‘Pak army wants dialogue with India but with all options open’

[Gandhi G in da house]

Well What Pakistan or Indian Army wants is not important . What is Import what Pakistan and Indian governments wants because they have absolute mandated right over foreign policy .

Also I am firm believer of fact that Kashmir issue if ever solved it would be making LOC , international border .

In Pakistan, it is indeed more important as to what the Army thinks than what the Govt. thinks.

 

[OrionHunter]

India-Pakistan: Can We Ever Be Friends?​

Here are the reasons why peace can never be achieved until there's a paradigm shift in the psyche of the powers that be. I had posted this in some other thread but it got lost in the labyrinthine maze of traffic on PDF.

The problem lies in the fact that the Zia doctrine is live and kicking in the PA. 'Bleeding India with a thousand cuts' is their signature tune especially after the 1971 war. Retribution for the loss is foremost in the psyche of the PA. They need to hurt India to get even. So any attempt at a detente is going to be a non-starter - unless of course there is a paradigm shift in this stereotypical thinking.

The second side of the triangle is the proxy war that's getting out of control. The Establishment's support to terrorist groups to fight their wars against India by proxy has started getting out of their control with splinter groups charting their own course by getting help of groups inimical to Pakistan's own interests. This melds into the third side of the triangle which is:

The need of the PA to keep the Indian 'threat' alive, without which the very raison d'etre of the PA would be at stake. Otherwise they would be sidelined and lose their credibility and importance in Pakistan. So they need an enemy to keep up the charade, which needless to say is India.

At the center of this triangle are the vested interests that need to keep Indo-Pak hostilities going and the pot boiling. An example is the JuD that collects millions of rupees from the sheeple by its anti-India tirades, without which contributions would dry up. They need a reason which is the 'liberation of Kashmir'. A very convenient motive as this could last for decades resulting in a steady flow of funds well into the future.

I would also hasten to add that the Indian media and some politicians need to tone down their rhetoric and stop bashing Pakistan at the drop of a hat. This is vitiating the atmosphere, blowing out the sputtering candle of peace in the wind of hostility by providing a handle to the India-baiters to up the ante.

So, it's not just dialogue for the sake of a dialogue or the conversion of the LoC into an IB or discarding the LoC altogether for free movement across both sides or other such simplistic proposals that would sort out the Indo-Pak problems as many are led to believe. There are wheels within wheels - almost impossible to extricate from. And therefore, though Aman ki Asha is a noble concept, it will remain a non starter till well into the future.

Is there hope? Will the twain ever meet? Well, these are the proverbial million dollar questions for which there are no answers today!

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Hmmm then the sins began from your side when you sent in armed poshtun to kashmir in 1947.Major General Akbar Khan (in his book) and Sir Zafarullah Khan admitted (to the UNCIP) admitted this fact.
And India always took the defensive stance.
So its "bagal me churi and mu pe katar"

Ummm, ok - then they were Indian agents.

 

[wolfschanzze]

As part of its change in strategy, a major section of Pakistan’s army wants to give dialogue with India a chance, but wants to retain all other options including sub-conventional warfare, according to a new book. “As one major general put it, ‘We should give talking to India a chance, but retail all options, including sub-conventional warfare, to deal with India’,” said Aqil Shah, author of the latest book ‘Democracy:Military Politics in Pakistan’. Described by Harvard University, which has published the book released in the US over the weekend, as the first comprehensive, historical study of the behaviour of Pakistan’s military relative to India, Shah, however, does not identify the major general who he interviewed.

In his book, Shah, a lecturer in the Department of Politics at the prestigious Princeton University, notes that the change in the stance of Pakistan Army favouring dialogue with India is a tactical stance so as to gain time and space to put its house in order. “Giving the multiplicity of perceived threats Pakistan and its material weakness, many officers reluctantly admit that Islamabad’s traditional Indian policy ? namely, unconditional support of the Kashmiri right of self-determination in line with the UN resolutions ? may not be yielding the desired dividend and needs to be carefully re-evaluated,” he wrote. “Hence some advocate giving dialogue a chance and approaching all issues with an open mind.

Several officers see dialogue with India as an opportunity to engage in the management of regional conflicts to enhance Pakistani security, without compromising the basic stance on Kashmir,” wrote Shah, who among others interviewed four service chiefs and three heads of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) for the book. “Despite disagreement on the best way to proceed, there is a consensus that protecting the national Interest on Kashmir will require negotiating from a position of strength that can be achieved only by putting Pakistan’s internal house in order,” the author said.

According to the book, another senior Pakistani army officer said the military’s capability to take “proxy wars to enemy territory and a likely fillip to already activated fissiparous tendencies, nuclear deterrence and strong diplomatic efforts are needed to secure” Pakistan. The book said that the dangerous presence of both lethal terrorist groups and atomic weapons on Pakistani territory has raised the catastrophic possibility that Pakistan could become the world’s first failed nuclear armed-state, but the military continues to believe that the short-term costs of these policies are lower than their long-term benefits in achieving Pakistan’s security against India.

Referring to the recent moves by the Nawaz Sharif government to improve relations with India, Shah notes that if the past is any guide, it seems unlikely that the government can succeed in actually brokering a meaningful peace with India without the blessing of the military.

‘Pak army wants dialogue with India but with all options open’ | idrw.org

Prospect of Modi becoming PM on may 16 has put everyone in line be it congress and modi baiters in media in India and even Pakistan,Everyone willing to compromise and make peace with India now

 

[KingMamba]

Then who will fight with india ??

Why must one fight India?

 

[Zarrar Alvi]

Hmmm then the sins began from your side when you sent in armed poshtun to kashmir in 1947.Major General Akbar Khan (in his book) and Sir Zafarullah Khan admitted (to the UNCIP) admitted this fact.
And India always took the defensive stance.
So its "bagal me churi and mu pe katar"

thats exactly what i tried to explain mun pa ram ram bagal me churi thank u for ur comment u just added what i tried to explain i.e ( india always took the defensive stance)

 

[INDIC]

thats exactly what i tried to explain mun pa ram ram bagal me churi thank u for ur comment u just added what i tried to explain i.e ( india always took the defensive stance)

Never thought that Pakistanis will transform our native Hindi phrase which I studied in school also as "Mukh mein Ram, bagal mein churi" into anti-Hindu racist slur.

 

[ares]

You know ares i am not here to accuse anybody but if you want to accuse us of terrorism, than we have our very own list of same, sponsored by India. 71 was a prime example of that but lets not go there. My point is that before PA was always accused of sabotaging peace initiatives, now they want to be part of it, i don't see where the problem is..

First of all I think it is a fallacy to believe that PA is actually interested in a dialogue, after all not two day ago, your army chief claimed that Kashmir has to be resolved as per UN resolution, which is considered as the hardest posturing Pakistan can adopt, and actually a big step back from Musharaff's 4 point formula and Sharif's Chenab formula(Lahore summit). Between Pakistan's UN resolution stance (which are more or less redundant after shimla agreement) and India's 'atoot ang' stance.. where is the room for dialogue here?

Secondly if author is to believed and PA is genuinely interested in a dialogue today what guarantees are there tomorrow it won't revert back sabotage the same. Afterall this is not first time it has happened.

Musharraf met India more than half way to resolve Kashmir issue, the army was with him and so were Pakistani civilians, we made tremendous progress through back channels, were on the cusp of resolving the issue, when he was kicked out of power, a new govt and new army chief are sworn in, who instantaneously declare Musharaff's Kashmir policies unconstitutional. Pushing the whole dialogue process back a decade..as if that is not enough India was rewarded with one of the worst terror attacks to be ever orchestrated from Pakistani soil.
Pray tell us, why would we want to go through something like that again?

Whatever the Indian shortcoming might have been, atleast we have been consistent with our Kashmir stance are not prone regular flip flops like Pakistan, something which makes the entire dialogue process a zero sum game.

As the author states in his second para

that the change in the stance of Pakistan Army favouring dialogue with India is a tactical stance so as to gain time and space to put its house in order.

Once that is done, will it resort to its old ways.??!!

 

[Zarrar Alvi]

Never thought that Pakistanis will transform our native Hindi phrase which I studied in school also as "Mukh mein Ram, bagal mein churi" into anti-Hindu racist slur.

so they taught u this in school?? wah man no wonder why u people are like that ... smna Ram Ram kro jb banda mura to kamar me churi maar do

 

[he-man]

Lesson for everything we are blamed for. The recent statements from Modi suggests contrary to what you state above as obviously Pakistan seems to be high on his agenda even before coming to power.



The answer to what exactly would be a feasible outcome for India to be interested when its already in a comfortable position, i would say the position is of upper hand as it controls the area but far from comfortable. Moreover this depends upon India's priorities and where it stands and how would it like the region to be, Prosperous or under the fear of a possible war?

Kashmir does not belong to India, if India accepts that, than many feasible outcomes can be possible including making the region autonomous, removing forces,making it a visa free zone etc. There are economic benefits and than there are other benefits most importantly human lives. On the contrary maintaining a continuous foot hold of army which involves huge cost, human lives that is beyond any other thing and i am not mentioning the lives of Kashmiris but the lives of Indian army men among other factors including a possibility of war that may go nuclear. At the end of the day,none other but only India can chose a feasible outcome for herself as it currently has what you call a comfortable position to make that call.

u are deadly wrong,,its indian property

 

[INDIC]

so they taught u this in school?? wah man no wonder why u people are like that ... smna Ram Ram kro jb banda mura to kamar me churi maar do

haan, tum Pakistani log kisi bhi thik thak se muhavre ki ma behen asani se kar sakte ho.

 

[he-man]

so they taught u this in school?? wah man no wonder why u people are like that ... smna Ram Ram kro jb banda mura to kamar me churi maar do

don't act all macho here,,,had u ppl been as strong as u think ,u wouldn't have surrendered 40-90000 of ur men(depending on diff estimates),,,so just cut this crap okay,ur army shamed pakistan,thats what really happened.

u can debate all day long but u guys did surrender rather meekly

 

[Zarrar Alvi]

don't act all macho here,,,had u ppl been as strong as u think ,u wouldn't have surrendered 40-90000 of ur men(depending on diff estimates),,,so just cut this crap okay,ur army shamed pakistan,thats what really happened.

u can debate all day long but u guys did surrendered rather meekly

ok kiddo let assume ur army was in same situation with no logistic no air power no navy to support u in a land thousands of miles away from u and ur biggest enemy in between what would hve u done their?? as i say this phrase fits on u indians ..... cowards cant fight face to face trained and infiltrated mukti banis into east Pakistan when Saw the lion was injured and bleeding attacked like a hyena or a clever fox ...... hence proven Munn Pa Ram Ram bagal me churi

 

[he-man]

ok kiddo let assume ur army was in same situation with no logistic no air power no navy to support u in a land thousands of miles away from u and ur biggest enemy in between what would hve u done their?? as i say this phrase fits on u indians ..... cowards cant fight face to face trained and infiltrated mukti banis into east Pakistan when Saw the lion was injured and bleeding attacked like a hyena or a clever fox ...... hence proven Munn Pa Ram Ram bagal me churi

don't call ke kiddo and certainly not a coward

I come from a breed of people whose sole idea of existence was to shield others from oppressors and we sort of have a track record that few can match.

 

[Zarrar Alvi]

don't call ke kiddo and certainly not a coward

I come from a breed of people whose sole idea of existence was to shield others from oppressors and we sort of have a track record that few can match.

shield other from oppressors like supporting terrorist like mukti banis and LTTE in srilanka good going bro when others do the same thing with u then u indians call ur daddy america and russia to help you if u are not cowards then plz fight face to face dont drag ur daddys and weeping infront of them that kargil ho ga kashmir me Pakistan mulawas hai mumbai kr dya hamara sath .... take it as a brave nation dont always cry infront of ur daddys ....