What's new

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

That may ultimately leave no other choice for Pakistan but to go to a full scale war against India, in a scenario where it will have nothing more to lose anyway. That is not a scenario any progressive Indian government would want.
You don't have anything to loose ?? Are you so deprived right now ?? Curse your country that couldn't give you anything to loose even in 67 years.

But let me tell you what you can loose. You will loose your part of kashmir or may be even your existing country if ever next full blown war happens in future.
You must be confusing indulgence in SATI and burial of live infant girls in your country with us. You still have time to correct yourself by attempting to crawl out of the minuscule space you have dug yourself into in regards to religion.

Okay dimwit , if you say so. :lol:
 
That may ultimately leave no other choice for Pakistan but to go to a full scale war against India, in a scenario where it will have nothing more to lose anyway. That is not a scenario any progressive Indian government would want.



You must be confusing indulgence in SATI and burial of live infant girls in your country with us. You still have time to correct yourself by attempting to crawl out of the minuscule space you have dug yourself into in regards to religion.

Every leader, every commander, from the greatest genius to the absolutely delusional has had an objective, no matter how hopeless, when going to war. The way you've written it, Pakistan and it's Generals would be the first country, maybe even the first entity to go to war without any reason, save perhaps,"We have nothing to lose anyway".

But that apart, let's assume you're going to war with India. You can't do it by sitting inside your territory and fighting off the coward carrot loving baniyas, coz the coward's too scared (read terrified shitless) to invade you. You're actually going to have to invade the vegii land to start the war. Now I'm not a student of history, but invasion is anything but a cup of tea for PA, unless it's the Senate House of PAK.

But keeping aside these minor irritants, Let's assume PA does actually invade India, surprising the IA. Your Baniya slayers advance into India. What next? The IAF reacts first, is overbearing, establishing air supremacy over Indian Skies. With far superior numbers and quality of aircraft, backed up by a very very dense Air defense grid, PAF would struggle to even generate CAPs over their own forces inside PAK, let alone India.

Then there is the inevitable reaction of the IA, mobilising it's entire might over some 72 hours, ringing in for the first time the 700,000 numbers so famous in PAK

I'm not too bright, but after Longewala, no PA armored unit commander will even step over Indian territory without air cover.
 
The UN Resolutions have all been superseded by the Simla Agreement which bind India and Pakistan to resolve all their disputes bilaterally, with any third party mediation possible only if both agree to it.
Wrong, as I clearly showed in the thread you linked to earlier.

India can't, the first part of the resolution is that Pakistan removes all their forces from Azad Kashmir, the second step is India reduces their forces to a size dictated by an international arbiter agreed upon by both sides. The second stage can only take place once the first stage has been completed. The ball is well and truly in the Pakistani court and yet you are posting all fingers at India.

It still astounds me how few Pakistanis have actually read the resolutions they brandish at the drop of a hat.
See my response to Popeye in post #12 on this thread.
 
I will believe you as soon as the UN agrees with you and not me. :D
The UNSG's recent comments line up with the Pakistani position on the Simla Agreement and the UNSC Resolutions, as I also clearly established in the thread you linked to.
 
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.

Who says Pakistan doesn't behave independently?
Pakistan behaves like an independent state in the following ways:
1) Independently hides Osama when the whole world is burning under war on terror
2) starts unprovoked attacks on Indian outposts to 'internationalize' Kashmir
3) Independently hides Dawood and denies it even if America says that too
4) Independently harbors the masterminds of Mumbai attacks

The UNSG's recent comments line up with the Pakistani position on the Simla Agreement and the UNSC Resolutions, as I also clearly established in the thread you linked to.

I'm sure you are ecstatic. As per UN resolutions, pak army is supposed to withdraw from PO K. I hope we will be seeing that soon.
 
The UNSG's recent comments line up with the Pakistani position on the Simla Agreement and the UNSC Resolutions, as I also clearly established in the thread you linked to.

Sure, that's great. I look forward to what the UN decides when it starts the process to mediate the issue. When is that, would you happen to know?
 
Sure, that's great. I look forward to what the UN decides when it starts the process to mediate the issue. When is that, would you happen to know?


First things first...........Has the UN even decided to start any process to mediate the issue? :D
Looks like you , @AgNoStiC MuSliM and me (hell not me, I'm not holding my breath on this one :) ) will be waiting for eternity.
 
First things first...........Has the UN even decided to start any process to mediate the issue? :D
Looks like you , @AgNoStiC MuSliM and me (hell not me, I'm not holding my breath on this one :) ) will be waiting for eternity.

Not me. I know better. :D

I am sure that UN will decide whatever it decides keeping in view due and proper process.
 
So you wish India NOT to take advantage of a loophole? Taking advantage of situations is vital to protecting our interests. India is not out to appear morally superior. Only to protect India. By any means necessary. Pakistan's job is to make noise. They did it before the Shimla Agreement was signed (hell they declared war in 1965 to 'liberate Kashmir' ) and they sure will make noise after another dozen such agreements.

And that is fine (for them), because it is in their National Interest. Kashmir is the last geopolitical reason (the other being Hindu/Sikh/Buddhist phobia) to hate India and keep Pakistan united. - That they are only barely doing now. They need the Kashmir issue to continue badly.


Good point. Siachen is not under the ambit of the Shimla Agreements. The border delimitation is restricted to the definition of the LOC. After the Saltoro ridge that is undefined and remains so to this date.
@SarthakGanguly, @Capt.Popeye, @toxic_pus : I think you are not reaching to the point where I want you to take but got carried away. My point is plain and simple that like UN Resolution, Shimla Pact became also outdated as UN Resolution as it has one or another issue. We can use Shimla Pact as baseline but we need new agreement/resolution/accord/Pact in terms of J&K. What Pakistani politicians say that is for their people but lets not get carried away based on outdated (and filled with loophole) pact. Also, This time it should involve cross-LOC firing and Terrorism fueled in valley by some.
 
Sure, that's great. I look forward to what the UN decides when it starts the process to mediate the issue. When is that, would you happen to know?
Shimla Agreement prevents UN from doing anything other than 'offering' to mediate. They can never, ever, mediate unless India & Pakistan both agree.

If just that act of 'offering' gives AM a huge boner, well, that's his problem, not ours.
 
Not me. I know better. :D

I am sure that UN will decide whatever it decides keeping in view due and proper process.

Anybody among us who is even 'half-wise', will know that nothing is gonna happen.
Status Quo
will prevail and must be accepted as the abiding reality. Whether Govts concerned have the gumption to work through that or not is the question. While the Awaams concerned; will do well instead to attend to the humongous problems that surround their lives.
And @Agnostic can keep making arguments that will lead nowhere..... :)

@SarthakGanguly, @Capt.Popeye, @toxic_pus : I think you are not reaching to the point where I want you to take but got carried away. My point is plain and simple that like UN Resolution, Shimla Pact became also outdated as UN Resolution as it has one or another issue. We can use Shimla Pact as baseline but we need new agreement/resolution/accord/Pact in terms of J&K. What Pakistani politicians say that is for their people but lets not get carried away based on outdated (and filled with loophole) pact. Also, This time it should involve cross-LOC firing and Terrorism fueled in valley by some.


Oh well; (in case you did not know) even the underlined part got taken care of in 2003 already; when the Cease-Fire came into force and Musharrafff declared in writing that no part of pakistan would be used to perpetuate/support cross-border terrorism.
 
Last edited:
What Pakistan fails to understand is that for the issues between India and Pakistan to be resolved peacefully, including the Kashmir issue, there has to be an element of trust built in. I'm not pointing fingers at Pakistan but history indicates that it was Pakistan which always acted like a bull in a china shop whenever any notable progress on peaceful talks was made. During PM Nawaz Sharif's last tenure, progress was being made on peace talks. The army derailed that. After the inauguration of PM Modi, I was extremely optimistic about peace talks. Pakistan made the deft move of engaging in talks with separatists prior to the scheduled talks with India knowing that would infuriate India. Pakistan if genuine about resolving issues with India peacefully now bears the onus of showing good faith. How they do that remains up to them. Until then all India can do and must do is what it is currently doing namely, smile and wave :wave:
 
I'm sure you are ecstatic. As per UN resolutions, pak army is supposed to withdraw from PO K. I hope we will be seeing that soon.
That would be true if the UNSC only passed a single resolution on the Kashmir dispute - it did not, and UNSC resolutions subsequent to the first few acknowledged the fact that the process of demilitarization had to be a mutually acceptable one, with the details worked out between India and Pakistan, and therefore superseded the initial requirement of requiring Pakistan to unilaterally demilitarize.
First things first...........Has the UN even decided to start any process to mediate the issue?
Sure, that's great. I look forward to what the UN decides when it starts the process to mediate the issue. When is that, would you happen to know?
The UN has already mediated the Kashmir Dispute via the existing UNSC resolutions on Kashmir that India and Pakistan both accepted, and which are completely in line with the Simla Agreement, as I established in the thread you linked to, arguments to which you have so far offered no rebuttal.
 
only passed a single resolution on the Kashmir dispute - it did not, and UNSC resolutions subsequent to the first few acknowledged the fact that the process of demilitarization had to be a mutually acceptable one, with the details worked out between

Yeah, and you guys will de-militarize with mutual consensus :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom