Pakistan must not be used for terror, Singh tells Zardari

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

How can Pakistan expect India to abide by anything after 3 unprovoked wars?

Only one 'unprovoked' covert infiltration attempt - the war itself was started by India. The covert nfiltration attempt was itself a result of Nehru and India unilaterally dteremining that they wanted the status quo to remain and that the UNSC resolutions would not be implemented. India removed the option of dialog from the table.

The third war was the result of India destabilizing East Pakistan - read Gandhi and Manekshaw's comments in the run up to the war and it is clear what India's intentions were.

Why should India abide by anything after the violence Pakistan imposed on Kashmir for 2 decades? and why doesn't Pakistan show us how its done and allow the people of Azad Kashmir to decide their status?

India was not 'abiding by anything' before the insirgency started either.

(and what's wrong with abbreviating Pakistani occupied Kashmir?)

Because Pakistan is not the country refusing to implement the principle of self determination in J&K so that the Kashmiris can determine their final status.

Peace was never given a chance, the people of Kashmir were forcibly thrust into a never ending spiral of violence and chaos and had no semblance of a normal life for almost a quarter of a century, under these conditions, where Pakistan has continuously tried to lead the outcome in its favor, India simply has no reason to abide by any resolution. Let there be peace, the people need to see a normal life and the benefits of being part of the Indian republic, only then can there be a free and fair decision, and from what I've read so far, it seems we're headed in right direction. Pakistan simply needs to make sure peace prevails, this carrot and stick approach will only lead us in circles for another 60 years, anyone that seeks to disturb the peace needs to be put out of business, Pakistan hasn't taken any credible action yet and unless that happens, we will be locked in this perpetual quagmire.

Violence in Kashmir has only erupted because India backed out of its commitment to the UNSC resolutions (in the early fifties going by Nehru's comments, which are posted in the UNSC resolutions sticky).

Had India not done so then Pakistan would not have had to consider operation Gibralter in 1965. Of course the subsequent Indian destabilization and support for insurgents in East Pakistan, then the occupation of Siachen in violation of the Simla agreement, and the continued Indian refusal to resolve J&K, all set the stage for the insurgency in Kashmir.

It is India that has been obstructionist and engaged in hostile acts that led to the insurgency in Kashmir, not Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Did the UNSC ask you to arm and support armed mujahids across the LOC as well?

The right of a people to struggle against occupation is globally recognized - we assisted them in exercising that right after India backed out of its commitment to the UNSC resolutions, supported an insurgency in East Pakistan and broke it off and occupied Siachen in violation of Simla.

Did the UNSC resolutions mention that Pakistan could spread terror in Kashmir if India reneged on its promise.

See above.

Does the UNSC support your actions now.

See above.

Do you have a mandate from the people of Kashmir to 'free' them by spreading terror?

See above.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

In any case, this thread has run its course IMO.

We are no longer discussing Singhs comments and are back to Kashmir.

Thread closed