US tells Delhi to back off Pakistan and lay low in Afghanistan

[Bull]

Influence exists, provided India is not guilty of that which Pakistanis charge her with.

If India is truly desirous of peace in the region, then taking steps to encourage a redeployment of the Pakistani Army to the West is in its interest.

Where Pakistan keeps its troops is her decision.

And also, What guarantee do you provide that GoP or PA would shift troops to the west if India reduces its force levels on the Pakistan border.

You very well can take advantage of India reducing its force strength and do another Kargil.

We dont trust you.

You have options, choose the lesser one. Keep forces in west and lt terror rule, or send troops east and risk India's adventure.

 

[Awesome]

Dont joke with me Asim. Your educated enough-Dont talk like a fanboy. Read the countless articles on the internet. There is a reason why most of the world says Pakistan is Ground Zero of terrorism.

And FYI: I also dont at any point deny that India has not done anything to harm Pakistan.

So what if theres a lot of terrorism being conducted within Pakistan's borders? Thats what we're screaming about here too! Why are you doing it? Thats what we're trying to convince the world and it seems to be working, although only a little, but we'll get there.

But that does not mean we're targeting India in incidents like Mumbai. Most of our actions against India's military has been defensive. When we attack your guys in Kashmir its in self defence, from the first act of aggression that you've shown with your illegal occupation of Kashmir, or as most people believe the Indian Embassy was blown up by Pakistanis, then that too just extends my argument of self-defense. Pakistan has been screaming about India's complicity in terrorism within Pakistan. If no one else will stop India, we will. I think the US is slowly realizing that it needs to curb the terrorism focused upon Pakistan, rather than just ask Pakistan to fix everyone else's problems.

 

[Bull]

Pakistan has been screaming about India's complicity in terrorism within Pakistan..

Tell me one International forum where you have said it. Forgot screaming, show me a murmur.

If no one else will stop India, we will..

Good luck.

I think the US is slowly realizing that it needs to curb the terrorism focused upon Pakistan, rather than just ask Pakistan to fix everyone else's problems.

US is realising that talking to Pakistan is useless, its time to act.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Where Pakistan keeps its troops is her decision.

And also, What guarantee do you provide that GoP or PA would shift troops to the west if India reduces its force levels on the Pakistan border.

You very well can take advantage of India reducing its force strength and do another Kargil.

We dont trust you.

You have options, choose the lesser one. Keep forces in west and lt terror rule, or send troops east and risk India's adventure.

The guarantees will not be India's or Pakistan's to provide, but of the parties mediating between the two.

Don't trivialize this discussion with 'what guarantees will you provide' and 'we don't trust you', when you know better that its not such a simplistic issue as you make it out to be, of Pakistan just saying 'fooled ya!' and taking over Indian territory.

Pakistan does not trust India either, and as I pointed out elsewhere, Pakistan will still be at a disadvantage since we will have our forces deployed in combat in some pretty nasty terrain that makes movement rather slow, while India will be sitting pretty with nothing to do but rapidly deploy back to the IB if need be.

In any case, I have made my points on this issue, and unfortunately all I see is still more resort to emotional and jingoistic arguments.

 

[Bull]

Of course. Our support, the public's mandate, fully supports the freedom struggle in Kashmir, morally, hopefully militarily, strategically, politically and ideologically.

Public mandate !!! When was a referendum held? Govts that were sworn in by public mandate were thrown out by the PA, that good are your public mandates.

Kashmir and India are different.

Dream.

 

[Bull]

The guarantees will not be India's or Pakistan's to provide, but of the parties mediating between the two.

Don't trivialize this discussion with 'what guarantees will you provide' and 'we don't trust you', when you know better that its not such a simplistic issue as you make it out to be, of Pakistan just saying 'fooled ya!' and taking over Indian territory.

Pakistan does not trust India either, and as I pointed out elsewhere, Pakistan will still be at a disadvantage since we will have our forces deployed in combat in some pretty nasty terrain that makes movement rather slow, while India will be sitting pretty with nothing to do but rapidly deploy back to the IB if need be.

In any case, I have made my points on this issue, and unfortunately all I see is still more resort to emotional and jingoistic arguments.

India wont let its guard down again with Pakistan, whatever happens inside Pakistan.

 

[vkurian]

Of course. Our support, the public's mandate, fully supports the freedom struggle in Kashmir, morally, hopefully militarily, strategically, politically and ideologically.

There is no desire in Pakistan to see incidents like the Mumbai attacks and the scores of train bombings, Gujarat riots, Babri Masjid riots, so on.

Kashmir and India are different.

@Asim what in your opinion will solve the Kashmir issue?

Its common sense that neither India nor Pakistan will be ready to give an inch of land ....political compulsion or whatever.

If this is true what are we fighting for here. I am looking for a good answer from Pakistani friends not any hate comments.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

India wont let its guard down again with Pakistan, whatever happens inside Pakistan.

Sure, but lets not forget that before Kargil, India pulled Siachen, a blatant violation of the Simla accords, and that was before Pakistan started supporting the Kashmir insurgency.

Point being, one sided laments of 'distrust' are disingenuous and pointless, given how both sides have violated that 'trust'.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

who gives a f*ck about the title...story paarlo bas!

when push comes to shove, and setting aside the complicated circuitry of the issues ---- india's interests should not conflict with ours...and ours shouldnt conflict with theirs...

we have equal stake to stop terrorism as we are both suffering from it (Pakistan a lot more).

india should stop meddling in our affairs....i am seeing reports that weapons used in Lahore cricket attacks were funded and provided by indian agencies. We have no such weapons in our country. Even the AKs being fired did not resemble the AKs produced/imported into Pakistan.



leave us alone, we leave indian alone. Good fences make good neighbours --as Robert Frost once put it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

@Asim what in your opinion will solve the Kashmir issue?

Its common sense that neither India nor Pakistan will be ready to give an inch of land ....political compulsion or whatever.

If this is true what are we fighting for here. I am looking for a good answer from Pakistani friends not any hate comments.

Check out this thread for a discussion on that issue please: http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...0220-future-kashmir-7-possible-solutions.html

 

[abrakadabra]

Sure, but lets not forget that before Kargil, India pulled Siachen, a blatant violation of the Simla accords, and that was before Pakistan started supporting the Kashmir insurgency.

Point being, one sided laments of 'distrust' are disingenuous and pointless, given how both sides have violated that 'trust'.

AM,

What we have been told in India concerning Siachin is this:

Marking of the LOC was not done beyond a certain point as the area towards the North of that point is very inhospitable and neither countries would try to occupy the same. There were probably practical difficulties to demarcate the same. Siachin was to the north of this point and hence was more or less considered in neither's part of Kashmir. It continued for a while like that, and one day India suddenly noticed that Pakistan has occupied the same. As this area oversees a critical road link in Indian part of Kashmir, India could not afford to ignore the situation. Then they attacked Siachin and wrestled the control of the same.

If the above is true, then Pakistan cannot say thet India violated the Simla accord (which actually resulted in the creation of LOC). Hence (again if this arguement is true), you cannot say India was the first aggressor as far as Siachin is concerned.

However Kargil is a different issue. The transgression was across LOC, and hence this was in violation of the Simla accord. So Siachin cannot be quoted as a justification for Kargil.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM,

What we have been told in India concerning Siachin is this:

Marking of the LOC was not done beyond a certain point as the area towards the North of that point is very inhospitable and neither countries would try to occupy the same. There were probably practical difficulties to demarcate the same. Siachin was to the north of this point and hence was more or less considered in neither's part of Kashmir. It continued for a while like that, and one day India suddenly noticed that Pakistan has occupied the same. As this area oversees a critical road link in Indian part of Kashmir, India could not afford to ignore the situation. Then they attacked Siachin and wrestled the control of the same.

If the above is true, then Pakistan cannot say thet India violated the Simla accord (which actually resulted in the creation of LOC). Hence (again if this arguement is true), you cannot say India was the first aggressor as far as Siachin is concerned.

However Kargil is a different issue. The transgression was across LOC, and hence this was in violation of the Simla accord. So Siachin cannot be quoted as a justification for Kargil.

You are correct that the LoC was not marked beyond a certain point and Siachen feel in the 'undelineated' domain. However, AFAIK, it is incorrect that Pakistan had occupied the glacier and the Indians 'wrested' it away from us. The Indians occupied barren and uncontested land, and it was the Indian presence that forced the PA to respond - this is largely uncontested.

A recent article in Dawn quotes a retired Indian Colonel who has scathing words for Indira's decision to deploy into Siachen, and the resulting human cost:DAWN.COM | Columnists | Was-Indira-Gandhi-low-on-oxygen-in-Leh-to-have-ordered-Siachen-fiasco.

On the issue of the Simal accords, I concur with the Indian Colonel that the occupation of Siachen was a blatant violation of the Simla accords, you merely have to look at clause 2 of Simla to realize that.

(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organisation, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peace and harmonious relations.

Occupying Siachen was NOT 'settling their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them' and it was quite blatantly a 'unilateral alteration of the situation' and definitely not a 'prevention of the organisation, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peace and harmonious relations'.

 

[Bull]

Sure, but lets not forget that before Kargil, India pulled Siachen, a blatant violation of the Simla accords, and that was before Pakistan started supporting the Kashmir insurgency.

Point being, one sided laments of 'distrust' are disingenuous and pointless, given how both sides have violated that 'trust'.

Well Pakistan too doesnt trust India. The peace overtures are to help themselves tide over the internal insurgency, and not because of love for peace with India. You cannot read that as trust towards India. Atleast i dont.

 

[abrakadabra]

AM,

I agree to your logic to link Siachen with the Simla agreement. Thanks for the info.

Second part, you are also probably correct when you say that India did not wrestle control of whole Siachen (I am wiser after some R&D).

However, after both the countries have deployed their trrops, India probably only wrestled a small part of the glacier namely Gyong La (at 35-10-29N 77-04-15E that overlooks the Gyong (tributary of the Shyok) and Nubra River Vallies and India's access to Leh District).

However I still feel it is Pakistan which made India focus on Siachen by initiating activity and laying claim to this area indirectly (GOP issued permits for expeditions to this area).

Baiscally it boils down to the lack of trust. We all know that the access to the glacier is relatively easy from PAK side, and hence PAK can deploy the troops faster. IMO, India probably suspected that PAK will deploy the troops and control the access to LEH, and acted preemptively. The wisdom of India's reaction really depends on what GOP was planning then, and we do not know the same. May be GOP did not have any military objectives on Siachen, but the lack of mutual trust did not allow to assume so. So sad.

Nevertheless, thanks for your reply that made certain things clearer to me personally.

 

[Bull]

In any case, I have made my points on this issue, and unfortunately all I see is still more resort to emotional and jingoistic arguments.

I was not trying to be jingoistic, my statements just echoed the overall viewpoint of Indians towards Pakistan.