vish
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 10, 2008
- Messages
- 867
- Reaction score
- 0
All of these are mere unsubstantiated allegations - Indian involvement in East Pakistan however is undeniable and a historical fact.
Vinod has already taken that point, but still just a reminder: DefenceJournal has many articles depicting how ISI supported insurgency in the North East, and how Khalistan was pepped up by you guys. Forget DefenceJournal, just read the ISI thread on this very website.
I'm not saying India is a saint or Pakistan is the devil, I'm saying both have blood on their hands.
No - the UN thread with statements from UN officials and Nehru's own comments on unilaterally deciding to not implement UN resolutions in teh fifties clearly place the blame at India's doorstep. India is the only country refusing to implement the resolutions - Pakistan is clearly in favor of implementing the resolutions. There is no question of who is to blame here, your nations official position is one of a refusal to implement commitments and obligations it agreed to.
These obligations carried certain pre-conditions, which nobody met.
Also, since Pakistan is ever-willing to implement the resolutions, when do I see NA being incorporated into AJK? When do I see the demographic changes being undone? When do I get to see PRC relinquishing the land back to AJK?
Not at all - the capability to fight on two fronts exists, given the resources. The resources do not exist.
In other words, what you are saying is that the PA cannot fight a two-front war. I'm pretty certain plenty of your countrymen will disagree here.
I am not mistaken at all. Kiyani was in charge of PA maneuvers to counter the Parakaram. India's mobilization failed and was completely preempted by Pakistan - hence the need for Cold Start. US pressure may habve also been involved, but the fact was that it worked since the Pakistani military had ensured that any Indian aggression woudl result in a long painful war, likely ending in another stalemate.
It was the fact that India had no military advantage in conjunction with US pressure that led to India blinking and backing off.
ROFLMAO.
One of our corps commanders was removed from his command because he reached the border much earlier than what he was told to. What does that say? The GoI never intended a war (Why? Uncle Sam, that's why); the whole show was a means of financially strangulating Pakistan: "We can afford the build-up? Can you?"
I'm not dismissing the PA, but the capacity mismatch is large.
The primary plan we had for Afghanistan was one of stabilizing the country, and ensuring we did not have a repeat of former governments that supported the Baluch insurgency and Pashtun separatism. Any other policies derived out of that attempt. Indian support for the NA, and its historical friendly relation with the GoA, when it was supporting terrorism and separatism in Pakistan, resulted in Pakistani concerns over Indian intentions in Afghanistan. Again, that hostility arises out of the Kashmir dispute, hence the connection between Kashmir and Afghanistan.
So you do agree that Pakistan's intention was to have a puppet government in Kabul? And that there are two reasons for the choice of Taliban: NA's India connection and poking of Pakistan and Pakistan's strong bond with the Islamists?
And as I said diplomacy and negotiations will continue.
Waste of time, if you ask me. Why not accept the status quo and move on? Have 60 years of diplomacy done anything?