US okay with Beijing monitoring Indo-Pak ties

[ambidex]

India-Bangladesh land dispute: 162 minuscule enclaves; dispute over border fencing. India Profile

India-Nepal land dispute: 53 disputed sections of boundary covering an area of 720 sq km. India Profile

India-Pakistan land dispute: need to mention?

India-China land dispute: need to mention?

Thus, out of 6 neighbors, you have unsolved land disputes with 4 of them.

Wohoo! i was in impression that you always talk sane. So India should donate these lands to all 4 neighbours. Huunnn.

Yes, there were armed conflicts. The wisdom of China and Russia, and China's other neighbors, is that they see armed conflicts useless and they look into the future.

Possible arm race between China and Russia !Geeee!^^^From where this come from, you made my day. I would like to give you benefit of doubt some time we all have bad days.

The foolish side on India is that it refuses to looks into the future but gets stuck in the history of the past.

Would you enlighten us more on that gpit.

Yes, India has survived and will survive. But I always thought India was better than for mere survival

.

how about surrender? so that people like you can degrade India further on that excuse.

 

[deckingraj]

Another one.. This time from China

*******************************************************************

China wants 'improved' Indo-Pak ties, but denies interference



BEIJING: The Chinese foreign ministry on Thursday gave the impression that it was merely interested in the gradual improvement in relationsbetween India and Pakistan but was not trying to interfere with the process.



The indication came from “China hopes for a gradual improvement in the relations between India and Pakistan. As long as it is good for the stability of the region, China will support the relevant moves,” Qin Gang, the spokesman of the Chinese foreign ministry, said at the regulator press briefing on Thursday.

Qin was replying to a question about what China considered its role to be in the India-Pakistan relationship. The question emerged from a part in the joint statement issued by China and United States, which said that the two countries supported improvement of relations between India and Pakistan.

“We believe that India and Pakistan are important countries in South Asia” Qin said and went on to explain that China highly values its own relationship with them.

Qin said there was no talk about the India-US nuclear agreement during the visit of the US president Barack Obama, which ended on Wednesday.

“To the best of my knowledge, this issue was not touched upon during two Presidents discussions,” he said. But he reiterated China’s position saying that the “relevant countries” are free to enjoy the right for peaceful use of nuclear energy as along as they adhered to the objective of non-proliferation.

He did not give a direct reply to a question on whether China had dispute on the land boundary with just one country, India. Qin said that the dispute with India was “more pronounced” but he did not have information about land border disputes with other countries.

This is interesting because the Chinese media reported on Thursday that China has settled its land boundary dispute with Vietnam, It had earlier said that the boundary dispute with Russia has been fully settled.

Qin said China struck to its principal on “common but differentiated responsibilities” among the rich and developing countries on the issue of emissions and climate change. Beijing was involved in fruitful discussions with the United States for resolving the climate problem, but it was not likely to deviate from its stand on the issue, he said.

China wants 'improved' Indo-Pak ties, but denies interference - China - World - The Times of India

*******************************************************************
Looks like strong reaction from Indian side did have some impact...

 

[gpit]

Thanks for correcting me there..I very humbly accept i was wrong in mentioning that we have land disputes with only 2 countries and did not mention Nepal and Bangladesh though very timid in nature yet a dispute is a dispute...



Me showing my incredible ignorance??? OK let me try..I will only use the links sent by you...


The same link also says...



To me sounds like India is looking into the future...Here is the text of India China agreement...Go through it...Pay special attention to Article VII

Text of India-China agreement

In reaching a boundary settlement, the two sides shall safeguard due interests of their settled populations in the border areas.

In other words china claim on Arunachal Pradesh is not in synch with Agreement..and this is the only irritant in reaching a peace deal..However lot of progress has been made with opening of Nathu La pass for trade as a big gesture... So wait and watch...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Read above and then you say



Now may i ask what else you want india to do???? Now lets talk about Sino-Soviet issue..Though its worth mentioning that when it comes to super power(During USSR era) your choices limit...


Here is another expert that you missed mentioning




So long story short the context of this settlement is entirely different.. There were signed treaties that were considered as unequal by chinese which eventually lead to war...Do i need to mention the outcome of that war??? This is the final agreement



Also none of these territorial dispute involves settlement of population worth 1,091,117 people (Arunachal Pradesh population) which makes India China border dispute super complex and thus unique...



Thanks for mentioning this because last post you said China is a humble country...Also since 1962 how many conflicts have you seen between China and India??? Stop being hypocritical here...


If you feel good by spinning my words please do that..I have no intention to break your bubble however just to set the record straight i meant that India as a country was doing great even before Honeymoon with US started and has the potential to do well with or without US...

P.S : I hope you have read post # 12...US has already started damage control..."NO MEDIATION IN KASHMIR"

LOL again.

India’s stance on territorial conflict is always “AP is integral part of India’s territory and is not negotiable.”

If you don’t negotiate, tell me, how could you solve it in a peaceful way? A simple brain knows that.

Of course the Chinese see the treaty unequal. Funny why you raise this question?

Are Russians happy with the final treaty? Of course not, either.

So you have two choices: take some loss and stop bleeding, or keep the conflict and stay bleeding.

Russia and China take the first stance, and India chooses the second .

Why giving part of settled area to China, or to India, would not safeguard the population’s interest. After all, there are some Tibetans going to India and some AP residents going to China, both illegally.

In 1962, India’s forward policy was witnessed by the whole world. Dare you deny that in the face of the public? After winning a decisive victory against Indian aggressors, China unilaterally withdrew the troops. This is the greatest humbleness never seen in the world military history. Show me another example, if you can.

Instead, India kept sending troops into those withdrawn area to set up military forces.

Use your brain and ponder over it further, kids. You really lack history knowledge.

BTW, it you who are bleeding in kashmir, not US. US has messed up in too many places, why again?

BTW again, I wish India worth more that just survival and bleeding.

 

[mrwarrior006]

^^^so umean to say give all terriotories to all our neighbours


its nice to give advice when u r on the other side of line of fire

attack by china itself was a great act of humbulness

 

[deckingraj]

LOL again.

...I will take it as a complement. Atleast my posts are making you laugh ... Not lets go back to the issue...

Since our posts are getting bigger and bigger i would like to re-iterate on what we disagree(an ideal way to stop from digressin)

- CHina is able to resolve issue with 14 countries but India there by implying India is foolisha and looking into past
- US would like to play a balance role between Indian and China and joint delaration was a move to prepare for exit criteria...
- Us wont mind increase of china influence in Afghanistan because China and Russia are no longer the same communist regimes that they were 2 decades back
- US has no fears of china being a supoerpower in future and want to play a role of mutual respect..becuase china is a humble country..

I would request you to validate/correct my understanding...

India’s stance on territorial conflict is always “AP is integral part of India’s territory and is not negotiable.”
If you don’t negotiate, tell me, how could you solve it in a peaceful way? A simple brain knows that.

Yes...our stand is that AP is an integral part of India...Now does our border dispute only consist of AP?? We have a lot to resolve apart from AP and we have made our stand in respect to AP..India is not going to budge as far as AP is concerned and in response will make concessions in other places..Does it still sound kiddish to you??? Also why you don't think the issue can't be solved amicably??? You know that we have a very peaceful border with China and have a common understanding that border issue should not lead to ignore fruits of trade between the two countries... here is an expert for you...

China is India's largest trade partner. Bilateral trade rose 34% to $51.78 billion in 2008 from the year earlier, according to Chinese government statistics.

Of course the Chinese see the treaty unequal. Funny why you raise this question?Are Russians happy with the final treaty? Of course not, either.

Sir..a humble request..Please read my comments in context...What we are arguing is that China able to resolve disputes with 14 countries but India, does not mean that CHina is a humble country and India is a foolish one living in Past...The reason china was able to do so

- She used Force
- The issues were not as complex as Indian-CHina border dispute...
- Such a huge number of population and land was not involved

I was supporting my earlier comment that you cannot compare Apples with Oranges and based on that call one side humble and other side evil....

So you have two choices: take some loss and stop bleeding, or keep the conflict and stay bleeding.

Russia and China take the first stance, and India chooses the second .

Thats where i strongly disagree and asked you to stop being a hypocrite... Russia and CHina fough a bloody war in 1969 because of their border issue and there after resolved the issues amicably(though there were lot of tentions in between)... The same is true with India and China...They fought a war in 1962 and now are trying to resolve the issue amicably...Lot of progress was made and there came the guiding principles for issue settlement...

One of the principle that i highlighted was(let me do again)

In reaching a boundary settlement, the two sides shall safeguard due interests of their settled populations in the border areas.

which is in synch with India's non-negotiable stand on AP...Unfortunately china back tracked from it...Even after that we have a peaceful border with china... Where do you see india choosing the second????

Why giving part of settled area to China, or to India, would not safeguard the population’s interest.

What do you mean??? How can you be so insensitive to the people there??? Basically you are saying give AP to china and let people decide if they want to live there then change your nationality or else leave your homes and go to india...Also all you are saying is that agree to what china is saying and solve the issue...

After all, there are some Tibetans going to India and some AP residents going to China, both illegally.

SO???

In 1962, India’s forward policy was witnessed by the whole world. Dare you deny that in the face of the public? After winning a decisive victory against Indian aggressors, China unilaterally withdrew the troops. This is the greatest humbleness never seen in the world military history. Show me another example, if you can.

Well the way you have written i can hardly deny it..so lets for the sake of argument let me agree... however what difference does it make by who started the conflict?? Are you saying humble china never stared any conflict in settling her boundary disputes???...Anyways please stop being hypocritical....China unilaterally withdrew the troops because she is a humble country???? Are you serious??? and then you say i lack history knowledge...I will stop there as don't want to derail the thread of why china withdrew... As far as example is concerned in 1971 war we had around 90k of Pak army as POW...

This is the text of Shimal Agreement...Can you suggest any such example from the history that such a large number of POW were returned with no substantial gains??? Now say that it was international pressure or Indira Gandhi being naive that why India did not take full advantage of the situation...

Stimson - Simla Agreement

Instead, India kept sending troops into those withdrawn area to set up military forces.

And what would you expect india to do??? Leave those areas ungaurded so that China can do a repeat of 1962??? B/w last time i heard it was china who have completed massive infrastructure around LAC and India who is catching up...

Use your brain and ponder over it further, kids. You really lack history knowledge.

I would like to learn from you..but then some of your comments don't suggest you are being impartial...

BTW, it you who are bleeding in kashmir, not US. US has messed up in too many places, why again?

BTW again, I wish India worth more that just survival and bleeding.

India is worth more than mere survival and bleeding...Though not sure why you brought Kashmir into the discussion but last time i hear Pakistan is also bleeding(SWAT, NWFP etc) and Kashmir is comparatively very peaceful...

@Request

I know you have no such intentions but i would request you to keep Kashmir and Pakistan out of the discussion...I have tried my best to do so...Bringing pakistan or Kashmir in the discussion will derail our current discussion...which is India-China specific...

 

[oceanx]

Raj and Pit - you both make some good points, if I may. Overall, negotiation has to be a good thing for both. IMO, PRC's claim on Tawang is purely tactical. PRC had a stronger claim on Vladivostok historically, but has ceded it.

Everywhere that is "Tibet" doesn't have to fall into the PRC. Let "South Tibet" be "India's Tibet".

However, what you don't realize, IMHO, Raj, even though I understand your reluctance to bring in Pakistan - is that there is no settling the Western section of the Sinio-Indian border around Ladakh without some kind of settling or "shelving" (if that's your heart's desire) of Kashmir ...

In the end, to me this whole Tawang business is all about keeping pressure on DL and Co. PRC doesn't need Tawang, much less "South Tibet".

You solve Kashmir and you shall solve the border situation with PRC and vice versa - I truly believe that to a considerable extent.

 

[deckingraj]

@Oceanx

this is the second time we are making the same points....Atleast it shows we both are consistent..

You solve Kashmir and you shall solve the border situation with PRC and vice versa - I truly believe that to a considerable extent.

Though i don't entirely agree with you however i see lot of sense in your overall suggestion... In fact i am desperately waiting for the day when we will have peaceful borders and free trade...Pakistan China already have good relations and if GOI is able to resolve issues with these two countries then it will help our masses immensely...

 

[ek_indian]

Here is an interesing development:

After ruffling feathers in Delhi with a reference to Indo-Pak ties, the US today sought to pacify India, saying it has to decide with Pakistan the substance, scope and pace of their relationship.

“We’ve always said, in terms of Indo-Pakistan relations, that’s really up to India and Pakistan to decide how and when and the scope of that,” Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, Robert Blake, told reporters here.

“We have very important relations with China. But we have equally important relations with India. And I think that will come out very clearly during the course of the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit next week,” he said.

Meanwhile, China also tried to pacify India today on a controversial reference in the Sino-US joint statement, saying that it was not trying to meddle in Indo-Pak ties.

Responding to a question on what China thought was its role in the India-Pakistan relationship, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang tried to downplay the significance of the Sino-US joint statement and said Beijing hopes for “gradual improvement” in Indo-Pak ties.

US, China try to pacify India

 

[gpit]

- CHina is able to resolve issue with 14 countries but India there by implying India is foolisha and looking into past

This is my point.

- US would like to play a balance role between Indian and China and joint delaration was a move to prepare for exit criteria...

That has the potential for this purpose.

- Us wont mind increase of china influence in Afghanistan because China and Russia are no longer the same communist regimes that they were 2 decades back

You partially misunderstand it. China and Soviet have never been the same. Many wise Americans have pointed that out in early 1950s. Only the semi-educated or un-educated think they are the same. Yes, US seems to want China participate more in A. affairs.

- US has no fears of china being a supoerpower in future and want to play a role of mutual respect..becuase china is a humble country..

Partially correct. 1st, China claims numerous times that it is still a developing country and it doesn’t want to be a superpower even if it ever becomes richer in the future. (BTW, this is in sharp contrast to India-is-next-superpower noise all over Indian media). 2nd, US should use the rising of China for its own benefit, not to contain China as British once did against US. That is clearly this administration’s China policy. 3rdly, perhaps a humble China is a good bet to for US to share SA stake with.

…
The reason china was able to do so

- She used Force
- The issues were not as complex as Indian-CHina border dispute...
- Such a huge number of population and land was not involved

India also used force in 1962. Is the dispute resolved? Complexity is made by insincerity of India politicians. Russia-China border issue is also complex, dating back to earlier than McMahon’s time. Area wise, 1.5 million sqr km is surely greater than 0.092 million sqr km. I haven’t calculated the population on Sino-Russia disputed land of 1.5 million sqr km. It ought to be about similar to, if not more than, that on PA (or ZN).

Russian and China fought a bloody war. Then they see war doesn’t work and they settled dispute, and stop the bleeding. India and China fought a bloody war and they still haven’t settled the dispute, and they are still bleeding.

Yes, to China, if Russia is an apple then India is an orange. So true.

You are unable to comprehend what I meant about settled population. If a populated town has to be demarcated across the center of the town, it can still be done. If people that are currently ruled by India fear commies, but love being discriminated by GoI, China can compensate transportation cost for them. If they want to stay, I fully believe China will treat those Mongoloid more amicably than your discriminating GoI. If those live in now Indian part of the town hate being discriminated by GoI, they can also move to the China part.

There are people moving around across the border today, legally or illegally, anyways. That’s my point.

If you are not to negotiate, tell me again how can you settle dispute amicably?

Again, only a fool will think no negotiation will work out a grave disagreement peacefully. It doesn’t matter what excuses you find not to engage in a negotiation.

BTW, this is your post that dragged in Kashmir. Proof:

…
P.S : I hope you have read post # 12...US has already started damage control..."NO MEDIATION IN KASHMIR"

Now you are trolling about Bangladesh (or East Pakistan) of 1971, again!

BTW again, I’m all for a friendly and healthy Indo-China relationship. And it makes me feel bad to see malnutrition, etc to scourge India rampantly, as we are all human beings after all. What if the money could be spent on those innocent kids! What if…! Unfortunately, I don’t see a reason China will stop arm itself, given its very unsecured E. Asia. N Korea, Taiwan… where China’s core interest is but they have (nearly) nothing to do with India. That understandably and unfortunately brings in collateral effects on India, in addition to 1962 scar. That’s the fate in the past and now, but it can be altered in the future if wisdom prevails and jingoist heehaw gives way…

 

[Spring Onion]

As the neighboring country of afganistan, pakistan and india, What is wrong with China's welcome of the positive development of the Pakistan-india relationship and the stability of afganistan?

Let's guess_maybe the stability of Afghanistan and the constructive relationship between india and its neghbours are not accord with india's 'interests' in building its hegemony on the sacrifices of its poor neighboring countries.

Dont you know only US of A is a next door immediat neighbour of Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.

So sheeeeee how dare China has any concern with these countries

 

[skeptic9]

^ Jana

Do you use internet explorer?

 

[Spring Onion]

^ Jana

Do you use internet explorer?

Yes why?------

 

[deckingraj]

You partially misunderstand it. China and Soviet have never been the same. Many wise Americans have pointed that out in early 1950s. Only the semi-educated or un-educated think they are the same. Yes, US seems to want China participate more in A. affairs.

Thanks for the clarification...I used one of the point put up by you but may be i read it out of context...I agree China and Russia are different(though supposed to be on same model) but nevertheless point is : Is US ok with spread of communism as per Chinese mode..My answer is NO...and i feel you think it is Yes

Partially correct. 1st, China claims numerous times that it is still a developing country and it doesn’t want to be a superpower even if it ever becomes richer in the future. (BTW, this is in sharp contrast to India-is-next-superpower noise all over Indian media).

Though i disagree with you...yet for the sake of not going off topic about Indian model of Superpower let me rest my case by saying...India never wants to be a superpower from military perspective...Yes we want to be an economic super power....We are a democracy and from the ground root i can assure you that much....

2nd, US should use the rising of China for its own benefit, not to contain China as British once did against US. That is clearly this administration’s China policy.

If by benefit you are pointing to the trade then i agree....As far as rising influence of china from strategic perspective is concerned...I strongly disagree...

3rdly, perhaps a humble China is a good bet to for US to share SA stake with.

a) I dont think China is humble the way you are projecting...
b) I dont think US is in mood to share SA with anyone...and if there is any country that US will look for then it would be India...but lets save this debate for later...let me reply to your comments relating to the discussion...

India also used force in 1962. Is the dispute resolved? Complexity is made by insincerity of India politicians. Russia-China border issue is also complex, dating back to earlier than McMahon’s time. Area wise, 1.5 million sqr km is surely greater than 0.092 million sqr km. I haven’t calculated the population on Sino-Russia disputed land of 1.5 million sqr km. It ought to be about similar to, if not more than, that on PA (or ZN).

I highly doubt about the population involved in Sino-Russia conflict...As per my understanding a lot of it was inhabitable unlike AP..However i am not sure and would request you to share if you have any information in this regard...I myself will google and share if i can find something relevant...

Russian and China fought a bloody war. Then they see war doesn’t work and they settled dispute, and stop the bleeding. India and China fought a bloody war and they still haven’t settled the dispute, and they are still bleeding.


Yes, to China, if Russia is an apple then India is an orange. So true.

I like the way you use my own words against me ..... Let me ask you more on this..when you say we are still bleeding what you mean???

My analogy was Russia and China fought a war and then settled dispute amicably...India china also fought a war and are trying to solve dispute amicably...Our borders are very peaceful and our trade is worth 51 billion dollar and increasing...I don't see where are we bleeding...Please elaborate more on this...Don't you see such a straggering amount of trade is an indicator that both sides are mature and are not letting their border dispute come in between larger interests???

You are unable to comprehend what I meant about settled population. If a populated town has to be demarcated across the center of the town, it can still be done. If people that are currently ruled by India fear commies, but love being discriminated by GoI, China can compensate transportation cost for them. If they want to stay, I fully believe China will treat those Mongoloid more amicably than your discriminating GoI. If those live in now Indian part of the town hate being discriminated by GoI, they can also move to the China part.

Just below this you said i am trolling..I will not use such strong words against you but please care to explain why you think India is/will treat people of AP badly as compared to China...I guess this decision should be with people of AP and if i understand the mood of people of AP they are very much indian as much as i am... its OK to be anti-india but why make such baseless allegations???

Secondly may be for you leaving your homes or changing nationality is a matter of getting transportation cost but for me its a matter of grave importance...

Thirdly so far you are suggesting me that only way of solving the border issue is give AP to China...If India do so then its good otherwise she is foolish...what kind of argument is that??? I even shared with you guiding principles on settling India-China border where it is clearly mentioned that interests of settled populations will be taken into account ...Now after signing that china is back tracking and that is no issue to you....Sir..i humbly request you to atleast review those guiding principles and then share your thoughts...

If you are not to negotiate, tell me again how can you settle dispute amicably?Again, only a fool will think no negotiation will work out a grave disagreement peacefully. It doesn’t matter what excuses you find not to engage in a negotiation.

I am not getting you...I am little sad that you have such strong thoughts.. A man of your knowledge not giving even benefit of doubt to what i am saying is a little surprising..Anyways let me try again... Why do you think we are not negotiating??....There have been 13 rounds of negotiations so far...The guiding principles that i an referring to is only 4 years old(2005)...Now if your way of negotiation is that just accept whatever china is saying than yes you are right India is a fool and i honestly will prefer to live in a fool's land...But if you just for a second attempt to look at it impartially you will see that India is willing to compromise on other areas of dispute but AP...To me its sounds like give and take...

BTW, this is your post that dragged in Kashmir. Proof:

Let me clarify....Please look at the title of this thread...We started our discussion on the basis that US wants China to monitor Indo Pak relations...and in one of my post i told you not to read much into it...and this particular link i shared by saying that US has stared the damage control of what Mr. Obama in china said....I did not and have any intentions to talk about India-Pak issues as such....I hope i clarified to your satisfaction...

Now you are trolling about Bangladesh (or East Pakistan) of 1971, again!

Let me clarify here again...You asked for a similar example where China unilaterally retreating from AP and i gave you one.. Point is the way Indian action in 1971 does not make her humble the same way it don't make China a humble country for unilaterally retreating from AP in 1962... India achieved her objective in 1971 and China her's in 1962...If she was humble enough to retreat from AP then why didn't she retreat from other areas??? I think i have made my point clear...

BTW again, I’m all for a friendly and healthy Indo-China relationship. And it makes me feel bad to see malnutrition, etc to scourge India rampantly, as we are all human beings after all. What if the money could be spent on those innocent kids! What if…! Unfortunately, I don’t see a reason China will stop arm itself, given its very unsecured E. Asia. N Korea, Taiwan… where China’s core interest is but they have (nearly) nothing to do with India. That understandably and unfortunately brings in collateral effects on India, in addition to 1962 scar.

I appreciate your thoughts...You are right that's the way to go...I agree China has nothing to do with India and that's why if friendly relations prevail it will help masses..However till then GOI needs to be on Gaurd because of obvious reasons ...As far as defence is concerned i guess both countries are spending paltry amount of their GDP on it(at-least i can say this confidently about India)....The issue that we(India) have malnutrition and poverty is not because we are spending money on Arms but is because we have this daemon of gross corruption which never let results of zillion policies reach the poor...So even if you free few billions from defence not much will change on ground apart from few people getting richer..In other words i see only swiss banks smiling if India choose to do so....So my POV is that its important to have strong defences and the only way your and my country can fight poverty is to free the society from gross corruption...

That’s the fate in the past and now, but it can be altered in the future if wisdom prevails and jingoist heehaw gives way…

I agree and looking forward for that future...As far as jingoistic behaviour is concerned there is no dearth of such attitude in India-China and for that matter Pakistan.....

 

[brahmastra]

China says no third party role in Indo-Pak affairs

China has conveyed to India that it has no intention of playing a broker in Indo-Pak relations and favours direct talks between them.

Beijing has communicated to New Delhi that it respects its stance that there was no role for any third party in mediation of Indo-Pak affairs, Indian government sources said.

China has said there is no change in its position that Indo-Pak relations are bilateral in nature, according to sources accompanying Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on his way to Washington.

India was annoyed when a China-U.S. joint statement, issued after talks between President Barack Obama and President Hu Jintao in Beijing last week, made a mention of Indo-Pak relations.

India has made it clear that it is not ready to accept “guardianship” of anybody, whether China, the U.S. or any other country, even if mild-handed.

With regard to Hurriyat leader Mirwaiz Umar Farooq seeking to give China a role on Kashmir issue, the Indian government sources were dismissive, saying he was trying to find a place for himself and emerge as a “great mediator“.

 

[inferno]

Inexplicably left parties have also ruled out any chinese intervention in kashmir issue...
This shows a firm unite indian stand

China, US have no role in India-Pakistan issues: Yechury- Hindustan Times

he Left parties are opposed to any third party intervention -- be it by the US or China -- in India and Pakistan issues, a Communist Party of India-Marxist Politburo member said on Saturday.

"We are very clear and have made our stand clear that as far as India-Pakistan issues are concerned, there is no role for any third party. It is a bilateral matter. There is neither scope nor requirement of third party intervention, whether that of the US or China," Yechury said.

He was speaking to reporters on the second day of the three-day 11th international meeting of communist parties here.

Yechury said some representatives from the Communist Party of China (CPC) at the conclave told him that Beijing won't interfere in any bilateral issue unless asked to do so.

"Unless somebody comes and asks for help, CPC members said China won't interfere," Yechury said, adding it is known that India won't seek third party mediation.

"Hence China's role doesn't come into the picture as it cannot be envisaged nor is it necessary."

Yechury's remarks come after the controversial China-US joint statement in which both the countries voiced support for improvement in India-Pakistan ties and their readiness to promote peace and stability in south Asia.