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

[Bang Galore]

Having said that only plausible solution that I can think of is that you keep Jammu, we keep GB and Kashmir is made an independent state. Otherwise jahan 67 saal guzray 100 aur guzar jayen toh kya.

Nope. Will never be agreed to.

What was the Pakistan HC 'up to'?

Hurriyat leaders meet Pak HC

This may be a reiteration of the stated Pakistani position but if Pakistan thinks nothing of inflaming public sentiments in India, then they should have no issues if the same is done by the Indian side.

 

[Kal Muah]

So did someone put a gun to Modi's head to engage in talks with Pakistan?

Modi shouldn't have had his little chat with Sharif in Paris, the NSA's shouldn't have met in Bangalore, and Sushma shouldn't have traveled to Pakistan - tell your government to first make up its own mind.


Which involves discussing both parts of Kashmir, Indian and Pakistani controlled, as I pointed out.

What was the Pakistan HC 'up to'?

Sir, Modi is the PM of India and he has to listen to all of opposition parties. He only responded to Nawaz Sharif due to the former's repeated requests and then due to his alliance with Jammu and Kashmir Peoples Democratic Party. If your government had a strong stance that they will not engage with India, if Kashmir is not given, you would have seen our governments response on that. Instead your FO, PM, NSA all are hell bent in saying "WE WANT TO DISCUSS ON KASHMIR".

 

[Azad-Kashmiri]

Got it, enemy is upon us, kado oyee bandukan.

We live on the front line; actually we ALL live on the front line especially those on flat Punjab. There a lot of people who have been ''stocking-up'' for home defense. It is not a bad idea for everyone unless you want you sisters, mothers ending up like what happens to our sister in IOK.

The sad fact is, there are now 38 million madaris graduates and the liberals won't train them to become national guard or front line troops. There is NO one more braver than madaris graduates.

I'm not going to go back and forth on this thread as this is one of many REPEATED posts by both sides.

 

[Hiptullha]

Who send tribes men into Kashmir to occupy Kashmir in 1947? kabutar ???

Who established the Azad Kashmir government in Poonch? Pashtun invaders?

 

[Azad-Kashmiri]

By destroying Pakistan so the Indians can just waltz in to take over and 'resolve the disputes' right?

What are these 'Ulema Ikram' going to resolve the issue with? Let's see, since even some whispers of ending the persecution of Ahmadis was responsible for massive earthquakes in Pakistan, these Ulema-Ikram will just massacre all Ahmadis (and maybe all the Shia, just to be safe) and a massive earthquake will hit India instead, killing only the Hindus and pro-India Muslims, and allowing the Ulema-Ikram to waltz into India to conquer it on their donkeys wielding infidel designed and invented weapons

Do I need to say more? The liberals in their full glory!

 

[Zibago]

There was no rebellion. Even if there was...Pakistan has no business interfering in it.

The myth of Tribal Invasion
Poonch rebellion
Interviews of Dogra war Mujahideen
We the people of Azad Kashmir rebelled against dogra raj to rid our land from hindu rule

 

[sharma1111]

Good reply by Indian HC. Pak HC Basit made blunder by meeting hurri rat.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Hurriyat leaders meet Pak HC

This may be a reiteration of the stated Pakistani position but if Pakistan thinks nothing of inflaming public sentiments in India, then they should have no issues if the same is done by the Indian side.

The 'inflaming of public sentiment in India' you refer to is the equivalent of the petty and absurd 'inflaming of Muslim sentiment' claimed by many Muslims over 'cartoons of the prophet'.

The HC commissions actions are largely symbolic and represent the indisputable fact that the Kashmiri leadership will have to be taken into confidence over any India-Pakistan discussions over Kashmir, whether over status quo, slightly changed status quo or territorial concessions by one or the other party.

The Indian ambassador's statement basically shuts down the dialog before it even begins, because it essentially states that the dialog will involve Pakistan making territorial concessions, with the dialog only about how large the concessions will be.

There is no equivalence between the actions of the Pakistani HC and the statement of the Indian Ambassador.

Instead your FO, PM, NSA all are hell bent in saying "WE WANT TO DISCUSS ON KASHMIR".

And what's wrong with that? And is that equivalent to putting a gun to India's head?

 

[nForce]

Having said that only plausible solution that I can think of is that you keep Jammu, we keep GB and Kashmir is made an independent state.

Let me give you a better idea. Pakistan vacates the occupied territory and hands back the land to India. Otherwise India should continue with the process of economic and political alienation of Pakistan, making it poorer day by day and make them understand what happens when you pick up a fight with the wrong person.

Otherwise jahan 67 saal guzray 100 aur guzar jayen toh kya.

We are not counting the days, you are.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Do I need to say more? The liberals in their full glory!

When you can actually present specifics on how this Utopian system of government in Pakistan, lead by the 'Ulema-Ikram', will work, we'll actually have something to analyze beyond the regressive and decaying societies we saw when the 'Ulema-Ikram' ruled Afghanistan and are trying to do with Daesh.

 

[Kal Muah]

And what's wrong with that? And is that equivalent to putting a gun to India's head?

Sir, It will increase the confusion among the people from both the countries. When you say you want to discuss KASHMIR, for India and its people it means :
1. You are ready to give the Islamic Republic of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and follow the UN resolution
2. You are ready to move your army out of Islamic Republic of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir
3. You are ready for the LOC to be IB

So if you really doesn't want any of this things, you should clearly explain, it must give kashmir or there will be no talks. Why create a confusion when its such a simple sentence?

 

[nForce]

Talking about morality or we. Then India had no business in Junagadh and Hyderabad either, but you did interfere didn't you.

You have to realize the fact that India is a much bigger country than that of yours with different set of goals. Whatever India does with Jungadh or Hyderabad or Bhutan or Honolulu is simply none of your business. You be happy with the land in which you live. Comprende ?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Sir, It will increase the confusion among the people from both the countries. When you say you want to discuss KASHMIR, for India and its people it means :
1. You are ready to give the Islamic Republic of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and follow the UN resolution
2. You are ready to move your army out of Islamic Republic of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir
3. You are ready for the LOC to be IB

So if you really doesn't want any of this things, you should clearly explain, it must give kashmir or there will be no talks. Why create a confusion when its such a simple sentence?

The delusions of India's 'people' and their inability to understand that the UNSC resolutions do not require a unilateral withdrawal on the part of Pakistani forces without a pre-determined agreement between India, Pakistan and the UN, is something Indians and the Indian government have to address and fix.

Just because the Indian government has fed the Indian 'people' lies and distortions for so many decades doesn't mean that Pakistan should adjust its position and statements on the Kashmir dispute to accommodate those lies and distortions.

Whatever India does with Jungadh or Hyderabad or Bhutan or Honolulu is simply none of your business.

It absolutely is Pakistan's business when Indians try to use the argument that 'Kashmir is none of Pakistan's business' and that 'Pakistan invaded Kashmir', since India did the same in Junagadh, Munavadh and Hyderabad.

 

[Bang Galore]

The 'inflaming of public sentiment in India' you refer to is the equivalent of the petty and absurd 'inflaming of Muslim sentiment' claimed by many Muslims over 'cartoons of the prophet'.

The HC commissions actions are largely symbolic and represent the indisputable fact that the Kashmiri leadership will have to be taken into confidence over any India-Pakistan discussions over Kashmir, whether over status quo, slightly changed status quo or territorial concessions by one or the other party.

The Indian ambassador's statement basically shuts down the dialog before it even begins, because it essentially states that the dialog will involve Pakistan making territorial concessions, with the dialog only about how large the concessions will be.

There is no equivalence between the actions of the Pakistani HC and the statement of the Indian Ambassador.

The Pakistani side does not get to decide what constitutes potentially inflammatory remarks in India while insisting that any Indian reiteration of its position is somehow excessive. The Hurriyat meetings have caused two sets of talks to collapse. Regardless of what you think are symbolic & "representing the indisputable fact" of something does not mean that the Indian side has to see it in that manner. I don't see anything inflammatory in what the Indian HC said, you see nothing of that sort in what the Pakistani HC does, that's fine. We move from there. What cannot be accepted is the idea that Pakistan alone gets to decide what is inflammatory and what is not.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The Pakistani side does not get to decide what constitutes potentially inflammatory remarks in India while insisting that any Indian reiteration of its position is somehow excessive.

Pakistan doesn't get to decide, but any rational and logical analysis of what the respective statements and actions actually represent absolutely supports the argument I made about the actions and statements of the Pakistani HC and Indian ambassador not being equivalent.

The Hurriyat meetings have caused two sets of talks to collapse. Regardless of what you think are symbolic & "representing the indisputable fact" of something does not mean that the Indian side has to see it in that manner. I don't see anything inflammatory in what the Indian HC said, you see nothing of that sort in what the Pakistani HC does, that's fine. We move from there. What cannot be accepted is the idea that Pakistan alone gets to decide what is inflammatory or not.

Again, just because the Indian people and government have the equivalent of 'Muslims hurt sentiments over prophet Mohammed cartoons' is not Pakistan's problem. We are not responsible for India's teenage mental angst and over the top emotional reactions over a non-issue. I broke down the content and impact of the actions of the Pakistani HC and the Indian Ambassador's comments for you - I'd appreciate a more specific rebuttal to that analysis/breakdown if you actually disagree.