Kashmir: If progress is to be made, India must dictate the terms

[VCheng]

Question is, the current state of the coaster has a very dangerous track on it that may derail it forever.

With both sides having nuclear weapons, such a derailment is out of the question.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Not really.....even with the present 'stand-off'; Track 2 has been happening. But the problem is, the Indian side is still left perplexed as to 'who is in charge on the other side' and 'to what extent'. If that clears up one way or another; there will more clarity on the dialog (or the lack of it). Even the "Deep State" (IMO) is cogitating within itself to redefine some of its own attitudes. As was demonstrated in the "Saga in Isloo" which just took place; and while shifting the "balance of power" in Pakistan internally has severely hit Pakistan's "balance of strength" externally.
In these circumstances; no prospects of any 'eureka moments' even small ones.

I fail to understand this particular Indian excuse to avoid engagement with Pakistan. The question of which power center in Pakistan has the final word on the level of engagement with India should be a moot point given that the power center in question will control the pace and content of negotiations regardless of who the 'face' of the negotiations is.

If the Indian establishment really believes that the Pakistani military establishment controls foreign policy (specifically foreign policy towards India), then the civilian government in Pakistan is not going to engage with the Indian government outside of the confines demarcated by the Pakistan military establishment.

With respect to the "Islamabad dharna's", while many Pakistani analysts were falling over themselves to argue "military complicity with IK and TuQ", there is very little actual evidence to support that contention, and quite a bit of circumstantial evidence to support the contrary view that the institution of the military had no role in the dharnas.

 

[sherin616]

[QUOTE="Mark Sien, post: 6318462, memberDespite the country's immense contribution to the U.S War on Terror, it has only been repaid in mistrust and drone strikes by America. Enough. The U.S can be on its own in Afghanistan, we have had enough.[/QUOTE]
Dont say usa betrayed you they gave pakistan money and weapons and every thing they can offer and still you kept laden hidden one who usa where seari for and still you say they don't repay you well

 

[sherin616]

I disagree. For Kashmir to be resolved, Pakistan needs to behave like an independent state with self-defined vital national interests. I don't mind global isolation. In fact, I welcome it. From the moment Musharraf got Pakistan involved with the U.S did we see a sudden rise in internal security problems. Not only that, but Pakistan lost its hand in Afghanistan and it gradually found itself giving way on Kashmir and the Indus Water Treaty.

It's time Pakistan adopt a hawkish mentality built upon guaranteeing its independence in both territorial and political terms. Despite the country's immense contribution to the U.S War on Terror, it has only been repaid in mistrust and drone strikes by America. Enough. The U.S can be on its own in Afghanistan, we have had enough.

Seal the Western border, leave the U.S and whoever's left in that quagmire to deal with the rest. Seal the border to the north, ensure that China's internal security is guaranteed from our end. As for India, tighten up the eastern front.

As for our foreign relations. There is no doubt backing away from America will result in a 'reset' in Pakistan's relations with a number of country. That's the cost of piggybacking on bigger powers. We will need to invest in building our own political, economic and military relationships with others. For that to happen, we will need an internal cleansing. I say we remove ourselves of the deadweight in PPP, PML, MQM, JI, etc, etc. You fail once, you never be given responsibility again.

Dont say usa betrayed you they gave pakistan money and weapons and every thing they can offer and still you kept laden hidden one who usa where seari for and still you say they don't repay you well

 

[VCheng]

Dont say usa betrayed you they gave pakistan money and weapons and every thing they can offer and still you kept laden hidden one who usa where seari for and still you say they don't repay you well

International geopolitics can be exceedingly complex, and most nations work together and against each other all the time, concurrently, depending on national interests. Thus, it would be wrong to see the US-Pakistan relationship through only one or two aspects.

 

[sherin616]

International geopolitics can be exceedingly complex, and most nations work together and against each other all the time, concurrently, depending on national interests. Thus, it would be wrong to see the US-Pakistan relationship through only one or two aspects.

You cant see it as one or two things in their eyes you back stabbed them using their own money how else will the react

 

[Capt.Popeye]

I fail to understand this particular Indian excuse to avoid engagement with Pakistan. The question of which power center in Pakistan has the final word on the level of engagement with India should be a moot point given that the power center in question will control the pace and content of negotiations regardless of who the 'face' of the negotiations is.

If the Indian establishment really believes that the Pakistani military establishment controls foreign policy (specifically foreign policy towards India), then the civilian government in Pakistan is not going to engage with the Indian government outside of the confines demarcated by the Pakistan military establishment.

With respect to the "Islamabad dharna's", while many Pakistani analysts were falling over themselves to argue "military complicity with IK and TuQ", there is very little actual evidence to support that contention, and quite a bit of circumstantial evidence to support the contrary view that the institution of the military had no role in the dharnas.

You are entitled to your opinions; and I do not seek to disabuse you of them. While I have to go by the facts on the ground which have been manifest on many occasions and have impacted Indo-Pakistani relations.

 

[VCheng]

You cant see it as one or two things in their eyes you back stabbed them using their own money how else will the react

They will not react. They will remain engaged with an important country like Pakistan on many levels.

 

[Storm Force]

Syed Ali.

They will not react. They will remain engaged with an important country like Pakistan on many levels.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/kashmir-if-progress-is-to-be-made-india-must-dictate-the-terms.339837/page-11#ixzz3IZly80zl

This what Pakistanis hope happens. To both gurantee Grant aid & to provide political support if things get ugly with india.

The reality is that a lot USA think tanks including forces in Pentagon & the military are fed up of Pakistani involvememnt in terrot groups and want the aid stopped.

there is huge MISTRUST hence all these media stories coming out that seem anti Pakistan from USA.

 

[Jzaib]

If progress have to be made kashmirs have to dictate terms. They hate India from the core of their heart and they dont want to be part of their country

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You are entitled to your opinions; and I do not seek to disabuse you of them. While I have to go by the facts on the ground which have been manifest on many occasions and have impacted Indo-Pakistani relations.

My post posed a question to Indians and others who argue against engaging in negotiations on the pretext of "we don't know who to talk to". The question, paraphrased for greater clarity, is as follows:

Given that the power center in Pakistan (that controls Pakistani foreign policy towards India) will control the pace and content of negotiations regardless of who the 'face' of the negotiations is, do you believe that the Indian argument of not engaging in negotiations with Pakistan, due to the uncertainty (on the Indian side) about which entity (military or civilian government) controls Pakistan's Kashmir policy, is legitimate, and why?

 

[VCheng]

Syed Ali.


This what Pakistanis hope happens. To both gurantee Grant aid & to provide political support if things get ugly with india.

The reality is that a lot USA think tanks including forces in Pentagon & the military are fed up of Pakistani involvememnt in terrot groups and want the aid stopped.

there is huge MISTRUST hence all these media stories coming out that seem anti Pakistan from USA.

There will be no stopping of the aid, and Pakistan will have to tone down its support of proxies in return. The relationship will carry on, surely.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

My post posed a question to Indians and others who argue against engaging in negotiations on the pretext of "we don't know who to talk to". The question, paraphrased for greater clarity, is as follows:

Given that the power center in Pakistan (that controls Pakistani foreign policy towards India) will control the pace and content of negotiations regardless of who the 'face' of the negotiations is, do you believe that the Indian argument of not engaging in negotiations with Pakistan, due to the uncertainty (on the Indian side) about which entity (military or civilian government) controls Pakistan's Kashmir policy, is legitimate, and why?

First of all you need to define: WHO in Pakistan controls Foreign Policy towards India?
If you answer that question then I will respond on how India should then engage with that entity.

 

[VCheng]

First of all you need to define: WHO in Pakistan controls Foreign Policy towards India?
If you answer that question then I will respond on how India should then engage with that entity.

The Defense Establishment controls Pakistan's defense and foreign policies. Totally. Any claims to the contrary are patently false.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

The Defense Establishment controls Pakistan's defense and foreign policies. Totally. Any claims to the contrary are patently false.

I know (as well as you do) what the reality/facts are. But let him come up with an answer.