What's new

Pakistan army wants peace, says Musharraf

UmarJustice

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Joined
Sep 4, 2012
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
New Delhi: Former Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf (pictured) yesterday said that the Pakistan Army, widely seen as anti-India, was in favour of resolving the Kashmir issue, “the root cause of dispute”, and stressed that New Delhi should take the lead in creating peace between the two neighbours.
Pushing for a new beginning in relations with India, Musharraf, who now shuttles between Dubai and London, stressed that resolving the disputes over the Siachen Glacier and Sir Creek marshlands, were “doable” and added that the right niyat (intention) was needed to solve these issues.
“The festering wounds of Kashmir continue. We need to resolve the long-standing disputes. These are the causes of hatred, conflict and war,” Musharraf said while delivering the lecture “Uniting South Asia: The Way Forward” at the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit here.
These disputes, which spawn religious fundamentalism, need to be resolved for socio-economic development of both countries, said Musharraf, who didn’t mention 26/11 attack even once in his long speech.
Alluding to his four-point formula for resolving the Kashmir issue, that has seemingly been put in cold storage by his successor civilian administration, Musharraf stressed that this roadmap was still the best way forward. The formula included, among other things, gradual demilitarisation along the Line of Control (LoC), giving maximum self-governance to the two halves of Kashmir, making LoC irrelevant by opening as many routes along the border as possible.
Musharraf said he had proposed this formula to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh when he was in power, and added that there was “some progress” on it. He said the two sides were working on a draft agreement for 15-20 years, but admitted there were “some hitches”.
Later, speaking to reporters, Musharraf said he had invited Manmohan Singh to visit Pakistan in 2007 and sign some agreements, but he didn’t come.
However, Musharraf stressed that he did not “feel let down” by Manmohan Singh as he had “the highest esteem
for him”.
“We were moving forward. There was a sincerity on both sides. In 2007, he was supposed to come to Pakistan. I told him that coming to Pakistan would be meaningless if no agreement was signed. But he did not come,” he said.
Calling the resolution of disputes over Siachen and Sir Creek doable, Musharraf said had he come the two sides could have done deals on these issues.
Stressing that he was not speaking for the government of Pakistan, he pitched for greater flow of people and trade between the two countries to create enduring peace. To create the right atmosphere, Musharraf said intelligence agencies of both countries should stay away from damaging activities.
In a statesman-like manner, Musharraf, who is better known in India as the architect of the Kargil misadventure, said peace was possible between the two countries if both displayed the right “niyat”, a word he used at least a dozen times during his lecture and a separate interaction with the media.
“Compromise should come from the bigger party. India should have a big heart because it is the bigger country. When the smaller party makes the compromise, it can have negative connotations,” he said. Let India take the lead with a clean, large and magnanimous heart, he said. For creating enduring peace, he outlined three pre-requisites that included a “sincere niyat”, downsizing the roles of bureaucrats and intelligence agencies, since they “find it difficult to break from the past” and a strong leadership.
Musharraf, however, did not regret the Kargil adventure, indicating that it was a retaliation for India’s role in dividing Pakistan in 1971 by creating Bangladesh. It was the same niyat when you went to East Pakistan and Siachen,” he replied when asked what was the niyat behind the 1999 Kargil conflict.
In a candid talk, Musharraf said that despite what India may think, some extremist groups like the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jamaat-ud-Dawa and other militant outfits enjoyed tremendous public support in Pakistan.
He, however, treaded cautiously when asked about the anti-India activities of Hafiz Mohammed, suspected by India to be the 26/11 mastermind, saying these activities did not fit into the course of rapprochement and reconciliation the two countries were engaged in.
Against the backdrop of the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan, Musharraf, however, warned India against trying to create an anti-Islamabad Afghanistan and underlined that both India and Pakistan “should stop proxy war” in the violence-torn country. “Either Afghanistan goes back to 1989, when the Soviets left and warlords began fighting, or it goes back to 1996, when the Taliban came. If the US leaves a minimum force, then the situation should be maintainable,” he said.

Pakistan army wants peace, says Musharraf
 
It was the same niyat when you went to East Pakistan and Siachen,” he replied when asked what was the niyat behind the 1999 Kargil conflict.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...wants-peace-says-musharraf.html#ixzz2E0xGLK5a

This is how a lion roars. he is not scared of hurting the Indians. LOL. In India he tells them on their faces the sentence about the Niyat of attacking us first and getting Kargil in reply.
 
This will just hurt his election results....

But this guy is my personal favorite. He is known to not be true on his words as any Indian would know... He is extrememly pro-Pakistan
 
Gen. Musharraf is the right choice for Pakistan & is the only one who spoke for Kashmir today when no corrupt politicians are not even bothered to talk about Kashmir issue.

He can save Pakistan because he understands Pakistans problems like no other.
 
He sold pakistan,

The when he was going, he gifted the Nation with NRO and ghuddari.

Salute to him for doing a good business
 
Musharaf appears to be a smart man , misunderstood but smart man

No he is not, Entering into someone else's War make it your own is not being smart and when you had to enter into War then you should have demanded large number of weapons-equipment-gunships-aircrafts for a price called peanuts that should have been a smart move.
 
It was the same niyat when you went to East Pakistan and Siachen,” he replied when asked what was the niyat behind the 1999 Kargil conflict.


This is how a lion roars. he is not scared of hurting the Indians. LOL. In India he tells them on their faces the sentence about the Niyat of attacking us first and getting Kargil in reply.

Musharraf always forgets the Indian motive behind 1971 and justifies his cowardly act of 1999.
 
Musharraf always forgets the Indian motive behind 1971 and justifies his cowardly act of 1999.

The Indian motive was quite simple; slice Pakistan in half, destabilize it, weaken it to the point that it accepts India as the hegemonic and final arbitrator of South Asia. Please don't give me the same old B.S that India only moved in after the refugees poured into India. The declassified files are proof enough that RAW was supporting Mukti Bahini long before the refugees moved in, and Manekshaw was planning for a year to attack Former East Pakistan.
 
His theory of resolving is give Kashmir to Pakistan. Its impractical ask. We will never compromise there, however if we are having good relations we will consider the interest of Pakistan.

Can't take it by force and can't take it by diplomacy. Better forget it and focus on what you have.
 
For peace Pakistan army has to accept that they can no longer compete with India.
They could earlier. Today they cannot. The minimum deterrence level is also reducing over the last decade.

They will have to accept by virtue of might diplomatic and military that any solution will only be in Indias favor.

And there is evidence to this tune that PA has a change in thought process.
 
This will just hurt his election results....

But this guy is my personal favorite. He is known to not be true on his words as any Indian would know... He is extrememly pro-Pakistan

U R right, he is two faced and cannot be trusted and India does not take him seriously, the only reason he is entertained is not to cut off the connect that was developed in the past - who knows he might come to power one day.
 
For peace Pakistan army has to accept that they can no longer compete with India.
They could earlier. Today they cannot. The minimum deterrence level is also reducing over the last decade.

Pakistan Army accepted this long ago that they cannot compete with India owing to her superior resources. But that being said, Pakistan Army is not going to compromise on principals and let India dictate the terms against Pakistan. Pakistan is not going to accept the status that Nepal or Bhutan have accepted against India. Pakistan Army will continue to maintain enough strength to smash any Indian Military Adventure and maintain the capability to strike deep inside India. It will not pack up and disband as our learned colleague @vsdoc advocates :).

They will have to accept by virtue of might diplomatic and military that any solution will only be in Indias favor.

Than we will have a problem here, because Pakistan expects to reach a solution based on principal and justice.

And there is evidence to this tune that PA has a change in thought process.

The thought process has been going around for a while, their is a wide consensus among both civil and military leaders here in Pakistan that good relations with India are in the best interests of Pakistan. Pakistan stands to benefit immensely both economically and politically by normalizing relations with India.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pakistan Army accepted this long ago that they cannot compete with India owing to her superior resources. But that being said, Pakistan Army is not going to compromise on principals and let India dictate the terms against Pakistan. Pakistan is not going to accept the status that Nepal or Bhutan have accepted against India. Pakistan Army will continue to maintain enough strength to smash any Indian Military Adventure and maintain the capability to strike deep inside India. It will not pack up and disband as our learned colleague @vsdoc advocates :).

Nepal or Bhutan don't suffer on account of being allies. As a matter of fact we respect their wishes more.

No one thinks that PA will disband. But you can see a clear trend that PAs capability vis a vis India is steadily eroding. There was a time they could more than match IA. Then there came a time they could be equal in everything. For a while there has been talk of minimum deterrence. This will also go out the window if for another two decades India grows while Pakistan stays stuck economically.

PA today doesn't have the military means to strike deep inside India except for missiles. Yes not even PAF has the capability to bomb targets deep in India.

It's just a question of time if the trend of the last decade stays the same. You can imagine the costs already for Pakistan is today around 45% of Pakistan annual budget is spent on defense. Even then, their military no longer enjoys the same strength against India as it used to in the past. The economy will not be able to compete with India.

PA recognized long back in the late 80s that they cannot win militarily. But they thought they could strategically and economically and diplomatically. Thus the strategy of using jihadis. Today they realize that this is also no longer possible.

The only reason that there is a change in PAs thinking is because they realize that the gap is increasing. Its not out of a change in heart. This change in thinking is a direct result of India becoming stronger in the globe in every sense.
They realize that with the current pace of growth, conventional minimum detterence will also be an uphill battle.
A result of this is that PA is now grudgingly allowing peace talks and is building more nuclear missiles.

Than we will have a problem here, because Pakistan expects to reach a solution based on principal and justice.
That is not real politik. Why would Pakistan realistically expect equality when they know India has a stronger hand. And delaying any solution is in India's interest as India gains more with time. Let me put it the other way round. Why would India give up its advantages when it knows that Pakistan cannot take anything by force or by global diplomatic pressure. When Pakistan is grappling with a massive terrorism backlash and no economic growth. India knows it's position with respect to Pakistan will only get stronger.
An example to prove my point is siachen. India wanted agpl marked. Pakistan did not. Because signing an agpl would mean defacto agreeing or accepting Indian occupancy. Almost legitimizing it if there is a future confrontation. Pakistan is now agreeing to signing the agpl to get India to vacate as that is the only way.

There will be other such instances. India simply has no incentive to leave and/or to act according to Pakistan's wishes. For there to be a deal there has to be an incentive for India as well. An incentive worth the price asked.
The thought process has been going around for a while, their is a wide consensus among both civil and military leaders here in Pakistan that good relations with India are in the best interests of Pakistan. Pakistan stands to benefit immensely both economically and politically by normalizing relations with India.
There is a reason why there is a shift in PAs thinking as I mentioned above.
PA realizes that today it costs more to be an enemy of India than it did in yesteryears. It is also more to gain by being a friend than yesteryears.

The cost-benefit equation has completely changed.
An example - Pakistan did not get the preferential trade treaty for textiles from EU due to its flood problem till India withdrew its objection. We are a bigger player now, more than likely to keep getting bigger.
India can for the first time in history - since the 2000 onwards - hurt Pakistan diplomatically and economically.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This lion said, Americans told me they would bomb Pakistan to stone age, hence we supported American's war on terror.

However, from India's point of view, he was the best Pakistani President. He was willing to walk maximum distance on Kashmir.

It was the same niyat when you went to East Pakistan and Siachen,” he replied when asked what was the niyat behind the 1999 Kargil conflict.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...wants-peace-says-musharraf.html#ixzz2E0xGLK5a

This is how a lion roars. he is not scared of hurting the Indians. LOL. In India he tells them on their faces the sentence about the Niyat of attacking us first and getting Kargil in reply.

Was it RAW that denied Awami League the right to form the government in Pakistan?
That was the move that the main reason behind the disintegration of Pakistan.
Your army just quickened the secession by causing widespread atrocities on Bengalils during operatin search light.

The Indian motive was quite simple; slice Pakistan in half, destabilize it, weaken it to the point that it accepts India as the hegemonic and final arbitrator of South Asia. Please don't give me the same old B.S that India only moved in after the refugees poured into India. The declassified files are proof enough that RAW was supporting Mukti Bahini long before the refugees moved in, and Manekshaw was planning for a year to attack Former East Pakistan.
 
Back
Top Bottom