New Delhi will only discuss Pakistan-controlled Kashmir, says Indian envoy

[barbarosa]

Damn man!...Except for Nepal, you spelled all the countries wrongly!....I hope it was a genuine mistake!

english is not our mother language as you. but i tried my best to understand the readers.

 

[$@rJen]

We should not be closing our option. What matters is we have a clear idea of what is right.

I'm not saying we should close all the options.. let it be there, now its no use

 

[ChennaiDude]

english is not our mother language as you. but i tried my best to understand the readers.

A country's name is not English!....Anyways I agree with the rest.

 

[Passionaire]

Ya i get that.. but that's why i wrote in another quote about Pakistan moving on. There's no use of talking.. you'll ask us to give kashmir or hold plebiscite while we'll ask you to give P0K. chuma money and time will be spent on Tea-Biscuit party. Better leave it as Status Quo and move on.

LoL Russia !!! Don't get your hopes too high because you're having a little better ties with Russia. I understand China but Russia !! COme on please lets not talk like a Fan boy here.

And moreover what happens even if its back on the UN list?? what's going to be changed on the ground??? I see nothing. Nada... you've Signed to solve the Disputes Bilaterally, then again we'll be back from sqr 1.

So that's why I'm saying leave this and move on. Kashmir issue is only for Vote banks when There's going to be a election in both countries let the bloody politicians have orgasms for a while

You are deliberately trying to be oblivious of everything. If plebiscite will happen, it will happen in whole Kashmir; not in particular chunks of Kashmir.

State of US is neutral, but it has spoiled very much ties with PAK by siding India. Russia took advantage to fill the gap. Can't you see the increasing military ties of Russia with Pakistan? Russia interest in CPEC? Both Russia and China are close friends. If China sided with Pak, without iota of doubt Russia will too. Things have changed a lot recently.

And moreover what happens even if its back on the UN list??

If UNSC members (Russia, China, US; if it don't want to suspend its ties with Pak) pressurizes UN, then UN will send its officials to Kashmir to conduct plebiscite.

 

[nForce]

I'm not saying we should close all the options.. let it be there, now its no use

Let me give you an idea.

Back in 1948, when Pakistan was given a choice of plebiscite, they demanded whole of Kashmir.
Through the entire 60s-70s, when Pakistan was given a choice for bilateral talks and peaceful resolution, they demanded plebiscite.
Through the 90s and early 2000, when Pakistan was given a choice for status quo, they demanded autonomy.

You get the picture ?

 

[illusion8]

You are deliberately trying to be oblivious of everything. If plebiscite will happen, it will happen in whole Kashmir; not in particular chunks of Kashmir.

State of US is neutral, but it has spoiled very much ties with PAK by siding India. Russia took advantage to fill the gap. Can't you see the increasing military ties of Russia with Pakistan? Russia interest in CPEC? Both Russia and China are close friends. If China sided with Pak, without iota of doubt Russia will too. Things have changed a lot recently.

And moreover what happens even if its back on the UN list??

If UNSC members (Russia, China, US; if it don't want to suspend its ties with Pak) pressurizes UN, then UN will send its officials to Kashmir to conduct plebiscite.

Aren't you forgetting the piece of kashmir that Pakistan handed over to China? ..get that back first and then come to the table.

No one backs a lame horse...especially a Muslim one. The commies will have what's coming for them eventually for their stupidness.

 

[$@rJen]

You are deliberately trying to be oblivious of everything. If plebiscite will happen, it will happen in whole Kashmir; not in particular chunks of Kashmir.

I said this long ago to you. But for this should happen first Pakistan should vacate its presence from P0K in order to unite Kashmir, then India should keep Minimum troops in order to defend itself because 1948 war stats Pakistan as a Aggressor. once first two steps are completed vote would take place. IT'S THE OFFICIAL ANSWER OF UN. But Pakistan never started the procedure.

State of US is neutral, but it has spoiled very much ties with PAK by siding India. Russia took advantage to fill the gap. Can't you see the increasing military ties of Russia with Pakistan? Russia interest in CPEC? Both Russia and China are close friends. If China sided with Pak, without iota of doubt Russia will too. Things have changed a lot recently.

Please again don't have your hopes high on Russia. China is already but won't comment on it openly. we've other means.. see how we recently bypassed Chinese Pressure from UNSC to Missile regiment Controls..

If UNSC members (Russia, China, US; if it don't want to suspend its ties to Pak) pressurize UN, then UN will send its officials to Kashmir to conduct plebiscite.

LoL... What happened before 2010 then??? where were these countries??? They officially can't pressure to hold a Plebiscite. Certainly not to India. Russia,US,France would never side with Cina and Pakisan to oppose India.. that's just a pipe dream of some fan boys.. Hell Not even Cinese have done with Kashmir Issue.

the thing you are not getting is they can never force a country like India or pakistan or Somalia to hold a plebiscite. also you're forgetting there's someting called Shimla Agreement.

 

[Passionaire]

Aren't you forgetting the piece of Kashmir that Pakistan handed over to China? ..get that back first and then come to the table.

You not need to worry about. China will handover to Pak. Truth is bitter to accept.

No one backs a lame horse...especially a Muslim one. The commies will have what's coming for them eventually for their stupidness

Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. - Mark Twain

 

[Joe Shearer]

ISLAMABAD: India's representative to Pakistan said on Monday that his country was only prepared to discuss the part of Kashmir controlled by Islamabad in upcoming peace talks, presenting a potential stumbling block days after the dialogue was announced.

High commissioner T.C.A. Raghavan made the remarks about the disputed territory during a lecture in the Pakistani capital, after a breakthrough visit by India's foreign minister at which the resumption of ministerial talks was announced.

According to a joint statement, the two sides will talk about peace and security as well as territorial disputes including Kashmir. Each country occupies part of the territory but claims it in full.

Asked where the room for negotiation lay over the Himalayan territory, Raghavan said it was India which first petitioned the United Nations to intervene when the-then princely state of Jammu and Kashmir was invaded by Pakistani forces in 1947.

“The first application was moved by India and it was on the grounds that a part of the state, which had acceded to India, is now under the illegal occupation of the Pakistan army.

“So when you say what is it that India is going to discuss or what is it discussing, it is really, if you ask most Indians, and what is our position — it is the part of that state which is still under the control of Pakistan."

The remarks could create a diplomatic wrinkle for the two countries as they seek to go back to the negotiation table to undertake broad-spectrum talks for the first time since the election of prime ministers Narendra Modi and Nawaz Sharif.

Badar Alam, editor of Pakistan's political Herald magazine, said: “I think it is a step back,” adding that Kashmir was viewed internationally as a disputed territory.

He added that given the fragile state of the dialogue, officials on both sides needed to tread “very cautiously and very carefully” to avoid a backlash.

New Delhi suspended all talks after gunmen attacked the Indian city of Mumbai in November 2008, killing 166 people.

The countries agreed to resume the peace process in 2011 but tensions have spiked over the past two years, with cross-border shelling over the disputed border in Kashmir claiming dozens of lives since 2014.

A brief meeting between Sharif and his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi on the sidelines of the UN climate change summit in Paris on November 30, followed by talks between the two countries' national security advisers in Bangkok, appeared to have broken the ice.

Even a cursory look at the terms and conditions laid down by the final UN Resolution of 1948 will make it plain what the international view of Kashmir was - and is.

It is only one country, Pakistan, that has sought to project this as an internationally accepted dispute. It is nothing of the kind; not only the UN Resolution but also the terms of the Shimla Pact make it clear that it is a matter for discussion, and possibly, resolution between Pakistani and Indian representatives. Not even Kashmiri representatives are entitled to be in this. The only role for Kashmiris would have been in case a plebiscite had been held originally. It was not held, due solely to Pakistan's hostility and obstruction of the proceedings of the UN Commission for the Plebiscite. Having cre ated a deadlock, Pakistan now proclaims that since there is a deadlock, the matter must be discussed ab initio, There is a legal principle that the criminal must not benefit from a crime, and it would be well for Pakistan to remember this.

 

[nForce]

These are the only points Delhi should negotiate on :

1. Handing over or all terrorists and criminals presently sheltered in Pakistan, so that they can be brought to justice.

2. Compensation for those who have been affected by terrorism.

3. Formal apology by Pakistan for using terrorism as an instrument of state policy and assurance that such things will never happen again.

4. Handing over all occupied territories.

After that, we can have peace.

 

[Joe Shearer]

We all know Kashmir is an internationally disputed territory under UN.As per UN Kashmir dispute must be solved bilaterally by Pakistan and India. It doesn't matter what India thinks or believe. Kashmir will remain disputed. I believe discussing Pak Kashmir this time isn't bad in favor of Pakistan. I am 100 percent sure Pak Kashmir including GB people will choose Pakistan over India (there is no as such rebellion in Azad Kashmir or GB against Pakistan Government; wanting to be part of India, emphatic win for Pakistan is guaranteed) . After claiming Pak Kashmir, Pakistan should move forward for IoK, this will develop international pressure on India,they will give in for talks, that way Pakistan will re-claim Kashmir in its entirety.

When you say 'as per UN', you display your ignorance straight away. The UN can insist on being heard on a certain class of resolutions. On other types and classes of resolutions, for instance, the resolution that was passed by the UN at the insistence of India, there is nothing binding in it. The parties concerned can follow the resolution or they can reject it. It was Pakistan that rejected its terms; on what grounds does Pakistan now seek to take refuge in it? That does not sound logical,,

But then the Pakistani stand on this was never intended to be logical.

I think its been removed from UN List

Kashmir issue left unmentioned in United Nations - The Express Tribune
Jammu and Kashmir out of U.N. list of disputes - The Hindurties

What you sayig doesn't count.. you don't go and ask the people in P^K whether to join India or Pakistan, you need to Unite Kashmir and ask them. There'll be not a Single international Pressure on India. Pakistan tried for this for a long time running from US to China... Not a Single Stuff happened. and will never happen... India is not some weak state

The Shimla Pact of 1972 lays down that this is to be treated as a bilateral issue, and that the UN will not be brought into it in future.

Perhaps they should read these Pacts before entering these discussions. It MIGHT help.

 

[Sheikh Rauf]

Kuttay ki dum hain jo waqti tor per bhi seedhi nahi hoti...
India likes to cry and they will not stop... nations habbit NOW.

 

[Passionaire]

LoL... What happened before 2010 then??? where were these countries??? They officially can't pressure to hold a Plebiscite. Certainly not to India. Russia,US,France would never side with Cina and Pakisan to oppose India.. that's just a pipe dream of some fan boys.. Hell Not even Cinese have done with Kashmir Issue.

the thing you are not getting is they can never force a country like India or pakistan or Somalia to hold a plebiscite. also you're forgetting there's someting called Shimla Agreement.

How many times have I too mention; thing have recently changed? Status quo has changed. Do you know the worth of being UNSC member?

I said this long ago to you. But for this should happen first Pakistan should vacate its presence from P0K in order to unite Kashmir, then India should keep Minimum troops in order to defend itself because 1948 war stats Pakistan as a Aggressor. once first two steps are completed vote would take place. IT'S THE OFFICIAL ANSWER OF UN. But Pakistan never started the procedure.

This is something I already know. You are taking things to another dimension. I only replied to your stupid statement" giving P0k to India, holding plebiscite in IoK, if you have forgotten.

Please again don't have your hopes high on Russia. China is already but won't comment on it openly. we've other means.. see how we recently bypassed Chinese Pressure from UNSC to Missile regiment Controls..

As if Russia, China, Pakistan military technology declining? Pak should have high hopes with Russia. It is Pak who ditched Russia, and chose USA, when Pak came into being. Russia always wanted to be close with Pak, it was only Pak reluctance because of US, now the reluctance is very much removed.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Back to square 1 ...

Typical india ...

And why not? We are prepared to live with what has evolved. Why should we set out to make it difficult for ourselves by giving in to the whining of the loser?

 

[nForce]

But then the Pakistani stand on this was never intended to be logical.

Actually, I find it quite logical. Pakistan, since it's inception is pretty much an army that has a country.

Being illogical at that point of time kept the issue alive, which gave them a chance to make a bogeyman out of India. That gave Pakistan it's binding factor, a common enemy, the backstabbers, the Hindus, the Indians, its perfect! That gave Pakistan it's identity, which can be summarized in two words - "Not India".

Think about this. Two Nation theory took a dip in Bay of Bengal first time they had a chance to conduct a democratic election. Imagine what would have happened if they did not have the common enemy to create a "Security state" as well.