Modi sulking over Pakistan internationalizing Kashmir Dispute

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There was a media ban in the shelled areas of Pakistan.

The ban is irrelevant since the Indian media and government itself reported Pakistani military responses to Indian violations of the ceasefire AFTER Modi and his coterie of BJP hatemongers went on their rants about "we shut Pakistan up". So obviously whatever the Indian BSF's shelling involved, it did nothing in terms of limiting the Pakistani military response.

The Pakistani army was caught with their pants down.

What rational reason exists for that to happen? Mod fanboy-ism aside, the fact remains that both Pakistan and India keep a very close eye on the troop, infrastructure and equipment levels deployed on the LoC/WB by the other. The recent exchanges were entirely composed of light artillery and small arms, something that Pakistan will have no problem in matching. Now, if the exchanges had involved air-power, then perhaps you might have been able to argue that "Pakistan was outgunned".

Pakistan cannot hope to match the military power of India in next 50 years.

Irrelevant to the exchanges along the LoC/IB - without escalation into a war (limited or full) these military exchanges will remain limited to small arms, light and perhaps heavy artillery, all of which is something Pakistan can match given the cost of the equipment involved.

Whatever Modi said was fact, he gave a free hand to Indian army and Pakistani territory was shelled so badly that for the first time Pakistan made accusations against India in international forums for violating LoC ceasefire.

Pakistan played a very smart game diplomatically - on the ground Pakistan responded militarily to Indian violations of the ceasefire (and continues to do so) while diplomatically it raised the issue on every international stage it could, to make sure that Pakistan's position on the issue (that India started the ceasefire violations) was understood and also to snub the Modi government which is strongly opposed to Pakistan raising any India-Pakistan dispute on the international stage.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The UN recognizes the Simla Agreement and acts accordingly by refusing to get involved as a third party without both India nad Pakistan agreeing to its involvement. The UN Resolutions have been superseded by the Simla Agreement, as shown clearly by UN itself.

The UN recognizes the Simla Agreement only in the context of new disputes. The UN SG's recent comments, for example, were made in response to the recent Indian ceasefire violations issue raised by Pakistan, and in offering to mediate if both countries asked for it, he endorsed the Pakistani position that the Simla Agreement allows for third-party mediation.

The UNSC resolutions cover an EXISTING dispute that the UNSC has already taken a position on and passed resolutions on - mediation and resolutions that both India and Pakistan committed to and accepted. The Simla Agreement and the UN SG's recent comments have no bearing on the validity of the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir, as has been shown repeatedly, despite your best efforts to distort the situation and avoid rational responses.

 

[acid rain]

Nawaz, officially, himself and through various government officials, plainly told India that the responsibility for initiating dialog lay with India, and Pakistan was not going to approach India about it first. Now how you manage to somehow distort that into Pakistan asking for dialog is beyond me. Pakistan is done asking India, since India chose to use frivolous reasons to cancel it. India is the one that has to come and ask Pakistan to restart bilateral discussions.

You don't get subtle hints in geopolitics do you?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You don't get subtle hints in geopolitics do you?

What you are calling a "subtle hint" appears to be just another attempt by Modi fan-boys to distort the situation to make Modi look better.

FACT: The Pakistani Prime Minister and various other government officials have clearly told India that the responsibility for restarting dialog rests with India, and that Pakistan is not going to request dialog anymore. The Indian government needs to take the first step, and Pakistan has made clear that it will not stop talking with the Kashmiri leadership and will not accept it as a precondition. There is nothing "subtle" about Pakistan's position on the issue.

 

[acid rain]

What you are calling a "subtle hint" appears to be just another attempt by Modi fan-boys to distort the situation to make Modi look better.

FACT: The Pakistani Prime Minister and various other government officials have clearly told India that the responsibility for restarting dialog rests with India, and that Pakistan is not going to request dialog anymore. The Indian government needs to take the first step, and Pakistan has made clear that it will not stop talking with the Kashmiri leadership and will not accept it as a precondition. There is nothing "subtle" about Pakistan's position on the issue.

That's right, and they kept saying that several times. Which is what's called subtle hinting to request dialogue.

 

[VCheng]

You don't get subtle hints in geopolitics do you?

What hint? It is quite clear. If the two parties do not talk to each other, and there is no third party agreement either, that is a virtual guarantee for the status quo to remain over Kashmir. The longer the stalemate, the less likely it is to be raised by any side involved.

 

[acid rain]

What hint? It is quite clear. If the two parties do not talk to each other, and there is no third party agreement either, that is a virtual guarantee for the status quo to remain over Kashmir. The longer the stalemate, the less likely it is to be raised by any side involved.

The issue isn't just Kashmir. That issue will not go anywhere.what is of more keener interest is the energy highways and the trade that's in the works.

 

[jaunty]

So a reporter says Modi "may" and AM interprets that as Modi sulking. Way to go!

 

[VCheng]

The issue isn't just Kashmir. That issue will not go anywhere.what is of more keener interest is the energy highways and the trade that's in the works.

Of course, ALL disputes and issues are bilateral per the Simla Agreement. Hint, hint.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

this is not a request... as u like to put it and why change the heading ?

because it does the desired effect

firing across the working boundary and LoC wont subdue the Kashmir issue it has the exact opposite effect
it is being discussed in the international media and even gave Gen Rahil Sharif the chance to bring this up with the USA , blaming India very correctly, that its hostilities along the border are affecting Pakistan's operation in North Waziristan which was much demanded by the Americans.

General reminded the Americans what he told them already that Indians would stir up trouble along the LoC while it was busy fighting the terrorists.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

A question Pakistani's need to ask themselves after a month long global ranting spree:
1. Did the world take notice?
2. Anyone said any statement against India's stand?
3. Has Pakistani position improved in world arena?

4. did you turn pink annoying Orange?

well we can definitely put that question to a resounding Yes

 

[VCheng]

because it does the desired effect

firing across the working boundary and LoC wont subdue the Kashmir issue it has the exact opposite effect
it is being discussed in the international media and even gave Gen Rahil Sharif the chance to bring this up with the USA , blaming India very correctly, that its hostilities along the border are affecting Pakistan's operation in North Waziristan which was much demanded by the Americans.

General reminded the Americans what he told them already that Indians would stir up trouble along the LoC while it was busy fighting the terrorists.

The important item here is what the Murrikans told the good General in return when he raised the Kashmir issue with them.

 

[ito]

The UN recognizes the Simla Agreement only in the context of new disputes. The UN SG's recent comments, for example, were made in response to the recent Indian ceasefire violations issue raised by Pakistan, and in offering to mediate if both countries asked for it, he endorsed the Pakistani position that the Simla Agreement allows for third-party mediation.

The UNSC resolutions cover an EXISTING dispute that the UNSC has already taken a position on and passed resolutions on - mediation and resolutions that both India and Pakistan committed to and accepted. The Simla Agreement and the UN SG's recent comments have no bearing on the validity of the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir, as has been shown repeatedly, despite your best efforts to distort the situation and avoid rational responses.

this is your interpretation. india disagrees with your interpretation. according to india, shimla agreement override UN resolutions and UN has no role to play in bilateral issue between india and pak

 

[VCheng]

this is your interpretation. india disagrees with your interpretation. according to india, shimla agreement override UN resolutions and UN has no role to play in bilateral issue between india and pak

Not just India, every other country and the UN itself agree with India's interpretation.

 

[ito]

Not just India, every other country and the UN itself agree with India's interpretation.

the lack of support for pak position on UN resolutions from US, West and even China should give enough indications on this matter