RPK
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2009
- Messages
- 6,862
- Reaction score
- -6
- Country
- Location
Manmohan is not sincere with pakistan
Why should he? he is indian elected PM for second term after Nehru. He should only sincere to India & its people
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Manmohan is not sincere with pakistan
New Recruit
Why should he? he is indian elected PM for second term after Nehru. He should only sincere to India & its people
New Recruit
Presidents of most nations have advisers to their Pres whose job is to advise him what to say ( & what NOT to say). This is what differentiates them from School children.
The Pres of Pk can get away with anything coz he suffers from verbal diarrhea while others must remain true lovers & not change their minds ??
It does not happen this way in international Politics & not in S Asia.
Its clear that you don’t have a very good understanding of that event sir. If anyone is responsible for the 'mess' in Kashmir then it was the Hindu Maharaja ruling there. His rule was failing, Muslim soldiers from his army were rebelling, the Muslim population was in an uproar and tribesmen from the western parts of the new Pakistan started joining in the rebellion once the Maharaja decided that India would protect his rule better. The Pakistan Army was NOT allowed to interfere at this time. It was much later, once the Indian military footprint had been established in the valley, was Jinnah able to prevail upon Gracey to send troops to Kashmir to halt the Indian advance.
India didn’t ‘clean’ anything in Kashmir. The Pakistan Army was itching to go to Srinagar and establish order, had Lord Mountbatten allowed us to do so, the situation in Kashmir would’ve been much different today. India took what it could in Kashmir and decided to keep it, in disregard to prior commitments, which was a very ‘messy’ way of solving anything. If you call this ‘solving’ ofcourse…
Someone needs to run Azad Kashmir while India refuses to give the larger Kashmir its freedom. Pakistan doesn't refer to Azad Kashmir as 'Pakistani Kashmir' for a reason. We, unlike India, don't pretend it’s ours and honor its Disputed Territory status. India on the other hand has committed itself to bilateral and illegal annexation.
We will try our best not to let you achieve such a position before you address Kashmir. Not many people will be happy to let you lead the UN if you don't respect its ideals and resolutions. Pakistan has influence in the UN too, in case you forgot.
You tend to rant a lot, you should avoid that. Yes Pakistan wants Kashmir because Kashmiris want Pakistan, but why does India want Kashmir? So Pakistan can't have it? The history of Kashmir speaks for itself. Pakistan has still not claimed Kashmir to be its own, unlike India. You're trying to say Pakistan wants Kashmir and India doesn't?
Pakistan has offered more ideas and compromises than India ever has. Pakistan's not the one riding on a 'high horse' and Pakistan's not the one with an inflexible and denial based policy on Kashmir.
Pakistan has made more efforts to stop the 'bombings' than India has to address Kashmir. Even when talking is done, Kashmir is always avoided and dodged on the Indian side. This is something Musharraf has attested to as well.
E. Pakistan was not Disputed Territory. It was sovereign Pakistani territory.
Technically, Kargil wasn't occupied by the IA either when Pakistan sent its men. Siachen might not have had troops stationed there, but it was still considered Pakistani territory, Pakistan being responsible for facilitating tourist travel there. The primary reason India decided to sneak in…
just following jinnahs footsteps.
If you still can't understand the difference between a joint statement and the President suggesting he would send XYZ official somewhere then I really can't help you.
Hence, it was anticipated that the Maharaja would accede to Pakistan, when the British paramountcy ended on 14-15 August. When he hesitated to do this, the adjacent Muslims in newly created Pakistan along with many Pashtun began to enter his territory. The Maharaja, appealed to Mountbatten[9] for assistance, and the Governor-General agreed and demanded that the ruler first accede to India before assistance."[10] Once the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession, "Indian soldiers entered Kashmir and drove the Pakistani-sponsored irregulars from all but a small section of the state.
So like I said, 'non-state actors' from Pakistan invaded Kashmir, India was forced to respond, and the rest is history.
Had Pakistan kept its people out of Kashmir, things wouldn't have come to this. India would've never been invited to the party.
Allow me to correct you there. This account is flawed because it fails to mention that the Pakistan Army DID NOT intervene in Kashmir when the Maharaja was trying desperately to retain autonomy, or when the Muslim population rioted, and when the Maharaja tried to crush said dissent militarily, which is what triggered large scale violence. Muslim soldiers from Maharajas own army rebelled, tribesmen sympathetic to their cause joined in the fighting and there was chaos. The Maharaja, whose army was already being lead by an Indian commander, sought help from India and with Lord Mountbattens sanction, Indian forces started deploying in great numbers and advancing further west. It was only AFTER this whole thing that the Pakistan Army entered the war, even then with very constrained, very mild orders that meant avoiding pitched battles or heavy confrontation with the Indians.
Pakistan didnt send or order these fiercely autonomous tribes into Kashmir. It was the blundering Maharaja who was not only responsible for the unrest, but for the fate of Kashmir to follow. He failed to honor the wishes of his people in regards to the succession, he allowed himself to be coerced into allowing Indias military involvement when Pakistan and the Pakistan Army could have quite easily dealt with his mess, restored order and settled the issue once and for all. Traditionally, it was regiments now belonging to the Pakistan Army that had been assigned to deal with the unruly tribes during the time of the British Raj. Same thing couldve happened in 1947, things couldve come to a safe and firm conclusion but unfortunately the Pakistan Army was actively prevented from securing the valley, before and even after the Indians arrived. So it was not our presence that caused the problem of Kashmir sir, it was the other way round. Kashmir is unsettled Disputed Territory today because of Indian involvement in disregard of regional realities and of the notion that partition be along religious and democratic lines.
Actually if you read history carefully, India was intent on Kashmir and not forced into an intervention by anyone. India had loaned a commander to command Marajahas forces after all, and Nehrus obsession with the state was well known. The tribes that made their way to Kashmir were not only from Pakistan, but from Afghanistan as well. FATA or Afghanistan hardly being a place where the Pakistans Army had much control. The Pakistan Army couldve saved Kashmir from the violence, but in order to do that it needed clearance and orders to advance north, from which it was prevented by the politicking of Indian elements and their supporters in the British.
Hardly the case. The Muslim population was rebelling, that in itself wouldve been a sufficient excuse. The tribals just made the Maharaja more malleable to Indian manipulation.
Your views on the subject are fairly narrow sir. I suggest you go over some impartial texts (no I'm not talking about Wikipedia) which might allow you to mount a more credible defence of Indian involvement.
It is not admitted by PAK gen also in their books that intruded Irregulars was PAK Army in civilian Suit
About Rebellion, it your own myth, Kindly read 65 Operation by Pak is also rallied by fancy that J&K people revolt , exactly opposite happen they sided Inida.
It is in on all yours mind that J&K people need your help, but they didnt ask nor they didnt need. their is still no rebellion.
Allow me to correct you there. This account is flawed because it fails to mention that the Pakistan Army DID NOT intervene in Kashmir when the Maharaja was trying desperately to retain autonomy, or when the Muslim population rioted, and when the Maharaja tried to crush said dissent militarily, which is what triggered large scale violence. Muslim soldiers from Maharajas own army rebelled, tribesmen sympathetic to their cause joined in the fighting and there was chaos. The Maharaja, whose army was already being lead by an Indian commander, sought help from India and with Lord Mountbattens sanction, Indian forces started deploying in great numbers and advancing further west. It was only AFTER this whole thing that the Pakistan Army entered the war, even then with very constrained, very mild orders that meant avoiding pitched battles or heavy confrontation with the Indians.
Pakistan didnt send or order these fiercely autonomous tribes into Kashmir. It was the blundering Maharaja who was not only responsible for the unrest, but for the fate of Kashmir to follow. He failed to honor the wishes of his people in regards to the succession, he allowed himself to be coerced into allowing Indias military involvement when Pakistan and the Pakistan Army could have quite easily dealt with his mess, restored order and settled the issue once and for all. Traditionally, it was regiments now belonging to the Pakistan Army that had been assigned to deal with the unruly tribes during the time of the British Raj. Same thing couldve happened in 1947, things couldve come to a safe and firm conclusion but unfortunately the Pakistan Army was actively prevented from securing the valley, before and even after the Indians arrived. So it was not our presence that caused the problem of Kashmir sir, it was the other way round. Kashmir is unsettled Disputed Territory today because of Indian involvement in disregard of regional realities and of the notion that partition be along religious and democratic lines.
Actually if you read history carefully, India was intent on Kashmir and not forced into an intervention by anyone. India had loaned a commander to command Marajahas forces after all, and Nehrus obsession with the state was well known. The tribes that made their way to Kashmir were not only from Pakistan, but from Afghanistan as well. FATA or Afghanistan hardly being a place where the Pakistans Army had much control. The Pakistan Army couldve saved Kashmir from the violence, but in order to do that it needed clearance and orders to advance north, from which it was prevented by the politicking of Indian elements and their supporters in the British.
Hardly the case. The Muslim population was rebelling, that in itself wouldve been a sufficient excuse. The tribals just made the Maharaja more malleable to Indian manipulation.
Your views on the subject are fairly narrow sir. I suggest you go over some impartial texts (no I'm not talking about Wikipedia) which might allow you to mount a more credible defence of Indian involvement.
Would you be kind enough to direct me to a couple of online sources?
Also, you didn't address the last part of my post about the Northern Areas and the trans-karakorum pact and how Pakistan's stance in this regard reflects its position on Kashmir as disputed territory, unless the dispute is simply that Kashmir should belong to Pakistan.