Peace with India,Afghanistan possible only through dialogue, says Pak army chief

[MBT 3000]

afghandustan deserve shelling after border attacks

 

[Black Mamba1]

" inflicting 1000 cuts" was Pakistan's stated policy for loong. Have you changed it recently?

India stood with great patience for last 50 years against this 1000 cuts policy thinking that the little bro will understand its wrong doing.

Now Indian govt being little bored , trying to test whether the little bro can withstand even 100 cuts or not. They even did not cross 10 but your army chirf is being impatient ...not fair .... allow them to complete the small experiment at least

Anyway, jokes apart... I am always in favour of joint effort towards regional prosperity covering south asia, China, Asean and even central Asia and build our own fomidable economy. We cant afford to spend so much money on army...and so much energy against each other.

 

[hussain0216]

You mean Pakistani occupation , Pakistan literally annexed the region while India got it from the king.


The u.n already gave it , Pakistan needs to get out of Kashmir first then indian government should let vote determine all of Kashmir.

It's a Muslim majority state, the whole point of partition was to separate so we didn't have to live side by side with Hindus

Kashmir is a religious, ethnic, cultural extension of northern Pakistan

It's why the Kashmiris hate indians and stone Indian soldiers, it's because they see indians as foreigners

A Muslim majority Kashmir should never have been forced into a union full of hindus, what's the point of partition if that's going to happen

Jinnah fundamentally believed that Hindus were psychologically damaged from 1000 years of Muslim rule and were a risk to unarmed Muslim populations so a heavily armed Muslim Pakistan was a necessity he was right and this is why Pakistan has over 150 nuclear warheads pointed at India to keep it in check

As India turns more hindutva it becomes imperative that a Muslim Kashmir free itself of India and Pakistan will never give India peace, friendship etc as long as Kashmir is occupied

 

[fitpOsitive]

We take gilgit baltistan, India take Ladakh. Both parties should free their part of Jammu and Kashmir as a free and new state. Thats the only peaceful solution possible for Kashmir dispute and only path to peace in our region.

 

[CriticalThinker02]

The u.n already gave it , Pakistan needs to get out of Kashmir first then indian government should let vote determine all of Kashmir.

Why don't you first actually read the UN resolutions on Kashmir and UN mediator's report to the securiy council before making things up:

Resolution adopted by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan on 13 August 1948.
(Document No.1100, Para. 75, dated the 9th November, 1948).

(1) As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State. CHECK - Pakistan agreed

(2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting. CHECK - Pakistan tried

(3) Pending a final solution the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the commission. - CHECK - Pakistan awaited the following

When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistani nationals referred to in Part II, A, 2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.- CHECK - "are being withdrawn", when Pakistani troops ARE BEING withdrawn, then India must agree to reduce its troops.

But did it? Answer is next.

Onto 1952, and Pakistani troops were being withdrawn, now UNCIP asks India to reduce its troops as per resolution 47 above.

UN resolution 98 of 23RD December 1952
Urges the Governments of India and Pakistan to enter into immediate negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan in order to reach agreement on the specific number of forces to remain on each side of the cease-fire line at the end of the period of demilitarization, this number to be between 3,000 and 6,000 armed forces remaining on the Pakistan side of the cease-fire line and between 12,000 and 18,000 armed forces remaining on the India side of the cease-fire line, as suggested by the United Nations Representative in his proposals of 16 July 1952, such specific numbers to be arrived at bearing in mind the principles or criteria contained in paragraph 7 of the United Nations Representative's proposal of 4 September 1952

In the end India did not began to withdraw it's troops and UN mediator Sir Owen Dixon at the end was fully convinced that Nehru had no intentions of withdrawing it's troop and was fully prepared through intimidation and other means of influence and abuse in order to swing the plebiscite in his favor.

Sir Owen Dixon, Head of the UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP), in his report to the Security Council on 15 September 1950. He stated that, 'In the end I became convinced that India's agreement would never be obtained to demilitarisation in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion permit of the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation and other forms of influence and abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperilled.'

http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/51(1948)
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/80(1950)
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/96(1951)
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/126(1957)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_mediation_of_the_Kashmir_dispute#cite_note-42

 

[TMA]

Didn't Pakistan annex khairpur

Khairpur acceded to Pakistan in October of 1947. It was annexed in 1955.
Did Hyderabad accede to Bharat before she was annexed?

 

[Mr ambassador]

Pakistan and India are have reached at no return zone .

 

[Black Mamba1]

You will one by one what you have for the desire of impossible. Your economy is on the verge of collapse--- but you do not have time to look ----all focus on Kashmir only--- Please continue with what you are doing...Let us continue to do what we are doing.... This suites Indian establishment most.

Do you really think that if you discuss on table , India will agree to present you Kashmir on a plate ? You tried war in 1965 & Kargil. You tried non state actors for last 30 years. What's your next plan ? All options are exhausted.

In the name of Kashmir and India your establishments will fill their pockets.... same will happen in our side. The sufferers are only common people of both the countries ..that's the pity.

You should give a deadline to your political and military establishments that try whatever you can do to get Kshmir by next 10 years. Free hand. If they are not successful --then forget Kashmir.

Our generation will be ruined by this for sure --but at least next generation will breath freely