Stratfor: Pakistan Calls India's Nuclear Bluff in a Subcontinent Standoff

[Politico]

We all know that like the Dunder and the Tejarse, the bum will never be used by both countries against each other. Just like the Tejarse and the Dunder, the manufacturing of more bums makes the politicians wealthier. Arms acquisitions and research is one of the easiest ways to hide bribes and siphon off huge sums in disguised corruption. It also makes the masses hold their faces in awe and keyboard warriors on internet defense forums squeal in glory whilst Make in India and Power to Pakistan politicians and generals laugh all the way to the bank

 

[El Sidd]

I am 100 percent certain Pakistan will Nuke India as per its Nuclear Deterrence Doctrine.

 

[Mrc]

I hope pak keep thinking that way and nuke India, everything so boring so far only threats no action.

Soon my friend.... just wait for it

 

[IceCold]

haha, you are calling it's not another religious division? Who are you kidding... Plus, there are a lot of Muslim majority areas inside India at the time of partition, by your, logic it should be part of Pakistan as well. Now, I don't need to start another discussion on where partition happened and what were the terms and condition involving princely states with Hindu/Muslim majority areas. It's already been discussed to death about the legality. You can question the morality in it. Which I can agree for argument's sake.

No, I have made it clear in many posts that, hoisting Pak flag is a protest to anger authorities. It has happened even in those North Eastern states, there have been protests holding Indian flag in Balochistan regions. That means nothing. It is a well-established fact that you are sending terrorists, it's not as per India, it's as per your own governments too. And many examples involving Pak nationalities getting killed in Kashmir (Pakistani terrorist Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi's nephew being the last infamous personality) which only proves my point.

To your last point, sure. We can conduct plebiscite for the entire region including GB & AJK (in P.O.K) provided the conditions of UNSC resolutions are met.

Yeah they should had been if the original formula for partition would had been followed, but they did not so its a moot point. Plus do you see Pakistan complaining about it or raising it anywhere? No. So why bring in something that is neither the issue nor the point of discussion. However you cannot say Kashmir too was India's part because it was not. It has been disputed and your own PM Nehru took to the Security council and resolutions were passed. 4-5 people holding Indian flag in Balochistan does not amount to a protest.

Its staged to score points. . Compare to that the number of Pakistani flags raised in Indian Kashmir.

They are not 4 or 10 or 100 people

Besides when was Balochistan ever considered a disputed territory? Not even by Indian standards. Modi only started recently talking about Balochistan to appease to his home audience even when he was making a complete fool of himself by doing such.
As for the plebiscite when has India ever agreed to one before you talk about meeting conditions. Once India would agree to a plebiscite, the onus of meeting other conditions specially related to that Azaad Kashmir will be on Pakistan. However for that India first needs to accept it as disputed territory which India does not.

 

[Chhatrapati]

Yeah they should had been if the original formula for partition would had been followed, but they did not so its a moot point. Plus do you see Pakistan complaining about it or raising it anywhere? No. So why bring in something that is neither the issue nor the point of discussion. However you cannot say Kashmir too was India's part because it was not. It has been disputed and your own PM Nehru took to the Security council and resolutions were passed. 4-5 people holding Indian flag in Balochistan does not amount to a protest.

Its staged to score points. . Compare to that the number of Pakistani flags raised in Indian Kashmir.

They are not 4 or 10 or 100 people

Besides when was Balochistan ever considered a disputed territory? Not even by Indian standards. Modi only started recently talking about Balochistan to appease to his home audience even when he was making a complete fool of himself by doing such.
As for the plebiscite when has India ever agreed to one before you talk about meeting conditions. Once India would agree to a plebiscite, the onus of meeting other conditions specially related to that Azaad Kashmir will be on Pakistan. However for that India first needs to accept it as disputed territory which India does not.

That's hilarious thought process. So, if a family lives in one hectare of land and that land belongs to Pakistan.
Partition was done on a land survey basis, not counting eggs in the basket. You were given what you asked for. Or what your original request was hilarious too. A land corridor connecting east and west Pakistan through India.

And don't get so touchy when I say Balochistan, I just gave you an example of protesting. Not that, they want to be part of India, nor we want any more states. And Kashmir was not part of India until it was legally acceded to India. Did any UN organization dilute the accession?

Also, can you state me the clause where it is required for India to accept it is disputed territory? Man, don't deflect the topic, it's well established you were not ready to take away your troops saying India will attack and take over. So, we decided not to conduct a plebiscite. I think it's pretty normal. Since Shimla agreement, the option for a third party intervention is not possible either. I don't care if entire Kashmiri want to live with Pakistan, they can go there leaving the land. Pakistan is looking for nothing other than a land grab opportunity. So we are never gonna give an inch of land. I think it's pretty much clear.

No matter how long it takes whoever decide to accede territory to Pakistan will become enemy of India, it's a political suicide. So, we can sit here and discuss all possibilities but neither of them involves India giving away land. Maybe a switchover of land is possible. But not sure how it's going to be.

 

[IceCold]

That's hilarious thought process. So, if a family lives in one hectare of land and that land belongs to Pakistan.
Partition was done on a land survey basis, not counting eggs in the basket. You were given what you asked for. Or what your original request was hilarious too. A land corridor connecting east and west Pakistan through India.

And don't get so touchy when I say Balochistan, I just gave you an example of protesting. Not that, they want to be part of India, nor we want any more states. And Kashmir was not part of India until it was legally acceded to India. Did any UN organization dilute the accession?

Also, can you state me the clause where it is required for India to accept it is disputed territory? Man, don't deflect the topic, it's well established you were not ready to take away your troops saying India will attack and take over. So, we decided not to conduct a plebiscite. I think it's pretty normal. Since Shimla agreement, the option for a third party intervention is not possible either. I don't care if entire Kashmiri want to live with Pakistan, they can go there leaving the land. Pakistan is looking for nothing other than a land grab opportunity. So we are never gonna give an inch of land. I think it's pretty much clear.

No matter how long it takes whoever decide to accede territory to Pakistan will become enemy of India, it's a political suicide. So, we can sit here and discuss all possibilities but neither of them involves India giving away land. Maybe a switchover of land is possible. But not sure how it's going to be.

1)Is that what they teach you in school? Nuff said

2) I am the last guy who will get touchy on a non issue. First make it an issue then talk big.

3)India was the one who took it to the UN promising referendum. Your own PM and hence UN resolutions were passed which were binding on both India and Pakistan.

4) It is as much of a political suicide for India as it will be for Pakistan and morally as well. Just dont pretend to be on a moral high horse when you are clearly not. On a serious note i dont think lands will ever be exchanged without use of force on either side resulting in a nuclear exchange. Hence the stalemate which benefits India.