India rejects China's offer, says talks with Pakistan only possible in bilateral framework

[Spring Onion]

It was said yesterday

"Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang said during a press conference on Wednesday."

That must be usual media asking question. In my opinion an official proposal is something that comes directly from a government not on usual occasions. This is merely a routine formal statement.

 

[Sliver]

India also offered this so called bilateral framework in 2014
Ready to talk Jammu and Kashmir within bilateral framework: India to Pakistan

but what happened India backstabbed us by using her proxies to sabotage CPEC

1. what is this so called bilateral framework by the way ?

that should be the simla agreement. It was talked about in length in this forum many times over.

from wiki (does any Indian member have official source of the Simla agreement so I can go over the content?)
"
Both countries will "settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations".[1][4] India has, many a times, maintained that Kashmir dispute is a bilateral issue and must be settled through bilateral negotiations as per Simla Agreement, 1972 and thus, had denied any third party intervention even that of United Nations.[5]
The agreement converted the cease-fire line of 17 December 1971 into the Line of Control (LOC) between India and Pakistan and it was agreed that "neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations".[1][3] Many Indian bureaucrats have later argued that a tacit agreement, to convert this LOC into international border, was reached during a one-on-one meeting between the two heads of government. However, Pakistani bureaucrats have denied any such thing.[2][3] This identification of a new "cease-fire line" by both the states has been argued by India as making United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan insignificant. As according to India, the purpose of UNMOGIP was to monitor the cease-fire line as identified in Karachi agreement of 1949 which no longer exists. However, Pakistan have a different take on this issue and both countries still host the UN mission.[5]"

 

[shahbaz baig]

that should be the simla agreement. It was talked about in length in this forum many times over.

from wiki (does any Indian member have official source of the Simla agreement so I can go over the content?)
"
Both countries will "settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations".[1][4] India has, many a times, maintained that Kashmir dispute is a bilateral issue and must be settled through bilateral negotiations as per Simla Agreement, 1972 and thus, had denied any third party intervention even that of United Nations.[5]
The agreement converted the cease-fire line of 17 December 1971 into the Line of Control (LOC) between India and Pakistan and it was agreed that "neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations".[1][3] Many Indian bureaucrats have later argued that a tacit agreement, to convert this LOC into international border, was reached during a one-on-one meeting between the two heads of government. However, Pakistani bureaucrats have denied any such thing.[2][3] This identification of a new "cease-fire line" by both the states has been argued by India as making United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan insignificant. As according to India, the purpose of UNMOGIP was to monitor the cease-fire line as identified in Karachi agreement of 1949 which no longer exists. However, Pakistan have a different take on this issue and both countries still host the UN mission.[5]"

thanks for sharing the info. but what so ever India has to wait until Pakistan diplomatic crises wouldn't be resolved and this statement is not directly came from Indian government officially. this statement came from an individual as a routine statement. we are waiting official announcement, settlement & meeting by Indian Govt.

 

[AKD]

that should be the simla agreement. It was talked about in length in this forum many times over.

from wiki (does any Indian member have official source of the Simla agreement so I can go over the content?)

See post 10. I have posted official MEA(ministry of external affairs) document on shimla agreement.

 

[Arsalan 345]

Bilateral is basically a trick India use just to avoid becoming Kashmir an international issue.Pakistani foreign policy are the policy of fools.bilateral will never work.Pakistan should ask China to interfere since India will never solve this problem.according to India,Kashmir is an integral part and they will never listen to us.no summit nothing whatsoever. They are just fooling Pakistan and they always play this bilateral card.they know Pakistan might not be able to capture entire Kashmir alone.through this bilateral thing,they are keeping other countries away from this problem specially Chinese.I think Pakistan should review its foreign policy.

 

[scorpionx]

That must be usual media asking question. In my opinion an official proposal is something that comes directly from a government not on usual occasions.This is merely a routine formal statement.

That is understandable. This is not an official offer. No country would voluntarily declare willingness to mediate unless there is a consensus between the two contesting parties. The significance of this statement should be, if desired by India and Pakistan, China will mediate in K-issue.

 

[KN-1]

Pakistan has always accept international mediation from US, UN, EU or China for sake of peace, which shows Pakistan's hands are clear, while occupier bharat runs away bcoz they know they are real terrorists in Kashmir, they fear if someone mediate and both Pakistan and bharatis agree on plebiscite real terrorists (bharatis) will be exposed.

 

[Imran Khan]

china is already a party in kashmir

 

[axisofevil]

we all know hue and cry of India. when Pakistan was diplomatically ready to talk with India that time India denied every humble request of Pakistan about resolving the issue of kashmir.. and now when Pakistan federal Govt facing Panama Case and in trouble then india played her card

India also offered this so called bilateral framework in 2014
Ready to talk Jammu and Kashmir within bilateral framework: India to Pakistan

but what happened India backstabbed us by using her proxies to sabotage CPEC

1. what is this so called bilateral framework by the way ?

2. i am really Concern if Bhutan request India to interfere.. so there should be an Official statement/Agreement with India by Bhutan please share with me if any.. (Dont Quote the crap of News)

3. India has shown the Concern about Siliguri Corridor which is in my opinion it's just a lack of trust between China & India... otherwise siliguri Corridor is miles far away from Sikkim border and there are many barriers in term of rivers, difficult terrain and many hurdles that ensure the safety of both sides naturally so Siliguri Corridor should not be a concern from Indian side if china just want to construct a road.

4. China has ambition to link with Nepal & Bhutan as china already wanna link among many countries using OBOR that is why China is building this Road too... and India already denied any participation in OBOR.. so looks like it's geopolitics war rather then misunderstanding between both Countries..

in my opinion India should join OBOR.. and China should play a constructive role to join Bhutan as well as Nepal in this bigger project.. India is moving toward two front bit by bit because of India's unwarranted concerns & and it's not good for regional connectivity and prosperity of the region.

on the other end Pakistan & India should negotiate on Kashmir crises & issues and also other issues too.

Your opinion doesn't count. After seeing how your countries truly behave and act......I wouldn't pee in an cup if you were thirsty.

 

[third eye]

Just for a change, I am feeling perhaps this could have been a good opportunity for India to solve Kashmir problem peacefully. Given the Chinese stake in West Kashmir and Punjab, perhaps a talk on turning the status quo into a permanent boundary would look lucrative to the Chinese.

No way.

Anything to do with J&K is strictly bi lateral , involving a 3rd party will dilute Indian stand taken all along.

China has not been able to solve its own border related problems with India, how can it be expected to resolve someone else's ?

Further , since China is an involved party , how can it be expected to be impartial ??

 

[wiseone2]

we all know hue and cry of India. when Pakistan was diplomatically ready to talk with India that time India denied every humble request of Pakistan about resolving the issue of kashmir.. and now when Pakistan federal Govt facing Panama Case and in trouble then india played her card

India also offered this so called bilateral framework in 2014
Ready to talk Jammu and Kashmir within bilateral framework: India to Pakistan

but what happened India backstabbed us by using her proxies to sabotage CPEC

1. what is this so called bilateral framework by the way ?

2. i am really Concern if Bhutan request India to interfere.. so there should be an Official statement/Agreement with India by Bhutan please share with me if any.. (Dont Quote the crap of News)

3. India has shown the Concern about Siliguri Corridor which is in my opinion it's just a lack of trust between China & India... otherwise siliguri Corridor is miles far away from Sikkim border and there are many barriers in term of rivers, difficult terrain and many hurdles that ensure the safety of both sides naturally so Siliguri Corridor should not be a concern from Indian side if china just want to construct a road.

4. China has ambition to link with Nepal & Bhutan as china already wanna link among many countries using OBOR that is why China is building this Road too... and India already denied any participation in OBOR.. so looks like it's geopolitics war rather then misunderstanding between both Countries..

in my opinion India should join OBOR.. and China should play a constructive role to join Bhutan as well as Nepal in this bigger project.. India is moving toward two front bit by bit because of India's unwarranted concerns & and it's not good for regional connectivity and prosperity of the region.

on the other end Pakistan & India should negotiate on Kashmir crises & issues and also other issues too.

Do you know what the Silguri corridor is ?

 

[randomradio]

Both India and Pakistan have agreed to not internationalize Kashmir and to have talks only at the bilateral level. So that's how it's going to stay.

 

[scorpionx]

No way.

Anything to do with J&K is strictly bi lateral , involving a 3rd party will dilute Indian stand taken all along.

China has not been able to solve its own border related problems with India, how can it be expected to resolve someone else's ?

Further , since China is an involved party , how can it be expected to be impartial ??

Your objection is valid and pertinent. But this is already a seventy year old framework which seems to be heading no way. Multiple bilateral treaties did not deter Pakistan keeping Kashmir issue successfully alive and as long as it remains bilateral, Pakistan will not feel any compulsion to make any fundamental shift in their Kashmir policy. The benefit of making China and only China involve is, unlike United States, the Chinese has a complete different ball game in Pakistan. They won't want to jeopardize their heavy investment through Punjab plains and Baluchistan in case situation in Kashmir gets escalated.

It is true that China applies a complete different logic when it comes to border settlement with India, than what it did with Central Asian countries and the Soviets. All practical reasoning seem to be absent recently. But sound diplomacy needs to focus on practicalities. What harm will it make, if we proceed on case by case basis?

China is an involved party with a parent-guardian relationship (It may irk many Pakistanis but that's how it is) with Pakistan. India needs to open up possibilities to convince the Chinese to force Pakistanis agree on making LOC International boundary. It may lead to a cataclysmic change in Pakistan's domestic policy, social upheavals and a complete about turn in the Army's ideological shift; But we must realize that bilateral negotiations are not going to achieve these.

 

[Fireurimagination]

Your objection is valid and pertinent. But this is already a seventy year old framework which seems to be heading no way. Multiple bilateral treaties did not deter Pakistan keeping Kashmir issue successfully alive and as long as it remains bilateral, Pakistan will not feel any compulsion to make any fundamental shift in their Kashmir policy. The benefit of making China and only China involve is, unlike United States, the Chinese has a complete different ball game in Pakistan. They won't want to jeopardize their heavy investment through Punjab plains and Baluchistan in case situation in Kashmir gets escalated.

It is true that China applies a complete different logic when it comes to border settlement with India, than what it did with Central Asian countries and the Soviets. All practical reasoning seem to be absent recently. But sound diplomacy needs to focus on practicalities. What harm will it make, if we proceed on case by case basis?

China is an involved party with a parent-guardian relationship (It may irk many Pakistanis but that's how it is) with Pakistan. India needs to open up possibilities to convince the Chinese to force Pakistanis agree on making LOC International boundary. It may lead to a cataclysmic change in Pakistan's domestic policy, social upheavals and a complete about turn in the Army's ideological shift; But we must realize that bilateral negotiations are not going to achieve these.

China, US, UN doesn't matter, the fact remains there is no solution as neither India nor Pakistan will budge and let go of an inch of territory, only solution is making LOC the IB which will happen in the next 25-30 years, so chill!

 

[scorpionx]

China, US, UN doesn't matter, the fact remains there is no solution as neither India nor Pakistan will budge and let go of an inch of territory, only solution is making LOC the IB which will happen in the next 25-30 years, so chill!

Actually, I was suggesting the same with a Chinese nitro-booster