What's new

Manmohan Singh's hypocrisy

well, i say every body is hypocrite to some extent. some time you show it some time we:D

let me give some insight in future.
India can not afford to loose Kashmir at any cost, whether by plebiscite or talks because of Kashmir's water resources and strategic importance for India.

theses peace talks are B.S for India just to show the world that we are sincere to solve the dispute, nothing more. morality and fairness, these terms have no meaning when it comes to national interest.
the best out comes of these talks can be withdrawal of India army and paramilitary forces from Kashmir and economic prosperity of J.K under Indian rule. don't expect any plebiscite ever or free Kashmir.don't even think about military solution :crazy:because you and me both know that out come will not in favor of both. now its up to you people what price you want pay for Kashmir?:smokin:

if you give threat of jihad then good luck for it because we have been fighting it for 20 years we can fight for eternity but if you continue this policy you are making self inflicted wounds as you have already seeing in NWF. if you still make more trouble then Baluchistan will be next battle ground for you after NWF.

best of best out come will be eradication of insurgency by Pakistan in return of removal of all security forces from Kashmir and economic development of Kashmir by India so people of Kashmir will live a prosperous life[i am not saying any thing about your Kashmir , you do whatever you want to but we know how to defend our own keep:sniper:].

believe it or not, this is the brutal reality:hitwall:
 
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.

Any neutral source for the above information.
-------

As per my knowledge, on October 22, 1947 the Pathan-armed tribes of the Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP) invaded Kashmir and got to fifteen miles from the state’s capital city, Srinagar.

Maharaja Singh sought India’s military assistance, but India refused to help unless the Maharajah signed the instrument of accession.

India agreed to the accession after receiving the consent of Sheikh Abdullah, the secular and popular leader of the National Conference (NC) in the state.

Maharaja signed the accord on October 27 and on the same day Indian armed forces entered Kashmir.

---

I maybe wrong.
 
Hypocrisy ? Here the reaction in India..


New Delhi (PTI): Terming as "sheer betrayal" and "U-turn" India's agreement with Pakistan that terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process, BJP on Friday said the government has "surrendered under international pressure".

"We will strongly oppose this (the joint statement by India and Pakistan delinking terrorism from composite dialogue). India has surrendered under international pressure ... We staged a walkout from the Lok Sabha on the issue. Under no circumstances will BJP compromise on this," Deputy Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj told reporters.

Party spokesperson Prakash Javadekar also said, "This step by India has come as a shock. It is sheer betrayal and U-turn by the government. They are buckling under international pressure."

Ms. Swaraj said her party position is that once terrorism is taken out of the dialogue process, it could no longer be called "composite".

"The dialogue ceases to be composite the moment terrorism is removed from it...We call it composite as economic issues, trade relations and cultural ties are discussed along with terrorism.

"If terrorism is set aside, then how does the dialogue become composite? It ceases to be composite as a composite dialogue has to be all-pervasive," she said.

"We will oppose this move by the government," Ms. Swaraj added.

Ms. Swaraj said nothing was ever final in diplomacy and BJP was not open to dialogue with Pakistan "unless and until" terrorism was included among the issues to be discussed.

She argued that Pakistan had only made an oral commitment on curbing terrorism and such assurances had no credibility.

The BJP leader also said Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's statement in the Lok Sabha today on the issue had come as a "big disappointment".

She said the erstwhile NDA regime had taken several measures to improve bilateral relations with Pakistan but never compromised on the issue of terrorism.

"The NDA government took the initiative and leaders travelled to Lahore by bus and held a cordial meeting with Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif," Ms. Swaraj said.

Despite the Kargil war which occurred soon thereafter, the NDA government invited then President Pervez Musharraf for the Agra summit."The Agra talks broke down as Musharraf maintained what we call terrorism in Kashmir as freedom struggle and Kashmir should be made the core issue of the talks," she said.

In the aftermath of the 26/11 attacks, the UPA government rightly took a "tough stand" against Pakistan till the Joint Statement in Sharm el-Sheikh. BJP was ready and would call for a structured debate on the issue in Lok Sabha as suggested by Leader of the House Pranab Mukherjee, Swaraj added.

Another BJP spokesperson Rajiv Pratap Rudy dubbed the government's move as an attempt to "dilute" India's fight against terror. "There was no reason to dilute the intensity of our crusade against terror which we believe is the nation's priority," Mr. Rudy said.
 
Here is another way to look at this, instead of thinking that one side lost and the other won.

India and Pakistan will restart the dialog process, but the dialog is not going to resolve anything in days, weeks or even months - it will likely continue for a year or so before we see meaningful progress.

That is more than enough time for Pakistan to prosecute the Mumbai accused and show tangible movement on 'terrorism' to India, which, if it happens, will validate MMS at the end of the day. After all, his term just started so he has plenty of time to show the Indian electorate that his policies will work.

Now there is also risk here for Pakistan - if terrorists are able to repeat something like Mumbai, Pakistan will likely have very little option other than to bow to international pressure and try and clamp down using extra-judicial means on the various Kashmir focussed groups, which would make the current government extremely unpopular and likely open another front against terrorism in Pakistan.

So there is a lot for both sides to lose here going forward, especially Pakistan.

Or instead of waiting for an attack to happen in MY soil ,Pakistan actually sees the evidence provided by India and takes action against the Mumbai perpetrators and until that happens there is no resumption of dialogue.
After all Pakistan is really eager for the talks to resume for some reason,why not use it to get some credible action.

In any case MMS will have to take a firmer stand to convince the Indian people .Talks will be limited to what Pakistan does to curb terrorism.
 
Or instead of waiting for an attack to happen in MY soil ,Pakistan actually sees the evidence provided by India and takes action against the Mumbai perpetrators and until that happens there is no resumption of dialogue.
After all Pakistan is really eager for the talks to resume for some reason,why not use it to get some credible action.

In any case MMS will have to take a firmer stand to convince the Indian people .Talks will be limited to what Pakistan does to curb terrorism.

:lol: Whatever man.

All I can say is that the Indian side should have thought about that before delinking composite dialog and action on terrorism.

The joint statement vindicates Pakistan's stance IMO, now if the Indian side backs out they are hypocrites.

Fine with me either way - I expect the 5 or 6 accused to be tried, as announced by the GoP recently, regardless of whether India backtracks or not, so no issue for me whether you join the talks as hypocrites or people who stick to your word. :D:tup:
 

New Delhi (PTI): Insisting that India had not diluted its stand, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh today said that any meaningful engagement with Pakistan cannot move forward till Pakistan takes steps to end terrorism emanating from there.

Clarifying in the Rajya Sabha on his statement on the outcome of his talks with Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, which has been criticised by BJP, he said India's position remains that Pakistan would have to take "sustained, effective and credible action" without waiting for the composite dialogue to resume.

"It does not mean dilution of our stand, it only strengthens our commitment that meaningful process of engagement cannot move forward unless and until Pakistan takes measures to control terrorism," he said responding to clarification sought by Leader of Opposition Arun Jaitley.

Mr. Jaitley said Singh's statement was inconsistent with the Joint Statement issued after talks between the two Prime Ministers in Sharm-el Sheikh on Thursday.

"It does not mean any dilution but strengthening of our commitment," Mr. Singh maintained.

"We would like Pakistan not to wait for resumption of composite dialogue, as and when it takes place, but take action against terrorist elements regardless of process that may lead to resumption of dialogue," the Prime Minister said.
 
Kashmir was never part of India anyways and its not going to be ever so why bring that issue?

Because it's the reality of the situation buddy and as soon Pakistan accepts that the closer we'll be to peace.
 
Any neutral source for the above information.

I maybe wrong.

What I've said is taken from neutral sources. I suggest you read A History of the Pakistan Army. Its widely available and widely credited. I hope you understand my reluctance to quote the passages here. I was working on a Historical peice though based on Cloughley's and Nawaz's work. Perhaps you'll find some of it useful:

Soon after independence India had begun forceful subjugation of territories that had opted for Pakistan. Hyderabad and Junagadh were both annexed by India and the Pakistan Army could do nothing as these states were landlocked between India and shared no physical boundary with mainland Pakistan. The princely state of Kashmir was different in that it not only shared a strong cultural and physical link to Pakistan, but the rivers originating from its mountains were, and are, a life line to Pakistan’s agro-based economy. Upon that more than 3/4 of the state was Muslim populated, which would have left no doubt that Kashmir would secede to Pakistan, particularly since the British had explicitly agreed that division be along religious lines and the Indians themselves had used a plebiscite to justify their occupation of Hyderabad. This however would prove not to be the case.

The Maharaja, who was the ruler of Kashmir was a Hindu and would have preferred to stay independent and retain as much power as possible. His rule however was failing with several Muslim uprisings already in full swing soon after partition. There were claims that Pakistani Army Regiments were operating in that region, this was simply not true but there were, however, a number of tribesmen from Pakistan and Afghanistan who gradually started advancing into Kashmir. Many motivated by religion and others by less righteous ideals, the tribesmen were also joined by Muslim soldiers from the Maharajas army. The conduct of the tribal army was less than that expected from a professional army and as it were the British, almost instinctively, felt threatened by the prospect of Muslim tribesmen reaching the hundreds of British citizens residing in Srinagar.

The Pakistan Army at this time was forced to stand back for a number of reasons. First being the fact that Pakistan Army’s then Commander-in-Chief was a British, Sir Douglas Gracey, who after being ordered by Jinnah, Pakistan’s Founder and Governor-General, to deploy Pakistan’s forces and restore order in Kashmir, simply refused. This order would undoubtedly have had saved the lives of countless thousands and brought things to a safe and firm conclusion, had General Gracey obliged. Though an honorable man, General Gracey owed part of his loyalty to the Supreme Commander in Delhi who owed it to Lord Mountbatten. Therefore, naturally, General Gracey was most reluctant to approve or initiate action that could lead to hostilities with Indian forces subordinate to his own commander.

In complete contrast to General Gracey’s pacifist attitude, however, India’s Nehru and Lord Mountbatten had convinced themselves that only ‘Indian’ troops could be trusted to ‘do the job’ of securing Srinagar and Kashmir. And to this end Lord Mountbatten himself was directing Indian military operations in Kashmir from Delhi. Lord Mountbatten was not a man well known for his respects towards Pakistan, or towards Islam for that matter.

It was not long before the Maharaja, already weak and desperate, threw his lot in to Indian pressure. And a preconceived plan to airlift regular Indian Army soldiers into Srinagar swung into action. (The Maharaja’s state army was already being commanded by an Indian Army officer on ‘loan’ by the Indian government). At this time further efforts were being undertaken to impede Pakistan’s participation in what might've been considered the rightful protection of her people. With Indian troops massing in Srinagar, the Supreme Commander flew in from New Delhi to warn Jinnah against deploying Pakistani troops in Kashmir under the threat of withdrawing British officers still serving under the Pakistani flag.

Jinnah was left with no choice but to rescind the order to send Pakistani troops into Kashmir again. The young Pakistan Army needed British officers as it was still seriously short of sufficiently trained Pakistani officers. This shockingly discriminative attitude on behalf of the British was not entirely new, but worrisome nonetheless. These fast moving developments ensured that training and promotion of Pakistani officers was made a priority.

The Indians by this time had managed to gain a strong foothold in the Valley, and started pressing west towards Gilgit, Hunza, Nagar: territories that had already declared accession to Pakistan. It was around this time that Jinnah was eventually able to prevail upon General Gracey to deploy regular forces to confront the Indians. By now more British officers had been filtered out and even though the Pakistan army had still not managed to obtain its fair share of military equipment from India, it was in much better shape.

The Army rushed to take up and reinforce the remaining positions held by the tribals, who were by now under siege, outnumbered and out gunned by the heavy Indian presence. The ensuring fighting was brutal, bloody and took place in appalling conditions and terrain. However Pakistan’s military campaign in Kashmir had been restricted from the beginning, General Gracey was still in charge of the Army, and even though no British officers were involved in this theatre, Gracey did all in his power to avoid a direct confrontation with Indian forces still very much commanded by British officers.

This meant that the bulk of the fighting had to be done through the irregular tribal warriors, though they were by now, admittedly, being heavily assisted by Pakistani military men. Therefore operations were planned by the Pakistan Army but had to be executed by the irregular forces who were also becoming law onto themselves. Militarily this was far from an ideal situation, and neither was it the only constrain, civilian direction of war was completely lacking, in fact the general instruction was ‘you can hit them but NOT too hard otherwise there will be all kinds of [political] repercussions’. This not only killed the Army’s Violence of Action, robbing it of initiative but also placed any attempt at wrestling control of the valley entirely in the intolerable.

General Gracey did however complain to his Indian counterpart and fellow Briton about the atrocities being committed by Indian troops in Kashmir, forcing tens of thousands of Kashmiri Muslims to seek refuge in Pakistan, this is said to have caused the dismissal of some brigade level officers. On the military front Pakistani backed forces checked Indian advances on Poonch and Kotli and wrestled Skardu and Gurais from them; everything was a close run thing and subject to much battlefield fluidity.
 
:lol: Whatever man.

All I can say is that the Indian side should have thought about that before delinking composite dialog and action on terrorism.

The joint statement vindicates Pakistan's stance IMO, now if the Indian side backs out they are hypocrites.

Fine with me either way - I expect the 5 or 6 accused to be tried, as announced by the GoP recently, regardless of whether India backtracks or not, so no issue for me whether you join the talks as hypocrites or people who stick to your word. :D:tup:

Not until the talks resume(if ever)
 
What I've said is taken from neutral sources. I suggest you read A History of the Pakistan Army. Its widely available and widely credited. I hope you understand my reluctance to quote the passages here. I was working on a Historical peice though based on Cloughley's and Nawaz's work. Perhaps you'll find some of it useful:

Soon after independence India had begun forceful subjugation of territories that had opted for Pakistan. Hyderabad and Junagadh were both annexed by India and the Pakistan Army could do nothing as these states were landlocked between India and shared no physical boundary with mainland Pakistan. The princely state of Kashmir was different in that it not only shared a strong cultural and physical link to Pakistan, but the rivers originating from its mountains were, and are, a life line to Pakistan’s agro-based economy. Upon that more than 3/4 of the state was Muslim populated, which would have left no doubt that Kashmir would secede to Pakistan, particularly since the British had explicitly agreed that division be along religious lines and the Indians themselves had used a plebiscite to justify their occupation of Hyderabad. This however would prove not to be the case.

The Maharaja, who was the ruler of Kashmir was a Hindu and would have preferred to stay independent and retain as much power as possible. His rule however was failing with several Muslim uprisings already in full swing soon after partition. There were claims that Pakistani Army Regiments were operating in that region, this was simply not true but there were, however, a number of tribesmen from Pakistan and Afghanistan who gradually started advancing into Kashmir. Many motivated by religion and others by less righteous ideals, the tribesmen were also joined by Muslim soldiers from the Maharajas army. The conduct of the tribal army was less than that expected from a professional army and as it were the British, almost instinctively, felt threatened by the prospect of Muslim tribesmen reaching the hundreds of British citizens residing in Srinagar.

The Pakistan Army at this time was forced to stand back for a number of reasons. First being the fact that Pakistan Army’s then Commander-in-Chief was a British, Sir Douglas Gracey, who after being ordered by Jinnah, Pakistan’s Founder and Governor-General, to deploy Pakistan’s forces and restore order in Kashmir, simply refused. This order would undoubtedly have had saved the lives of countless thousands and brought things to a safe and firm conclusion, had General Gracey obliged. Though an honorable man, General Gracey owed part of his loyalty to the Supreme Commander in Delhi who owed it to Lord Mountbatten. Therefore, naturally, General Gracey was most reluctant to approve or initiate action that could lead to hostilities with Indian forces subordinate to his own commander.

In complete contrast to General Gracey’s pacifist attitude, however, India’s Nehru and Lord Mountbatten had convinced themselves that only ‘Indian’ troops could be trusted to ‘do the job’ of securing Srinagar and Kashmir. And to this end Lord Mountbatten himself was directing Indian military operations in Kashmir from Delhi. Lord Mountbatten was not a man well known for his respects towards Pakistan, or towards Islam for that matter.

It was not long before the Maharaja, already weak and desperate, threw his lot in to Indian pressure. And a preconceived plan to airlift regular Indian Army soldiers into Srinagar swung into action. (The Maharaja’s state army was already being commanded by an Indian Army officer on ‘loan’ by the Indian government). At this time further efforts were being undertaken to impede Pakistan’s participation in what might've been considered the rightful protection of her people. With Indian troops massing in Srinagar, the Supreme Commander flew in from New Delhi to warn Jinnah against deploying Pakistani troops in Kashmir under the threat of withdrawing British officers still serving under the Pakistani flag.

Jinnah was left with no choice but to rescind the order to send Pakistani troops into Kashmir again. The young Pakistan Army needed British officers as it was still seriously short of sufficiently trained Pakistani officers. This shockingly discriminative attitude on behalf of the British was not entirely new, but worrisome nonetheless. These fast moving developments ensured that training and promotion of Pakistani officers was made a priority.

The Indians by this time had managed to gain a strong foothold in the Valley, and started pressing west towards Gilgit, Hunza, Nagar; territories that had already declared accession to Pakistan. It was around this time that Jinnah was eventually able to prevail upon General Gracey to deploy regular forces to confront the Indians. By now more British officers had been filtered out and even though the Pakistan army had still not managed to obtain its fair share of military equipment from India, it was in much better shape.

The Army rushed to take up and reinforce the remaining positions held by the tribals, who were by now under siege, outnumbered and out gunned by the heavy Indian presence. The ensuring fighting was brutal, bloody and took place in appalling conditions and terrain. However Pakistan’s military campaign in Kashmir had been restricted from the beginning; General Gracey was still in charge of the Army, and even though no British officers were involved in this theatre, Gracey did all in his power to avoid a direct confrontation with Indian forces still very much commanded by British officers.

This meant that the bulk of the fighting had to be done through the irregular tribal warriors, though they were by now, admittedly, being heavily assisted by Pakistani military men. Therefore operations were planned by the Pakistan Army but had to be executed by the irregular forces who were also becoming law onto themselves. Militarily this was far from an ideal situation, and neither was it the only constrain, civilian direction of war was completely lacking, in fact the general instruction was ‘you can hit them but NOT too hard otherwise there will be all kinds of [political] repercussions’. This not only killed the Army’s Violence of Action, robbing it of initiative but also placed any attempt at wrestling control of the valley entirely in the intolerable.

General Gracey did however complain to his Indian counterpart and fellow Briton about the atrocities being committed by Indian troops in Kashmir, forcing tens of thousands of Kashmiri Muslims to seek refuge in Pakistan, this is said to have caused the dismissal of some brigade level officers. On the military front Pakistani backed forces checked Indian advances on Poonch and Kotli and wrestled Skardu and Gurais from them; everything was a close run thing and subject to much battlefield fluidity.

Superbly written kasrkin!:tup:

Posting it on the def.pk blog soon I hope.

P.S: I think I remember Owen Bennet Jones (from BBC) also pointing out in his book on Pakistan that the Tribesmen went in after the Maharajah tried to violently quell a revolt in Kashmir by Muslims opposed to his rule.

He also points out that the PA did not go into Kashmir until Indian forces were deployed and advancing on the areas you mentioned.
 
Not until the talks resume(if ever)

wait and see:cheesy:
hope u wont leave the forum once they do resume;)

btw if u havent noticed, we are already talking. arent we? manmohan with zardari. manmohan with gilani. three rounds of talks bw foreign secretaries.

anyways lets wait.
 
What I've said is taken from neutral sources. I suggest you read A History of the Pakistan Army. Its widely available and widely credited. I hope you understand my reluctance to quote the passages here. I was working on a Historical peice though based on Cloughley's and Nawaz's work. Perhaps you'll find some of it useful:

Soon after independence India had begun forceful subjugation of territories that had opted for Pakistan. Hyderabad and Junagadh were both annexed by India and the Pakistan Army could do nothing as these states were landlocked between India and shared no physical boundary with mainland Pakistan. The princely state of Kashmir was different in that it not only shared a strong cultural and physical link to Pakistan, but the rivers originating from its mountains were, and are, a life line to Pakistan’s agro-based economy. Upon that more than 3/4 of the state was Muslim populated, which would have left no doubt that Kashmir would secede to Pakistan, particularly since the British had explicitly agreed that division be along religious lines and the Indians themselves had used a plebiscite to justify their occupation of Hyderabad. This however would prove not to be the case.

The Maharaja, who was the ruler of Kashmir was a Hindu and would have preferred to stay independent and retain as much power as possible. His rule however was failing with several Muslim uprisings already in full swing soon after partition. There were claims that Pakistani Army Regiments were operating in that region, this was simply not true but there were, however, a number of tribesmen from Pakistan and Afghanistan who gradually started advancing into Kashmir. Many motivated by religion and others by less righteous ideals, the tribesmen were also joined by Muslim soldiers from the Maharajas army. The conduct of the tribal army was less than that expected from a professional army and as it were the British, almost instinctively, felt threatened by the prospect of Muslim tribesmen reaching the hundreds of British citizens residing in Srinagar.

The Pakistan Army at this time was forced to stand back for a number of reasons. First being the fact that Pakistan Army’s then Commander-in-Chief was a British, Sir Douglas Gracey, who after being ordered by Jinnah, Pakistan’s Founder and Governor-General, to deploy Pakistan’s forces and restore order in Kashmir, simply refused. This order would undoubtedly have had saved the lives of countless thousands and brought things to a safe and firm conclusion, had General Gracey obliged. Though an honorable man, General Gracey owed part of his loyalty to the Supreme Commander in Delhi who owed it to Lord Mountbatten. Therefore, naturally, General Gracey was most reluctant to approve or initiate action that could lead to hostilities with Indian forces subordinate to his own commander.

In complete contrast to General Gracey’s pacifist attitude, however, India’s Nehru and Lord Mountbatten had convinced themselves that only ‘Indian’ troops could be trusted to ‘do the job’ of securing Srinagar and Kashmir. And to this end Lord Mountbatten himself was directing Indian military operations in Kashmir from Delhi. Lord Mountbatten was not a man well known for his respects towards Pakistan, or towards Islam for that matter.

It was not long before the Maharaja, already weak and desperate, threw his lot in to Indian pressure. And a preconceived plan to airlift regular Indian Army soldiers into Srinagar swung into action. (The Maharaja’s state army was already being commanded by an Indian Army officer on ‘loan’ by the Indian government). At this time further efforts were being undertaken to impede Pakistan’s participation in what might've been considered the rightful protection of her people. With Indian troops massing in Srinagar, the Supreme Commander flew in from New Delhi to warn Jinnah against deploying Pakistani troops in Kashmir under the threat of withdrawing British officers still serving under the Pakistani flag.

Jinnah was left with no choice but to rescind the order to send Pakistani troops into Kashmir again. The young Pakistan Army needed British officers as it was still seriously short of sufficiently trained Pakistani officers. This shockingly discriminative attitude on behalf of the British was not entirely new, but worrisome nonetheless. These fast moving developments ensured that training and promotion of Pakistani officers was made a priority.

The Indians by this time had managed to gain a strong foothold in the Valley, and started pressing west towards Gilgit, Hunza, Nagar: territories that had already declared accession to Pakistan. It was around this time that Jinnah was eventually able to prevail upon General Gracey to deploy regular forces to confront the Indians. By now more British officers had been filtered out and even though the Pakistan army had still not managed to obtain its fair share of military equipment from India, it was in much better shape.

The Army rushed to take up and reinforce the remaining positions held by the tribals, who were by now under siege, outnumbered and out gunned by the heavy Indian presence. The ensuring fighting was brutal, bloody and took place in appalling conditions and terrain. However Pakistan’s military campaign in Kashmir had been restricted from the beginning, General Gracey was still in charge of the Army, and even though no British officers were involved in this theatre, Gracey did all in his power to avoid a direct confrontation with Indian forces still very much commanded by British officers.

This meant that the bulk of the fighting had to be done through the irregular tribal warriors, though they were by now, admittedly, being heavily assisted by Pakistani military men. Therefore operations were planned by the Pakistan Army but had to be executed by the irregular forces who were also becoming law onto themselves. Militarily this was far from an ideal situation, and neither was it the only constrain, civilian direction of war was completely lacking, in fact the general instruction was ‘you can hit them but NOT too hard otherwise there will be all kinds of [political] repercussions’. This not only killed the Army’s Violence of Action, robbing it of initiative but also placed any attempt at wrestling control of the valley entirely in the intolerable.

General Gracey did however complain to his Indian counterpart and fellow Briton about the atrocities being committed by Indian troops in Kashmir, forcing tens of thousands of Kashmiri Muslims to seek refuge in Pakistan, this is said to have caused the dismissal of some brigade level officers. On the military front Pakistani backed forces checked Indian advances on Poonch and Kotli and wrestled Skardu and Gurais from them; everything was a close run thing and subject to much battlefield fluidity.

In Short it was non-State Actors who went into the neighbouring state and your inability to control them caused that situation.

While we are it, lets look at the context. Year was 1947. No communication source were avilable to spread the news. The riots occured during Aug-Oct but in 3 months, the news reached NW areas, people were able to armed and crossed hundreds of miles to reach Kashmir without any help from state? And while on other thread one of Mods is complaing that after independence Pakistan does not have any infrastreucture to speak about. But still news can reach to the remotest of places, people can arm themself and travel hundred's of miles to interfere in other states internal matter.

Guess after 60years of independence Pakistan has still to learn to control there non-state actors.
 
What sweeping statements? The guy said he might send XYZ official over and then changed his mind about that.

How on earth can you guys compare that with an official joint statement crafted after the two leaders and their officials met for several hours.

You make no sense.

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.
 
The joint statement was drafted by the diplomats in such a way that it satisfies the domestic audiences of both countries and at the same time appear to the outside world that progress has been made.

Dr. Singh is not hypocritical when he says that action on terror must be taken for any meaningful dialogue to take place. What he means is that even if there is no composite dialogue, action on terror must continue, since they are now de-linked. Some smart play of words.
 
action on terrorism should be a joint responsibility of both the countries. doesnt matter if we are talkin or not. that is y its been de-linked.
on the other hand we should keep on talkin or otherwise we will keep on fallin victim to non state actor. its a win win situation for both the countries and we should stop seein it as indian victory or pakistan victory lik AM said earlier in one of his posts.
 
Back
Top Bottom