you still could not prove how supporting a separatist organisation is an 'act of war' recognised under international law . Please correct me with facts if i am wrong .

About the second part , The territory may be disputed but that does not allow you to send in armed jihadis to try to grab the land by force . If supporting LTTE is an act of war then so is supporting Kashmiri separatists .

 

[Abhishek_]

Junagadh too was quite clearly part of Pakistan, since the instrument of accession had been signed and delivered months before the Indian invasion and occupation, and India was well aware of it given the diplomatic cables exchanged between India and Pakistan at the time.

so you wanted islands of pakistan inside mainland India?

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

What intent? You mean you actually think a speech by a political leader of little consequence should be taken as some sort of 'guarantee'?

Intent can only be demonstrated through tangible and meaningful actions - redeployment away from the border/LoC, or some sort of legal constitutional commitment to not wage war without international legal sanction. Outside of the above Indian 'intent' means nothing.

History means a lot and history proves that Pak started all or atleast most wars with India .

Secondly redeployment of Indian troops where ? Central India ? What threat do we face there ?

How do we know that you are not preparing for an Op. gibraltar (1965) or kargil(99) as we speak ?

We need to be prepared for all eventualities and situations , Pakistan has done nothing to provide us with confidence to be able to redeploy our forces away from Pak border and you can't blame us but your own history for that .

For now history and genuine sounding words are more than enough to assure you of our intent , you don't deserve any more thanks to your history of aggression in most/all past wars against India.

---------- Post added at 05:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:41 AM ----------

You do worship them sonny, I have seen pictures.

---------- Post added at 05:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:33 AM ----------



Not to forget they had the largest Chinese rebel group the DL since 1959.

As i said most of us don't . Can't speak for all Indians , there are more than a billion . haha

Even if some do , why does it make you itch in the wrong places ? Their wish . Be careful before some one runs out of patience and starts taking a potshot at islam . No need to make tis dirty .

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Nobody recognises mukti bahini as a terror group . They are known all across the world except Pakistan as freedom-fighters . The only people who commited terrorism in East-Pakistan was the Pak army and that is well documented and accepted across the board by a majority of the civilised world .That had to be stopped.

What they are 'known as ' (through distortions of history) means little given what they actually did - commit widespread atrocities against West Pakistanis, Biharis and any Bengali supporters of Pakistan, and again, Indian support for these terrorists began far earlier (according to accounts by Indian military and government officials themselves from that time) in April/May, which was the beginning of the crackdown in EP, and therefore does not support the justifications provided by India.

About LTTE , you still could not prove how supporting a separatist organisation is an 'act of war' recognised under international law . Please correct me with facts if i am wrong .

A State unilaterally supporting violent actors against another State implies a State carrying out violence against another State, which would translate to an act of war. Support for 'peaceful political separatists' would be a different argument, or at the least gain international legal sanction (through the UN) for supporting one side (for example in Libya) against atrocities by another.

About the second part , The territory may be disputed but that does not allow you to send in armed jihadis to try to grab the land by force . If supporting LTTE is an act of war then so is supporting Kashmiri separatists .

Not the same - j&K is disputed, not Indian territory.

 

[Abhishek_]

No, the empty rhetoric would be that issued by your political leadership, in the absence of any redeployment of the massive Indian military along the Pakistani border, and in the absence of any legal/constitutional restrictions on 'waging war'.

So I am assuming that your answer is 'No, India will not legally commit to not waging war without international legal sanction'?

of course AM. desire of not waging war doesnt equate legally commiting. why would you think that

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

History means a lot and history proves that Pak started all or atleast most wars with India .

Secondly redeployment of Indian troops where ? Central India ? What threat do we face there ?

How do we know that you are not preparing for an Op. gibraltar (1965) or kargil(99) as we speak ?

We need to be prepared for all eventualities and situations , Pakistan has done nothing to provide us with confidence to be able to redeploy our forces away from Pak border and you can't blame us but your own history for that .

For now history and genuine sounding words are more than enough to assure you of our intent , you don't deserve any more thanks to your history of aggression in most/all past wars against India.

I just gave you at least four instances of India initiating conflict/war against another State - the facts of history do not support your diatribe against Pakistan. India is equally, if not more, guilty of initiating war against others. There is no reason for Pakistan to trust India


How does Pakistan guarantee that India is not planning another Junagadh or East Pakistan or Siachen style invasion and occupation? Given the fact that so many in India still celebrate the open support for terrorism and the atrocities committed by those terrorists in East Pakistan, and celebrate I Gandhi the leader who made the decision to support terrorists and terrorism, no nation in Pakistan's position could trust a nation like India.

India and Indians have to, at the least, stop glorifying and celebrating support for terrorists and terrorism in East Pakistan before being taken seriously when spouting nonsense like that in the OP.

---------- Post added at 08:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:48 PM ----------

of course AM. desire of not waging war doesnt equate legally commiting. why would you think that

I did not say I 'think that', I am merely pointing out that in the absence of any tangible or meaningful guarantees, the Statement in the OP is meaningless rhetoric that no one will take seriously.

---------- Post added at 08:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:49 PM ----------

so you wanted islands of pakistan inside mainland India?

Geographic location is irrelevant given the legality of Junagadh's accession to Pakistan and India's illegal invasion, occupation and annexation of the State.

We were however connected through Sea with Junagadh, and administering it through Sea would have in fact been significantly easier than the administration of East Pakistan, which was much, much more isolated from West Pakistan.

So if East Pakistan was acceptable, then Jungadh was a piece of cake ...

 

[Abhishek_]

I did not say I 'think that', I am merely pointing out that in the absence of any tangible or meaningful guarantees, the Statement in the OP is meaningless rhetoric that no one will take seriously.

so what you are saying is unless we make a constitutional amendment stating that we will not wage war, Pakistan will continue to feel threatened.
Remind me since when that is our problem?

 

[Abhishek_]

Geographic location is irrelevant given the legality of Junagadh's accession to Pakistan and India's illegal invasion, occupation and annexation of the State.

We were however connected through Sea with Junagadh, and administering it through Sea would have in fact been significantly easier than the administration of East Pakistan, which was much, much more isolated from West Pakistan.

So if East Pakistan was acceptable, then Jungadh was a piece of cake ...

junagadh was done for practical purposes, nothing more. EP was a much larger territory and was self sufficient. Not the case with Junagadh, it was completely dependent on India which was easily demonstrated after the blockade. It didnt make any sense of having pockets of Pakistan in mainland India.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

so what you are saying is unless we make a constitutional amendment stating that we will not wage war, Pakistan will continue to feel threatened.
Remind me since when that is our problem?

I did not state that is 'your problem', I am merely pointing out how meaningless the Statement in the OP is.

I assume you agree with me on that then ...

---------- Post added at 09:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 PM ----------

junagadh was done for practical purposes, nothing more. EP was a much larger territory and was self sufficient. Not the case with Junagadh, it was completely dependent on India which was easily demonstrated after the blockade. It didnt make any sense of having pockets of Pakistan in mainland India.

It was very close to Pakistan by sea - Pakistan could have easily supplied it through sea and potentially negotiated transit rights with India to do it through land ....

Logistics would not have been a problem.