India-Pakistan Talks - 2010

[pkd]

Talks ‘fruitless’ unless Kashmir, water discussed: Pakistan

ISLAMABAD: Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi Wednesday said Pakistan wants to hold candid talks with India at the earliest and that the dialogue will not be fruitful unless Kashmir and water issues are not addressed.

In an exclusive talk with Geo News correspondents Jawad Naeem Rana and Fayaz Raja here, Shah Mehmood Qureshi said Pakistan does not want to hold dialogue just for the sake of talks.

He said the negotiations have to be result oriented and ruled out talks if case any conditions attached to the process.

“Terrorism is not only the problem of India but also of Pakistan and it will be on the agenda of dialogue,” the Foreign Minister said.
Talks ‘fruitless’ unless Kashmir, water discussed: Pakistan

 

[Parashuram1]

Talks ‘fruitless’ unless Kashmir, water discussed: Pakistan

ISLAMABAD: Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi Wednesday said Pakistan wants to hold candid talks with India at the earliest and that the dialogue will not be fruitful unless Kashmir and water issues are not addressed.

In an exclusive talk with Geo News correspondents Jawad Naeem Rana and Fayaz Raja here, Shah Mehmood Qureshi said Pakistan does not want to hold dialogue just for the sake of talks.

He said the negotiations have to be result oriented and ruled out talks if case any conditions attached to the process.

“Terrorism is not only the problem of India but also of Pakistan and it will be on the agenda of dialogue,” the Foreign Minister said.
Talks ‘fruitless’ unless Kashmir, water discussed: Pakistan

This looks like a deviation from the matter at hand. To be clear, there are separate talk sessions held on those issues separately. Since this meeting was about terrorism exclusively, Pakistani foreign minister shouldn't have brought political agenda in the midst of this.

A pure attempt to divert attention. There are better times that can be used for dispute discussions and now both countries must work on a consensus to eliminate terrorism. Both the countries face terrorism that is dangerous to the citizens of entire South Asia and therefore politically charged matters should be kept aside when discussing immediate and more important matters at hand.

Unless a joint effort is made to first stop terrorism, there is no end to hostility between the two neighbours. Neither India will accede its territory not would Pakistan and the status quo is something that is going to continue for quite sometime as it is the reality. Therefore, both Delhi and Islamabad must focus now on terrorism rather than so-called territorial disputes.

 

[TechLahore]

Therefore, both Delhi and Islamabad must focus now on terrorism rather than so-called territorial disputes.

We (Pakistan) think that is a highly flawed viewpoint. Terrorism cannot be addressed until the underlying issues of alienation and anger are addressed. This requires Kashmir and other Pak-India disputes to be resolved.

A few days ago when we were discussing this Indian offer of talks in a different thread, I had suggested that Pakistan will demand to add Kashmir to the talks agenda. If India gives in to the demand, it would be a diplomatic victory. And if India refuses, Pakistan will claim that the offer was never well intentioned to begin with and reject it.

Net-net, while one has to wait for the above scenario to play out, I don't think it is in Pakistan's interest to negotiate at the moment. The regional situation is very fluid and we must wait for the Afghan scenario to fully play out before focusing our attention elsewhere.

 

[karan.1970]

We (Pakistan) think that is a highly flawed viewpoint. Terrorism cannot be addressed until the underlying issues of alienation and anger are addressed. This requires Kashmir and other Pak-India disputes to be resolved.

A few days ago when we were discussing this Indian offer of talks in a different thread, I had suggested that Pakistan will demand to add Kashmir to the talks agenda. If India gives in to the demand, it would be a diplomatic victory. And if India refuses, Pakistan will claim that the offer was never well intentioned to begin with and reject it.

Net-net, while one has to wait for the above scenario to play out, I don't think it is in Pakistan's interest to negotiate at the moment. The regional situation is very fluid and we must wait for the Afghan scenario to fully play out before focusing our attention elsewhere.

In my view a lot of back channel stuff would have already happened before it was made public.. but you're right. lets see how this goes down

 

[Storm Force]

Everybody should Pack up and go home Then.

" Is this atitude that Pakistanis want frm india"

Afterall IT IS INDIA that controls both the water and KASHMIR.

If Pakistan starts demanding THE INDIANS will just say FORGET THE TALKS !!!

(PAKISTAN NEEDS to push for talks) STATUS QUO suits INDIA foar more tham pakistan i think

 

[Parashuram1]

Everybody should Pack up and go home Then.

" Is this atitude that Pakistanis want frm india"

Afterall IT IS INDIA that controls both the water and KASHMIR.

If Pakistan starts demanding THE INDIANS will just say FORGET THE TALKS !!!

(PAKISTAN NEEDS to push for talks) STATUS QUO suits INDIA foar more tham pakistan i think

Well there is nothing more that can be done at the moment. No matter what government takes place in Delhi, Indians are never going to agree to Pakistani demands of their territory since there are a lot of displaced indigenous Pandit and Sikh communities of Kashmir that lost property and possessions and as a matter of national issue, Delhi would never agree to your policy.

The same goes for your side as well. Therefore, what is the point of wasting time and letting terrorists flourish and capture your lawless lands? Pakistan accuses Delhi of facilitating terrorist activities in Baluchistan province while India accuses you to ferment separatism in Kashmir province.

The dispute-in-question over Kashmir is claimed by only Pakistan and therefore Indians as a counter attack in future could demand Baluchistan's freedom as well. Pakistani Army's brutal crushing of previous separatist movements hasn't gone down well from the civic rights perspective and this is bound to play the same role as what Islamabad accuses Delhi of in the state of Kashmir. You see, democracy whether in Pakistan or India means freedom but not separatism and this is where a line is to be drawn between the sovereignty of a country and the amount of freedom granted to the people.

Therefore if practicality is seen and if at all both sides are involved in fermenting terrorism in either countries, the best would be a mutual agreement to accept Balochistan as Pakistan's province and Kashmir as India's province rather than India picking the cue later on and disputing a region of your country. Isn't it?

Think about the peace you people will have in the continent alongside focusing on joint combat operations against the Taliban and Al Qaida. This will also promote good will and mutual respect for each other's territories, culture and religion.

 

[Creder]

This looks like a deviation from the matter at hand. To be clear, there are separate talk sessions held on those issues separately. Since this meeting was about terrorism exclusively, Pakistani foreign minister shouldn't have brought political agenda in the midst of this.

A pure attempt to divert attention. There are better times that can be used for dispute discussions and now both countries must work on a consensus to eliminate terrorism. Both the countries face terrorism that is dangerous to the citizens of entire South Asia and therefore politically charged matters should be kept aside when discussing immediate and more important matters at hand.

Unless a joint effort is made to first stop terrorism, there is no end to hostility between the two neighbours. Neither India will accede its territory not would Pakistan and the status quo is something that is going to continue for quite sometime as it is the reality. Therefore, both Delhi and Islamabad must focus now on terrorism rather than so-called territorial disputes.

More lives have been lost to these so called territorial disputes than to terrorism, infact terrorism itself originated because of these disputes. They need to be resolved in order to ensure stability in the region. Im interested as to how a dispute in which 50,000 people have been killed so far, is the cause of three wars between india and pakistan is a "so-called" dispute

 

[TechLahore]

Everybody should Pack up and go home Then.

" Is this atitude that Pakistanis want frm india"

Afterall IT IS INDIA that controls both the water and KASHMIR.

If Pakistan starts demanding THE INDIANS will just say FORGET THE TALKS !!!

(PAKISTAN NEEDS to push for talks) STATUS QUO suits INDIA foar more tham pakistan i think

If I am not mistaken Pakistan and India both control parts of Kashmir.

And if I'm not mistaken the Indian government is already negotiating with Pakistan on water issues under the terms of the IWT.

So this current round of talks is not needed. Waste of time unless the two sides have decided to return to the status quo at the time of the Musharraf/Vajpayee talks prior to them being scuttled.

 

[TechLahore]

Therefore if practicality is seen and if at all both sides are involved in fermenting terrorism in either countries, the best would be a mutual agreement to accept Balochistan as Pakistan's province and Kashmir as India's province rather than India picking the cue later on and disputing a region of your country. Isn't it?

There is no parallel between Baluchistan and Kashmir. Kashmir has been disputed territory since 1947, with an LoC running through its middle. Baluchistan has never been disputed territory, the issue there is simply foreign funding for terrorists.

Think about the peace you people will have in the continent alongside focusing on joint combat operations against the Taliban and Al Qaida. This will also promote good will and mutual respect for each other's territories, culture and religion.

Pakistan does not need any assistance in dealing with the Taliban and Al Qaeda, as the operations in Swat and SWA have very clearly demonstrated. Of all the 30+ countries fighting the war on terror no other army's operations have been as successful as those of the PA. This is a matter of record.

 

[UnitedPak]

Well there is nothing more that can be done at the moment...

This is the main argument of the majority of Indian members regarding the Kashmir dispute. To drag the dispute out endlessly. It portrays the complete disregard they have towards the Kashmiri people.

Ignoring Kashmiris wont end the dispute, but it shows that you know little of the ground realities there.

 

[navtrek]

This is the main argument of the majority of Indian members regarding the Kashmir dispute. To drag the dispute out endlessly. It portrays the complete disregard they have towards the Kashmiri people.

Ignoring Kashmiris wont end the dispute, but it shows that you know little of the ground realities there.

And the ground reality of what people of Pakistan know is all censored and falsified so u guys believe that there is oppression all over in Kashmir.

Much of the problem is the infiltration across the LOC, If that proxy war is stopped then we can start talking abt solution

 

[TechLahore]

And the ground reality of what people of Pakistan know is all censored and falsified so u guys believe that there is oppression all over in Kashmir.

Much of the problem is the infiltration across the LOC, If that proxy war is stopped then we can start talking abt solution

There are 5-10K Taliban. 30,000 troops are dealing with them. If you add FC it is about 100K troops.

There have been as high as 600-650K troops deployed in Kashmir. Are they all there to prevent infiltration? If you honestly analyze the situation, you will hopefully see that this is the highest per-capita level of military deployment anywhere in the world and is a "hold and secure" force.

You can give us your version of things, but then we can give you ours. It doesn't solve anything.

Talks are not in Pakistan's interest right now. The situation needs some time to air out. The winds from the West are harbingers of change.

 

[karan.1970]

There is no parallel between Baluchistan and Kashmir. Kashmir has been disputed territory since 1947, with an LoC running through its middle. Baluchistan has never been disputed territory, the issue there is simply foreign funding for terrorists.

While Balochistan is not disputed, the movement there has similarities to the Khalistan movement and Mukti Bahini movement . However the origin of the issue in balochistan is similar to that of Kashmir where a section of people do not recognize the IofA. So not being a disputed piece of land doesnt do much if the people living there are unhappy (genuinely or instigated) enough to rise against the state.. Present day examples apart from Balochistan are ULFA in NE India and LTTE (though done and over with now). I suspect that India has a role in Balochistan situation(am not privy to the covert Indian foreign policies) and has been there for sometime. I K Gujral screwed up the infrastructure during his tenure, but I suspect that has been revived now and GoI may be angling to use it as a chip to crank up pressure on Pakistan as a counter balance to Pakistan activities in J&K

Oh what a tangled web....

 

[TechLahore]

I K Gujral screwed up the infrastructure during his tenure, but I suspect that has been revived now and GoI may be angling to use it as a chip to crank up pressure on Pakistan as a counter balance to Pakistan activities in J&K

Oh what a tangled web....

You are right, India has certainly been increasing support for terrorists etc. in Baluchistan. However, from what I have gathered in discussions with officers - in particular a Brigadier stationed in Quetta - the situation has normalized over the last year+. The 'key' fomentors have been neutralized and the very substantial recent economic package for Baluchistan has allowed the administration to prevent the 'miscreants' from leveraging the local population in any significant way.

On the other hand, I think the relative stability in J&K was only achieved after Pakistan and India went down the talks route in the Musharraf era and Pakistan exercised its influence to stabilise things across the LoC. Given that this period of calm coincided with an increase of foreign support for insurgents in FATA and some parts of Baluchistan, I think many in the Pakistani establishment are of the view that the gloves might as well be taken off.

Also, logistically, I think it will become well nigh impossible for support to be provided to anti-state elements in Baluchistan and FATA once the Afghan situation has sufficiently progressed in the direction it is going in. Pakistan will calculate most likely, that the ability for 'pressure' to be exerted on it in Baluchistan and FATA is going to be significantly lessened in the emerging Afghan scenario...

 

[tiger1313]

If I am not mistaken Pakistan and India both control parts of Kashmir.

And if I'm not mistaken the Indian government is already negotiating with Pakistan on water issues under the terms of the IWT.

So this current round of talks is not needed. Waste of time unless the two sides have decided to return to the status quo at the time of the Musharraf/Vajpayee talks prior to them being scuttled.

I think he means the portion of Kashmir India rants or is really interested in. We've got what we want.