What's new

India-Pakistan Dialogue: Is It Possible?

.
janab mazraat ke saath arz karoonga izzat mangne se nahi milti uske liye mehnat kerni parti hai aur wo bhi masalsal na ki har baat me keere dhondhne , sazishee maqbooze banane aur apne nikamme pan aur jahalat aur bebasi ke liye doosron ko jimmedaar banane se

wo suna hi huga "khuda bhi usi ki madad kerta hai jo apni madad khud kerta hai"

I don't speak your tongue.
 
.
It's possible when the war monging and ego "INDIA DA BEST, PAKISTAN DA BEST" are nowhere to be seen.
 
.
Ok then free Kashmir and its 95% Muslim population. You lack any legitimacy to represent any Muslim in India. Return Hyderabad, Lakshadweep, Muslim parts of UP, Gujurat, Bihar, and Assam.
why the land?? just take the muslims from those areas but guess what even they don't want to leave india for pakistan.
 
.
India dnt seem interested so lets forget it for now ...

Please, tell me what Pakistan can actually offer to India, I believe Pakistan nothing to offer still do blunders to cancel the talks.
 
.
India-Pakistan Dialogue: Is It Possible?



Ayesha Tanzeem
September 30, 2014


WASHINGTON

Both the Indian and Pakistani prime ministers insisted in their recent U.N. speeches that they want engagement with the other, but the actual possibility of meaningful dialogue between the two countries in the near future appears slim.

After Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi invited his Pakistani counterpart to his inauguration, and Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif accepted, despite pressure from the country’s security establishment, the two sides seemed to be off to a good start.

That quickly faded once the Indian side canceled foreign secretary-level talks scheduled for August.

Although they cited a meeting between Pakistan’s ambassador and separatist leaders from Indian-administered Kashmir, that might have been just an excuse, according to Michael Kugelman, a senior program associate for South Asia at the Washington-based Wilson Center. He thinks India canceled the meeting because Prime Minister Sharif’s government had taken a beating domestically and Prime Minister Modi did not think he could be a consequential partner at this time.

“India is not in this just to go through the motions. They want specific, meaningful outcomes. They are asking for more than Pakistan is willing to deliver,” said Kugelman.

That meaningful, specific outcome has to do with tackling terrorism. India wants Pakistan to crack down on groups that threaten India, particularly Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a group that was involved in 12 coordinated shooting and bombing attacks on the Indian commercial center, Mumbai, that lasted four days. On top of India’s list of demands for Pakistan is to take legal action against LeT members inside Pakistan.

LeT is widely believed to enjoy support from Pakistan’s strong security establishment. Prime Minister Modi referred to this in his U.N. speech.

“Even today some countries are giving refuge to terrorists on their soil and consider terrorism to be a tool of their policy. And when one hears about good terrorism and bad terrorism, it raises a question mark on our struggle to fight against terrorism,” said Modi.

He also said India is willing to talk to Pakistan on improving relations as long as it is “without the shadow of terrorism.”

However, India’s enhanced focus on terrorism and making it the central theme in any bilateral engagement may be counter-productive, said Lahore-based political scientist Hasan Askari Rizvi.

“I think the problem is that India has now reduced the relationship to the single issue of terrorism,” said Rizvi.

Many believe this is the same mistake Pakistan made in the past when it reduced the relationship to the single issue of Kashmir. The relationship never went anywhere. Other rival countries, like India and China, or China and the U.S., have been successful in reducing tensions and increasing cooperation with each other by dealing first with the issues easiest to resolve.

India’s own relationship with China, a country with which it has fought a war, improved tremendously when the two countries separated their border disputes from trade. Now China is one of India’s largest trading partners. India’s former minister of external affairs, Kunwar Natwar Singh, wants Pakistan to take a page from China’s book and keep Kashmir separate from trade talks, but he said the Pakistani establishment is “obsessed” with Kashmir. At the same time, he insists that terrorism cannot be separated from trade or any other talks with Pakistan.

“I think terrorism is a very serious problem. To think that we would push terrorism to the back of the agenda is unlikely,” said Singh.

Still, Modi’s U.N. speech may have opened another tiny window of opportunity. Pakistan's prime minister used harsher language vis-à-vis Kashmir in his U.N. speech than has been used in a few years. Pakistan watchers chalk it up to a combination of domestic pressure from the security establishment and what Sharif might have believed was a lukewarm response to his overtures toward Modi.

“Modi did not respond to Sharif on Kashmir. It opened the possibility for the two to open dialogue again,” according to Suhasini Haider, the strategic and diplomatic affairs editor of The Hindu, a well-respected Indian newspaper.

She interviewed Pakistan’s de-facto foreign minister Sartaj Aziz after Modi’s speech. Aziz welcomed Modi’s call for dialogue and even acknowledged that the meeting between Pakistan’s envoy and Kashmiri separatist leaders from the Hurriat Conference was ill-timed. Her copy called his response a “softening of positions.”

India-Pakistan Dialogue: Is It Possible?

In one word.... NO.
Why waste time and resources with someone whose sole reason of existance is that they think that we are their enemies.
 
. . . .
India-Pakistan Dialogue: Is It Possible?



Ayesha Tanzeem
September 30, 2014


WASHINGTON

Both the Indian and Pakistani prime ministers insisted in their recent U.N. speeches that they want engagement with the other, but the actual possibility of meaningful dialogue between the two countries in the near future appears slim.

After Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi invited his Pakistani counterpart to his inauguration, and Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif accepted, despite pressure from the country’s security establishment, the two sides seemed to be off to a good start.

That quickly faded once the Indian side canceled foreign secretary-level talks scheduled for August.

Although they cited a meeting between Pakistan’s ambassador and separatist leaders from Indian-administered Kashmir, that might have been just an excuse, according to Michael Kugelman, a senior program associate for South Asia at the Washington-based Wilson Center. He thinks India canceled the meeting because Prime Minister Sharif’s government had taken a beating domestically and Prime Minister Modi did not think he could be a consequential partner at this time.

“India is not in this just to go through the motions. They want specific, meaningful outcomes. They are asking for more than Pakistan is willing to deliver,” said Kugelman.

That meaningful, specific outcome has to do with tackling terrorism. India wants Pakistan to crack down on groups that threaten India, particularly Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a group that was involved in 12 coordinated shooting and bombing attacks on the Indian commercial center, Mumbai, that lasted four days. On top of India’s list of demands for Pakistan is to take legal action against LeT members inside Pakistan.

LeT is widely believed to enjoy support from Pakistan’s strong security establishment. Prime Minister Modi referred to this in his U.N. speech.

“Even today some countries are giving refuge to terrorists on their soil and consider terrorism to be a tool of their policy. And when one hears about good terrorism and bad terrorism, it raises a question mark on our struggle to fight against terrorism,” said Modi.

He also said India is willing to talk to Pakistan on improving relations as long as it is “without the shadow of terrorism.”

However, India’s enhanced focus on terrorism and making it the central theme in any bilateral engagement may be counter-productive, said Lahore-based political scientist Hasan Askari Rizvi.

“I think the problem is that India has now reduced the relationship to the single issue of terrorism,” said Rizvi.

Many believe this is the same mistake Pakistan made in the past when it reduced the relationship to the single issue of Kashmir. The relationship never went anywhere. Other rival countries, like India and China, or China and the U.S., have been successful in reducing tensions and increasing cooperation with each other by dealing first with the issues easiest to resolve.

India’s own relationship with China, a country with which it has fought a war, improved tremendously when the two countries separated their border disputes from trade. Now China is one of India’s largest trading partners. India’s former minister of external affairs, Kunwar Natwar Singh, wants Pakistan to take a page from China’s book and keep Kashmir separate from trade talks, but he said the Pakistani establishment is “obsessed” with Kashmir. At the same time, he insists that terrorism cannot be separated from trade or any other talks with Pakistan.

“I think terrorism is a very serious problem. To think that we would push terrorism to the back of the agenda is unlikely,” said Singh.

Still, Modi’s U.N. speech may have opened another tiny window of opportunity. Pakistan's prime minister used harsher language vis-à-vis Kashmir in his U.N. speech than has been used in a few years. Pakistan watchers chalk it up to a combination of domestic pressure from the security establishment and what Sharif might have believed was a lukewarm response to his overtures toward Modi.

“Modi did not respond to Sharif on Kashmir. It opened the possibility for the two to open dialogue again,” according to Suhasini Haider, the strategic and diplomatic affairs editor of The Hindu, a well-respected Indian newspaper.

She interviewed Pakistan’s de-facto foreign minister Sartaj Aziz after Modi’s speech. Aziz welcomed Modi’s call for dialogue and even acknowledged that the meeting between Pakistan’s envoy and Kashmiri separatist leaders from the Hurriat Conference was ill-timed. Her copy called his response a “softening of positions.”

India-Pakistan Dialogue: Is It Possible?
Not possible in current state.
 
.
I don't speak your tongue.
ok in english

respect is earned thru reletntless and uncompromising hard work and positive deeds its not given to beggars , negeative minded conspiracy theorists who think and belave all there shortcoming and misfortune are deu to others while bieng utter incompetent , negetaive and lazy and thats the main reason there can be no dialog on equal terms with a country like land of the pure and a country like india ...thank you
 
.
You don't acknowledge any Muslims' right to exist. Makes you just like Nazis. You believe in Karma? Be ready when the pendulum swings your way.

So, you think yourself as the wannabe thekedar of Indian Muslims. :girl_wacko:
 
.
Those lands have always been Indian and they will remain so.If muslims feel different,they can go settle in pakistan.And why should we free kashmir,we have instrument of accession.

India only existed since 1947. Those lands belong to the people living there. Kashmir belongs to Kashmiris. Not to random Hindu zealots from Gujurat. Why should anyone have to leave their homes if you don't allow them to practice their faith?

The world doesn't revolve around you or your India cow mata, get over yourselves.
 
. . .

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom