Indian Army Chief answer to Pakistan Journalist

[Peregrine]

Refer to post #134.

Tell me does Reuters count as a delusional bhartee source too?

Please refer to post number 84 or allow me to save you the trouble

http://www.defence.pk/forums/social...241444-interpol-refuses-arrest-musharraf.html

Even the interpol cited that the cases against him were of political nature and not had any legal footing, that is exactly why when he chose to return, nothing happened.......why has he decided to return after 4 years? Well thats because a democratically elected government was in place which had to complete its term of five years and the moment the government completed its term he is back in Pakistan. All the talk about "back door deals" is lil shady, but even then if he can strike a deal now he could strike a deal back then.....its simple, but he had his personal reasons and they are certainly not the ones you people are spreading.

 

[Peregrine]

@Indians

When you talk about Mushrraf, you do realize you are talking about a man, who spent a night or two in your home.

Indian chief can say that, but his disgruntled cyber warriors would never accept it. Since they can copy/paste links they are privy to all the ground realities.

 

[EzioAltaïr]

Please refer to post number 84 or allow me to save you the trouble

Even the interpol cited that the cases against him were of political nature and not had any legal footing, that is exactly why when he chose to return, nothing happened.......why has he decided to return after 4 years? Well thats because a democratically elected government was in place which had to complete its term of five years and the moment the government completed its term he is back in Pakistan. All the talk about "back door deals" is lil shady, but even then if he can strike a deal now he could strike a deal back then.....its simple, but he had his personal reasons and they are certainly not the ones you people are spreading.

It does not matter whether Interpol thought so or not. The fact is, he stayed outside because Pakistani Parliament was trying to impeach him, and returned recently to try and win elections, provided he was granted bail in advance.

Indian chief can say that, but his disgruntled cyber warriors would never accept it. Since they can copy/paste links they are privy to all the ground realities.

Ok, he was brave enough to do that, so? Does that change the fact that he abandoned 5000 men after that, with no supplies, air support, etc, and they wouldn't have gotten to see their homes if we hadn't allowed withdrawal?

Also as a side note, this news report only serves to disprove the foolish trolls who keep insisting the Kargil War was fought between 700,000 Indian soldiers, and 1000 Kashmiri "freedom-fighters".

 

[Peregrine]

It does not matter whether Interpol thought so or not. The fact is, he stayed outside because Pakistani Parliament was trying to impeach him, and returned recently to try and win elections, provided he was granted bail in advance.

Your argument is entirely based on personal views, he was granted bail by whom? Who has the authority other than the judiciary to do so?

 

[notorious_eagle]

Which is why i used the words "seem to be". The proof of the pudding as you make me repeat, is in the eating. The Kargil operation was done with the idea to choke off Indian supplies to Siachen & force a withdrawal. We are still there, that is proof enough of there being no tangible effect.

So now you are stating that you were speculating? In your last post you were stating your point as if it was an accepted fact, but now you are back tracking since i called you out. Also, nice attempt to side track the topic by raising the feasibility of the Kargil Operation against the possession of these peaks under PA.

So be it. As i have said it has made no tangible difference to Indian operations.

Okay

Those are all old stories. India's position on Siachen now is such that there are very few casualties. There are no utopian stories here, Pakistan is the one who attempted to alter the present status quo in Siachen and still seeks it. Whether it has any strategic or tactical value is moot. To use your own analogy in reverse, if Indian commanders & army brass have pumped resources & manpower there, it must hold significance, shouldn't it?

Not old stories, you are just being ignorant to accept the fact that Indians have lost more soldiers in Siachen compared to Pakistan. A simple Google search would suffice, believe me. We both are smart enough to know that warfare in Siachen is just to serve the ego, it has no strategic or tactical value due to the terrain and geography. Its a great for trekking, but besides that it has no value.

I said the military status quo does not change, if you are happy being treated as a zoological specimen every time you enter a foreign country, that is your wish.

That is outright racist and disgusting, i am surprised a person of your intellect would swoop to such low levels. Shame on you.

Don't gloat & didn't suggest that it was not a natural disaster. Pointed out that your soldiers were there because we impose their presence because of our own. Also pointed out that Kargil more less rendered a Siachen solution impossible because there is no trust whatsoever which would be a prerequisite for a deal.

Although the loss of life is regrettable, PA has more than enough strength to absorb these losses.

Doesn't matter. I'm no great fan of a mythical peace agreement. We are the status quo power, we have what we want & what we would seek in a peace agreement. We simply lose nothing by doing nothing. Btw, the only bloody(?) nose that Pakistan gave India in 2002 (late 2001) & 2008 were terrorist attacks. Good to know that you like to celebrate that. Save your spiel on impressive military force to someone who cares. I seek no war, just that I wish no peace on your terms either and my country's economy will long support that wish of mine. We know Pakistan is no Nepal or Bhutan, we like those countries.....

Once again, raising straw man arguments and twisting my words. I was not talking about the terrorist attacks, i was talking about the military mobilizations. In 2002, Pakistan's military mobilization was far more efficient and quick compared to the Indian. India lost 800 troops without firing a single bullet. It was a huge blow to India's prestige because after raising huge hue and cry, the Indians had to return back to there barracks because PA forced them too with a strong military arm.

2008: India threatens Pakistan with war, your own FM stated that India retains the option to attack Pakistan. Pakistan calls out India's bluff, begins to mobilize and displays impressive military might. Result: The Indian PM states that war is not the answer and India starts to back down.

While it is easy to state that India is a status quo power, your words are not backed up by your actions. India is desperately trying to gain advantage over Pakistan. Cold Start Doctrine, supporting terrorist activities inside Pakistan and trying to isolate Pakistan diplomatically are not the traits of a status quo power. So please, stop LYING.

Btw, unless one is blind or delusional, they would know that Pakistan has been consistently forced from its position on Kashmir/Siachen from an original - "we will settle for nothing less to one where we will settle for a lot less & getting lesser". That business of peace being only agreed to on Pakistan's terms is a laughable notion.

This is propaganda advocated by Indian spin doctors. The only place where Pakistan has back tracked on its positions is where it was in its interests to do so. It had nothing to do with India, although the Indians love to claim that they were responsible for it but infact they were not. To use your own words, the business of peace being agreed only on India's terms is a laughable notion. I am not naive to accept that Pakistan will have to back down on some of its stated positions, but so will India if it wants to implement peace. You would be naive to think that India can force Pakistan to accept terms only on its own conditions, that is absolute BS.

 

[BATMAN]

Indian General countered the questions with rhetoric, which we know already via indian media and politicians.
Did any one catch any thing new?

I wonder if Pakistani journalists.. may have asked that where is the proof of your rhetoric, perhaps he may have asked but host was too hasty in passing the dice to the next one!!!!!

General kept chanting, Democracy.. Democracy.Democracy... he shall know democracy is to serve people not kill Muslims.. as his 500K army is doing sitting in Kashmir and have the audacity to claim border was intruded in front of their eyes!

Musharraf, went to India during war... to be with his army.

 

[Bang Galore]

So now you are stating that you were speculating? In your last post you were stating your point as if it was an accepted fact, but now you are back tracking since i called you out. Also, nice attempt to side track the topic by raising the feasibility of the Kargil Operation against the possession of these peaks under PA.

No speculation. I know that there has been no tangible effect whatsoever of your holding on to the peak in question which is what I pointed out.

Not old stories, you are just being ignorant to accept the fact that Indians have lost more soldiers in Siachen compared to Pakistan. A simple Google search would suffice, believe me. We both are smart enough to know that warfare in Siachen is just to serve the ego, it has no strategic or tactical value due to the terrain and geography. Its a great for trekking, but besides that it has no value.

I said that India is not losing troops in Siachen at any alarming rate now (incidentally there is a 12-18 months wait list for those who want to serve there). Whethere it has tactical, strategic value is not really relevant, what is moot is that we are there & you wanted us out & that was the reason for the disastrous Kargil episode.

That is outright racist and disgusting, i am surprised a person of your intellect would swoop to such low levels. Shame on you.

Not at all. You were suggested that Indian efforts against you were not at all fruitful, I pointed out that evidence of the price Pakistan pays is available on presentation of person at most international airports.

Although the loss of life is regrettable, PA has more than enough strength to absorb these losses.

Like you believe India can't then.

Once again, raising straw man arguments and twisting my words. I was not talking about the terrorist attacks, i was talking about the military mobilizations. In 2002, Pakistan's military mobilization was far more efficient and quick compared to the Indian. India lost 800 troops without firing a single bullet. It was a huge blow to India's prestige because after raising huge hue and cry, the Indians had to return back to there barracks because PA forced them too with a strong military arm.

2008: India threatens Pakistan with war, your own FM stated that India retains the option to attack Pakistan. Pakistan calls out India's bluff, begins to mobilize and displays impressive military might. Result: The Indian PM states that war is not the answer and India starts to back down.

I won't press further on what you meant, however the only loss of life in 2008 was during the terrorist attack. Further if you think that India suffered a loss to its prestige and Pakistan didn't suffer any damage, I would have to wonder what exactly it is you are smoking. As I said earlier, airport visits have certainly become even more unpleasant.

From 2002 onwards, regardless of whether you think India was forced to walk away or whatever, anyone can reasonable tell as to who among India & Pakistan has suffered more. If your imagined thoughts comfort you, who am I to deny that.

While it is easy to state that India is a status quo power, your words are not backed up by your actions. India is desperately trying to gain advantage over Pakistan. Cold Start Doctrine, supporting terrorist activities inside Pakistan and trying to isolate Pakistan diplomatically are not the traits of a status quo power. So please, stop LYING.

Go easy on calling me a liar. India is a status quo power in terms of what it wants from Pakistan, as long as Pakistan attempts to change that status quo, there will be an understandable Indian pushback on many fronts. I'm surprised that you are confused about it.

This is propaganda advocated by Indian spin doctors. The only place where Pakistan has back tracked on its positions is where it was in its interests to do so. It had nothing to do with India, although the Indians love to claim that they were responsible for it but infact they were not. To use your own words, the business of peace being agreed only on India's terms is a laughable notion. I am not naive to accept that Pakistan will have to back down on some of its stated positions, but so will India if it wants to implement peace. You would be naive to think that India can force Pakistan to accept terms only on its own conditions, that is absolute BS.

Musharraf had agreed to a deal which pretty much was a negation of whatever it is that you publicly seek. India does not seek any territory from Pakistan, including the part of Kashmir held by Pakistan regardless of parliamentary resolutions. On the other hand, India will give you nothing that she holds (minor border changes excepted), so who do you think holds the cards here? As I said peace with Pakistan is not absolutely necessary and as others have pointed out here before, not really attainable (considering how far apart we are on what we both want). It makes no difference to India whether we have a peace agreement with Pakistan or not, there will be little difference made to India. We have what we have & will have, we are not interested in what you have, what resolution do you think can happen? Rather than indulging in pointless banter, maybe you can tell us what kind of solution do you think is feasible/practical which might even remotely not be on Indian terms?

 

[notorious_eagle]

No speculation. I know that there has been no tangible effect whatsoever of your holding on to the peak in question which is what I pointed out.

The tangible effect cannot be seen because a skirmish has not broken out. From what i can understand, the peak allows PA to have a good reccon capability something that was denied previously. IA tried many times to try and dislodge PA from this peak, this must mean that this peak holds some value.

I said that India is not losing troops in Siachen at any alarming rate now (incidentally there is a 12-18 months wait list for those who want to serve there). Whethere it has tactical, strategic value is not really relevant, what is moot is that we are there & you wanted us out & that was the reason for the disastrous Kargil episode.

Okay

Not at all. You were suggested that Indian efforts against you were not at all fruitful, I pointed out that evidence of the price Pakistan pays is available on presentation of person at most international airports.

What is with this Indian obsession of 'self importance'. Get it through your head, it is not just Pakistanis but all Muslims are screened in International Airports. The Indians had nothing to do with it, giving yourself praise for something you have not even done is outright pathetic. India is still a weak player when it comes to global geopolitics, it lacks the clout to force other 'Great Powers' to alter there behaviour to suit India's interests.

I won't press further on what you meant, however the only loss of life in 2008 was during the terrorist attack. Further if you think that India suffered a loss to its prestige and Pakistan didn't suffer any damage, I would have to wonder what exactly it is you are smoking. As I said earlier, airport visits have certainly become even more unpleasant.

Once again India has nothing to do with it, your attempts to claim 'self importance' is indeed pathetic. The reason why i state the 2008 incident was a blow towards Indian prestige is because it made India look like a 'toothless tiger'. The Indians threatened Pakistan with war, but when Pakistan roared back the Indian Government was forced to back down because she realized that it carried out threats it could not carry. Don't believe me, ask any international military officer or a diplomat. It was a defeat for India because a nation not even half of India's size looked invulnerable in front of a Giant like India, not many examples of something like this happening.

From 2002 onwards, regardless of whether you think India was forced to walk away or whatever, anyone can reasonable tell as to who among India & Pakistan has suffered more. If your imagined thoughts comfort you, who am I to deny that.

Pakistan has suffered more because of this so called 'WOT'. Indians were lucky to piggyback on American efforts and launch clandestine terrorist operations against Pakistan through Afghanistan. But rest be assured, as this WOT winds up, Pakistan will mop up the miscreant activities.

Go easy on calling me a liar. India is a status quo power in terms of what it wants from Pakistan, as long as Pakistan attempts to change that status quo, there will be an understandable Indian pushback on many fronts. I'm surprised that you are confused about it.

Sorry, but i was just stating the truth. India is not a status quo power, it is and has never been one. India is a hegemonic expansionist power that has never been shy of annexing and bullying its smaller neighbours. It is the only country in South Asia that has used overt and covert methods to alter the equilibrium in South Asia. Now coming to Pakistan, India has attempted to change the status quo when it started supporting separatist movements inside Pakistan after Musharraf as a good will gesture, used his influence to clamp down on Jihadist movements inside Indian held Kashmir.

Musharraf had agreed to a deal which pretty much was a negation of whatever it is that you publicly seek.

Musharraf was a realist, he realized that there was going to be 'Give and Take' to break this deadlock and achieve perpetual peace with India.

India does not seek any territory from Pakistan, including the part of Kashmir held by Pakistan regardless of parliamentary resolutions. On the other hand, India will give you nothing that she holds (minor border changes excepted), so who do you think holds the cards here?

Only time will tell who holds the cards. You are effectively encircled and Pakistan holds the capability to ranch up miscreant activities deep inside India. So if you think that India holds all the cards, you are living in a fantasy world.

As I said peace with Pakistan is not absolutely necessary and as others have pointed out here before, not really attainable (considering how far apart we are on what we both want). It makes no difference to India whether we have a peace agreement with Pakistan or not, there will be little difference made to India.

India is effectively encircled. She is blocked by Pakistan on its West, China in the North and Burma in the West which has better relations with China rather than India. The only place where the Indians can expand is in the sea, this is why you can see increased emphasis on the Navy. Its only a utopian fantasy to believe that hostility with Pakistan makes no difference to India. If that were true, the Indians wouldn't be trying so hard to establish a foothold in Afghanistan to try and access Central Asia. Whether Indians want to admit it or not, the Indians are effectively sandwiched and this is exactly why India is such a minuscule when it comes to global geopolitics.

We have what we have & will have, we are not interested in what you have, what resolution do you think can happen? Rather than indulging in pointless banter, maybe you can tell us what kind of solution do you think is feasible/practical which might even remotely not be on Indian terms?

I will let you propose the peace solution because according to you, the peace pact will only be on Indian terms.

 

[Contrarian]

Sorry, but i was just stating the truth. India is not a status quo power, it is and has never been one. India is a hegemonic expansionist power that has never been shy of annexing and bullying its smaller neighbours. It is the only country in South Asia that has used overt and covert methods to alter the equilibrium in South Asia.

Notorious I would not expect you lie so blatantly.

Would you prefer that i post US intelligence reports of the fact that Pakistan started supporting North East Indian insurgent groups in the 60's?

Or that Pakistan tried to send in its military to create a popular uprising in '65?

I would let go of '99 Kargil episode because as per half of Pakistan, Kargil is somehow perversely justified because India went to occupy an unclaimed Siachen.

Now coming to Pakistan, India has attempted to change the status quo when it started supporting separatist movements inside Pakistan after Musharraf as a good will gesture, used his influence to clamp down on Jihadist movements inside Indian held Kashmir.

Pakistan did not do anything out of any goodwill gesture. Pakistan tried its level best to force insurgency in India - the peak of which was in the early 90's. After that India rushed soldiers in Kashmir and clamped down hard.

It has only been going downhill for Pakistan since then in Kashmir. The insurgency started waning from its peak towards the end of 90's itself, let alone in 2000's.

After 2001, US forced Pakistan's hand on restraining terrorism. Nothing Pakistan has done is out of goodwill.

Musharraf was a realist, he realized that there was going to be 'Give and Take' to break this deadlock and achieve perpetual peace with India.

Yes he was. He realized early what the rest of you are realizing now. India will not give up Kashmir through any military - direct or indirect(militancy) means.

That means you hold zero cards over us and since we dont covet Pakistani Occupied Kashmir, it hardly matters what Pakistan thinks.

Only time will tell who holds the cards. You are effectively encircled and Pakistan holds the capability to ranch up miscreant activities deep inside India. So if you think that India holds all the cards, you are living in a fantasy world.

How do you think Pakistan will do that when most militant activity in India is on serious decline?
Do you know that there are only 3 effective insurgencies in India?
2 in the North East and 1 Maoists
Of the two in North East, one has been dealt a death blow with the aid of Bangladesh. Its leaders killed and captured!
The other one is fighting a losing battle with half its leaders wiped out.

The only serious movement left is the Maoist movement, and that is on the decline as well - its directly related to India's development.

India is effectively encircled. She is blocked by Pakistan on its West, China in the North and Burma in the West which has better relations with China rather than India. The only place where the Indians can expand is in the sea, this is why you can see increased emphasis on the Navy. Its only a utopian fantasy to believe that hostility with Pakistan makes no difference to India. If that were true, the Indians wouldn't be trying so hard to establish a foothold in Afghanistan to try and access Central Asia. Whether Indians want to admit it or not, the Indians are effectively sandwiched and this is exactly why India is such a minuscule when it comes to global geopolitics.

I am starting to think that you donot know the meaning of the word 'encircled'.

Which country is blockading us in apart from Pakistan?
Do you know that China allows free exchange of goods and trade with us? Our goods go to China and their goods come to India freely. If we wish we can lay a pipeline to China as well.

In the East - Myanmar? You keep harping a single point again and again and again. Yet you completely fail to learn any time someone updates you with new knowledge. Myanmar shares more than warm relations with India. Myanmar is absolutely 100% free to India' investment as well as trade. Just because China has more influence - marginally - does NOT mean that we are blockaded or are encircled. It is not a zero sum game between India and China. We both want resources and trade with Myanmar and we are both getting it.

Do you even understand what the concept means? Tell me, where exactly is the blockade?

Sri Lanka? How exactly is Sri Lanka blockading us? Do let us know, it would be a million dollar question answered.

The fact that you think India is investing in its Navy because India is getting blockaded is a logic that would earn you laughter and derision from any policy planner from India and indeed the world. India is investing in Navy because over 90% of India's trade is using the Sea and because India is able to afford it. India needs to be able to protect its interests which lie from the Hormuz Straits to the Straits of Malacca.

So do explain to us, the meaning and the implication of India being encircled - exactly HOW is India being encircled.

I will let you propose the peace solution because according to you, the peace pact will only be on Indian terms.

It has to be on India's terms simply because whether or not India holds all cards is irrelevant, the bottom line is that Pakistan holds no cards over India,

 

[Bang Galore]

The tangible effect cannot be seen because a skirmish has not broken out. From what i can understand, the peak allows PA to have a good reccon capability something that was denied previously. IA tried many times to try and dislodge PA from this peak, this must mean that this peak holds some value.

Skirmish hasn't broken out why? Because Pakistan doesn't expect anything good to come out of it. By the time a skirmish may break out, India might well have an alternate route, one which is being worked on. As for India trying to dislodge Pakistanis from that peak, of course, it was held by India before & could not just be allowed to go without effort. 2013 is no 1999, there is plenty of firepower available to deal with any "skirmish".

What is with this Indian obsession of 'self importance'. Get it through your head, it is not just Pakistanis but all Muslims are screened in International Airports. The Indians had nothing to do with it, giving yourself praise for something you have not even done is outright pathetic. India is still a weak player when it comes to global geopolitics, it lacks the clout to force other 'Great Powers' to alter there behaviour to suit India's interests.



Once again India has nothing to do with it, your attempts to claim 'self importance' is indeed pathetic. The reason why i state the 2008 incident was a blow towards Indian prestige is because it made India look like a 'toothless tiger'. The Indians threatened Pakistan with war, but when Pakistan roared back the Indian Government was forced to back down because she realized that it carried out threats it could not carry. Don't believe me, ask any international military officer or a diplomat. It was a defeat for India because a nation not even half of India's size looked invulnerable in front of a Giant like India, not many examples of something like this happening.



Pakistan has suffered more because of this so called 'WOT'. Indians were lucky to piggyback on American efforts and launch clandestine terrorist operations against Pakistan through Afghanistan. But rest be assured, as this WOT winds up, Pakistan will mop up the miscreant activities.

Will leave this as it is merely because we differ dramatically in calculating the cost.Will simply go in circles, no point.

Sorry, but i was just stating the truth. India is not a status quo power, it is and has never been one. India is a hegemonic expansionist power that has never been shy of annexing and bullying its smaller neighbours. It is the only country in South Asia that has used overt and covert methods to alter the equilibrium in South Asia. Now coming to Pakistan, India has attempted to change the status quo when it started supporting separatist movements inside Pakistan after Musharraf as a good will gesture, used his influence to clamp down on Jihadist movements inside Indian held Kashmir.

We differ again, completely operating on different planes.

Musharraf was a realist, he realized that there was going to be 'Give and Take' to break this deadlock and achieve perpetual peace with India.

...and from what we know of the deal, there was no change in possession of territory.

Only time will tell who holds the cards. You are effectively encircled and Pakistan holds the capability to ranch up miscreant activities deep inside India. So if you think that India holds all the cards, you are living in a fantasy world.

This is no longer the 1990's. India can pour in far more money & resources into a tit for tat response. Try it & you will see, in any case you will see it quickly enough in Afghanistan.

India is effectively encircled. She is blocked by Pakistan on its West, China in the North and Burma in the West which has better relations with China rather than India. The only place where the Indians can expand is in the sea, this is why you can see increased emphasis on the Navy. Its only a utopian fantasy to believe that hostility with Pakistan makes no difference to India. If that were true, the Indians wouldn't be trying so hard to establish a foothold in Afghanistan to try and access Central Asia. Whether Indians want to admit it or not, the Indians are effectively sandwiched and this is exactly why India is such a minuscule when it comes to global geopolitics.

Sandwiched? Not on the Burmese side unless you have been sleeping the last year & a half. In any case that means nothing, we do want an Afghanistan outside Pakistan's control but don't delude yourself on it being because of some access to the CAR. Trade will never be more important than our territory. We simply don't need to do anything because you have nothing to offer us....nothing!

I will let you propose the peace solution because according to you, the peace pact will only be on Indian terms.

This is already known. The Musharraf-MNS formula. No change in borders, greater autonomy & eventual soft borders. That's it. Period. (I'm not a big fan of the idea of soft borders because in Pakistan's present circumstances, that is not possible without risking major attacks)
In any case, there is no longer that kind of trust with Pakistan that was there during the Musharraf period. Your present government back tracked on it (imagining that they could make a play in the protests in Kashmir), so now the GoI is extremely sceptical of agreeing to anything with any Pakistan government because they feel that having put their cards on the table, there could be opposition to the deal from both other parts of the polity in Pakistan as well as the sponsored militants. The cold peace is what we are going to live with for the forseeable future.

 

[SamantK]

Pakistan has only gone from position of strength in the past to a much weaker position both due to US. The support of US has vanished, try as they might to counter us using China, they don't have much say there too cause China and India have their own channel..

India encircled is the biggest load of BS which has fallen on my ears of late. Is this how the Pakistani generals think?

 

[notorious_eagle]

The cold peace is what we are going to live with for the forseeable future.

I will end this conversation by agreeing with you on this point. It is clear that our point of views and also that of our nations are miles apart. If India thinks that she can conclude a peace agreement purely on her terms, than she is living in a fool's paradise. Pakistan is neither Nepal or Bhutan, it has its own interests and will act according to those interests. So yes you are right, cold peace is what will continue in the future and it cannot be ruled out that a small match will light up a fire leading to a military confrontation.

 

[Contrarian]

I will end this conversation by agreeing with you on this point. It is clear that our point of views and also that of our nations are miles apart. If India thinks that she can conclude a peace agreement purely on her terms, than she is living in a fool's paradise. Pakistan is neither Nepal or Bhutan, it has its own interests and will act according to those interests. So yes you are right, cold peace is what will continue in the future and it cannot be ruled out that a small match will light up a fire leading to a military confrontation.

A simple question for you friend.

What does Pakistan have to offer that India would agree to any compromise?

 

[notorious_eagle]

A simple question for you friend.

What does Pakistan have to offer that India would agree to any compromise?

Simple

Perpetual Peace. India is currently sandwiched by both China and Pakistan with two hostile borders. India is forced to allocate the bulk of her forces to contain Pakistan, while Pakistani territory has been used by 'Non State Actors' to destabilize India. A hostile neighbour is never in the interest of any nation, especially if that hostile neighbour has the capability and resources to cause serious damage. The only factor that is stopping India from becoming a true 'Regional Power' is her hostility with Pakistan. India tried several times to bypass Pakistan, but that failed and Indian Strategic Planners have accepted this fact. This is why you can see there is a genuine desire among Indian Strategic Planners to improve relations with India despite the constant hiccups to the bilateral talks. China has delivered a master stroke against India by propping up Pakistan. This has forced India to deploy the bulk of her resources against Pakistan leaving your Northern Flank vulnerable. There is a reason why the English decided to pacify Ireland, it is because they could not afford to have a hostile neighbour.

 

[Contrarian]

Simple

Perpetual Peace. India is currently sandwiched by both China and Pakistan with two hostile borders. India is forced to allocate the bulk of her forces to contain Pakistan, while Pakistani territory has been used by 'Non State Actors' to destabilize India. A hostile neighbour is never in the interest of any nation, especially if that hostile neighbour has the capability and resources to cause serious damage. The only factor that is stopping India from becoming a true 'Regional Power' is her hostility with Pakistan. India tried several times to bypass Pakistan, but that failed and Indian Strategic Planners have accepted this fact. This is why you can see there is a genuine desire among Indian Strategic Planners to improve relations with India despite the constant hiccups to the bilateral talks. China has delivered a master stroke against India by propping up Pakistan. This has forced India to deploy the bulk of her resources against Pakistan leaving your Northern Flank vulnerable. There is a reason why the English decided to pacify Ireland, it is because they could not afford to have a hostile neighbour.

True enough.
But is perpetual peace a candy enticing enough for India to compromise on territory when cold peace assures us almost the same without any territorial compromise?

Think about this from the Indian perspective.
Indian planners know that they are arming faster than Pakistan, growing economically faster than Pakistan. Trade with all and sundry barring Pakistan is rapidly growing, trade with Pakistan itself is rapidly growing.

The only thing that India is not getting is a transit for Indian goods through Pakistan though even Pakistan is willing to allow goods to reach to India from other countries.

Pakistan will be further and further outmatched in the coming years. The gap is growing not reducing.
So why should India compromise particularly as India wants or needs no territory from Pakistan.

Do you think perpetual peace is a big enough candy? It only makes marginal difference but with accompanying compromise. Really think about it.

Though even any compromise will not mean India ceding Kashmir. That is a red line that cannot be crossed in any peace deal as such. At best it is what Musharraf struck - making the borders in Kashmir irrelevant.