Indo-Pak No-War Pact:A Visit Manmohan must make

[ajtr]

It will be a suicidal for India if a no war pact agreement will be signed even before our demands are met.. It will be favorable only for Pakistan.. It will be us, the common citizens who is going to suffer..




Still the people who are responsible for 26/11 are still roaming in Pakistan freely.. Collecting cash in the name of relief funds and openly conducting rallies.. Pakistan can tame them with ease if they sincerely wishing for peace in this region.

nope they are already being tried As for hafiz saeed no evidence was found against him so he was let off by the court.btw mumbai high court had acquitted the indians Fahim Ansari and Sabauddin Ahmed accused in 26/11 due to lack of evidence i dont see indians making halla on it but they make halla on hafeez saeed.

 

[Paan Singh]

No war pact is not favourable for india otherwise india always keeps pakistan in doubts and forces it to spend more on defence

 

[arp2041]

You should take that guys statement in a positive way.. What he said was true.. A no war pact will help us concentrate on other sectors of the society.. I am not against a no war pact. What I am saying is we cannot sign a pact like that with out sincere efforts from each sides.. First work on confidence building, then will sign no war pact..

Mate, i am all for peace, but i think u are not thinking rationally here, an agreement b/w two nations is signed only when there is a win-win situation for both, but as i can see the only benefiting nation here is Pakistan:

1. Pakistan's only threat is India, with a no war pact it will be at ease & will be able to reduce it's nuclear stockpile as well as military budget since Afghanistan & Iran (Pakistan's other neighbors) present no credible threat to it, while India who have other threats to cater (China, IOR, etc.) will not be able to reduce it's military expenditure which is only 2% of GDP anyways.

2. As i said in my earlier post, it will give a free licence to Pakistan to go for covert operations against India with no threat of war.

3. These agreements are not cast in stone & can be broken anytime, but we know it was never India that had broken any agreement but Pakistan, eg being Kargil which was blatant disregard of Shimla & lahore agreements (which calls for maintaining status quo along LOC), b'coz of these agreements India used to remove it's troops from icy heights but we were betrayed by Pakistani ambitions.

I have heard of this "no war pact" idea before also, but every time it's from the Pakistani sides, if this is good for both, why don't u think Indian strategic community calls for the same?? Also, i don't understand why every time military budget becomes the topic for bashing & not the rampant corruption or some other budget?? Is India's defence budget responsible for every evil that prevails in Indian society?? Indian defence budget is only 2% of GDP while the world average is close to 3%, also India is the country which was always at the receiving end from a foreign attack since the time of Alexander, don't u think that we should make our defences strong this time so that no country can ever attack us, i know we have many poor population who are at the need of food, education,etc. but if there will be no country to tackle these issue (if say some outside power attacks), than how will we do it in the first place??

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

So there are NO Indians here in favour of a "no-war pact" with Pakistan?

I wonder what they would say if it was China instead?

 

[INDIC]

No war pact but they will use proxies like in 1947 and Operation Gibraltar in 1965. Such pacts are just waste.

 

[ajtr]

The no war pact will not be worth the paper it is written. As AJTR so succinctly said the no war pact is ineffective against LeTs and HuJis of the world. These are the once who as "non state actors" actually attack India.

You are always welcome to start separate talks with LeT etc.Anyway after nuke tests india has lost its conventional edge over pak and today it has no capacity to take war to pakistan territory as the events of kargil,2001,2008 proved.India's cold start will also remain in cold storage forever.

And how can we forget Kargil just Months after Lahore Declaration ? What is the guarantee that some other general will not embark on a misadventure and the poor civilian PM will wring his hands and say "I didn't know what was happening"

A no war pact is a no-go till the trust defesit remains.

no war pact, demilitarizing siachin and solving sir creek and kashmir are ways to fill that trust gap.infact pakistan has legitimate claim over kashmir and siachin ...sir creek can be negotiated .

 

[arp2041]

So there are NO Indians here in favour of a "no-war pact" with Pakistan?

I wonder what they would say if it was China instead?

exactly, u proved my point, it is the militarily weaker of the two nations that benefits from a "no-war pact" & the better thing for stronger nation to do is to keep the other nation in doubt always

 

[Iggy]

nope they are already being tried As for hafiz saeed no evidence was found against him so he was let off by the court..

When?? Can you provide me a link where Hafiz Sayeed was even on trial for 26/11 Mumbai attack??

btw mumbai high court had acquitted the indians Fahim Ansari and Sabauddin Ahmed accused in 26/11 due to lack of evidence i dont see indians making halla on it but they make halla on hafeez saeed.

According to you, is that good or bad?? Indians have atmost faith in Judiciary system.. I am not asking Pakistan to hang Hafiz Sayeed and others with out a trial.. We are asking for a fair trial.. We are providing you the evidence.. Is it too much to ask??

 

[ajtr]

Mate, i am all for peace, but i think u are not thinking rationally here, an agreement b/w two nations is signed only when there is a win-win situation for both, but as i can see the only benefiting nation here is Pakistan:

1. Pakistan's only threat is India, with a no war pact it will be at ease & will be able to reduce it's nuclear stockpile as well as military budget since Afghanistan & Iran (Pakistan's other neighbors) present no credible threat to it, while India who have other threats to cater (China, IOR, etc.) will not be able to reduce it's military expenditure which is only 2% of GDP anyways.

2. As i said in my earlier post, it will give a free licence to Pakistan to go for covert operations against India with no threat of war.

3. These agreements are not cast in stone & can be broken anytime, but we know it was never India that had broken any agreement but Pakistan, eg being Kargil which was blatant disregard of Shimla & lahore agreements (which calls for maintaining status quo along LOC), b'coz of these agreements India used to remove it's troops from icy heights but we were betrayed by Pakistani ambitions.

I have heard of this "no war pact" idea before also, but every time it's from the Pakistani sides, if this is good for both, why don't u think Indian strategic community calls for the same?? Also, i don't understand why every time military budget becomes the topic for bashing & not the rampant corruption or some other budget?? Is India's defence budget responsible for every evil that prevails in Indian society?? Indian defence budget is only 2% of GDP while the world average is close to 3%, also India is the country which was always at the receiving end from a foreign attack since the time of Alexander, don't u think that we should make our defences strong this time so that no country can ever attack us, i know we have many poor population who are at the need of food, education,etc. but if there will be no country to tackle these issue (if say some outside power attacks), than how will we do it in the first place??

kyon indian mardon ne kya chooriyan pahan ke rakkhi hain. you go for your own proxy war if pakistan goes for proxy war against india.or simply say that indian men unlike indian women dont have spine

 

[Wickerman]

A no war pact is welcome.

But at this point its ridiculous and suicidal. Even if we do sign one it has to be based on India's conditions.

How can one trust a country that attacked just about 10 years ago, and was responsible for 26/11, that doesnt have a stable political system?

 

[Iggy]

So there are NO Indians here in favour of a "no-war pact" with Pakistan?

I wonder what they would say if it was China instead?

Tell me why should we sign a pact which is favorable to only one side??

Even if it is China, we would have said the same..

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Tell me why should we sign a pact which is favorable to only one side??

Even if it is China, we would have said the same..

No war between China and India is only favourable to one side?

I think not.

 

[arp2041]

You are always welcome to start separate talks with LeT etc.Anyway after nuke tests india has lost its conventional edge over pak and today it has no capacity to take war to pakistan territory as the events of kargil,2001,2008 proved.India's cold start will also remain in cold storage forever.

no war pact, demilitarizing siachin and solving sir creek and kashmir are ways to fill that trust gap.infact pakistan has legitimate claim over kashmir and siachin ...sir creek can be negotiated .

slowly, aunty is coming to her original avatar, before i thought she is a diplomat with Pakistani ministry of external affairs

 

[Iggy]

kyon indian mardon ne kya chooriyan pahan ke rakkhi hain. you go for your own proxy war if pakistan goes for proxy war against india.or simply say that indian men unlike indian women dont have spine

Why should we go for a proxy war now?? The country men itself is doing a fine job there..

 

[Iggy]

No war between China and India is only favourable to one side?

Sorry I did not understand what you are trying to say..

I think not.

Well you are entitled for your own opinion as I am for mine