war, war, war.........! why are they demanding so????

[Cookie Monster]

First of all...apologies for not replying in a timely manner. I was busy and had taken some time off from most things including PDF.

I think Indians are happy if the status quo at the border became a permanent settlement. When have we made any attempts to invade your side of Kashmir? If Pakistan settles for the LOC, so would we.

Claim to territory doesn't mean u have to invade it. If we go by ur logic then China and Phillipines wouldn't have any problems with each other over the islands in South China Sea bcuz neither has invaded the other and hence no claim by either party on those islands.

Claims can exist without their ever being an invasion. India has claimed Kashmir ever since the instrument of accession was signed.

As for ur statement saying that "I think Indians would be happy with the status quo", u r choosing to speak for one of the most populated countries on earth. How did u arrive at that conclusion?
I disagree with ur statement. My disagreement is based on a few things.

1) constant Indian narrative promoted on Indian media showing Pakistan as weak, it's weapons non functional and just a facade(just look up recent stuff about Babur 3 and Ababeel). In comparison India is shown to be very strong and almost on par with the major powers.
|__ This constant display of nonsensical bravado would lead most Indians to believe that India "lost" in a sense to Pakistan by giving up it's claim

2) Recent rise of the Hindutva Brigade and their narrative becoming more and more widely accepted. The current BJP government has been portraying an image that the previous governments(non BJP) have been soft on Pakistan. They constantly try to show that Pakistan needs to be dealt with an iron fist and only BJP and it's leadership can deliver that.
|__ This is also problematic bcuz after feeding this to the population they will become more and more accustomed to it. The current Indian government will never settle for such a solution after all the hype they have created of BJP "being the strong government that will solve all the problems and put Pakistan in its place"...and if this continues slowly this would become the prevailing mindset of a majority of the population.

So u see what u r trying to think of as a solution is not really any solution at all. It just seems like one. It looks somewhat easy to achieve, making the LOC international border. Relations improving over time. Borders becoming meaningless but it's an idealistic solution at best that doesn't work in reality. We have technically had the status quo ever since 1948 and as u can see the hostilties continue to exist. Einstein defined insanity as "trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results". In my opinion at least, this solution will not happen as neither side wants to look weak.

Please understand that this kind of equivalence does not work. It is not taken for granted in all situations that all parties involved are engaging in the same activity. If Pakistan is doing it then so must India. Really? So by that reasoning the allies must also have been running concentration camps, and NATO must also have been conducting ethnic pogroms in Yugoslavia. Fact is, there are plenty of examples where only one side is either the aggressor or has defied acceptable state practice. I really don't know from where PDF members get the idea that all countries run sprawling terror camps and fund terror groups. That is just one of the geo-strategic moves a country can make, and not the only one. Just because Pakistan, US and some other countries chose it does not mean the whole world does it all the time.

I'm not making an equivalence as u r implying. Also I've already had this discussion plenty of times with many Indians and they have failed to convince me. It keeps coming back to the problem of perspective.(I'm making this bold bcuz that's the main point I'll be coming back to so keep this in mind)

I know u r going to question the credibility of any "evidence" I bring up that originates from Pakistani sources(news) or the likes of Sartaj Aziz. So I'm not going to bother with that. Accordingly please don't bring up any "evidence" ur media shows of Pakistan's involvement in terror attacks. The likes of a phone call from a mother telling her son to eat before he explodes himself.

This leaves us to very few instances which have been confirmed by the two governments(or highly placed ppl that had access to classified info) and some third party sources.

First and foremost before I dig any deeper...It is no secret that India supported Mukti Bahini. There are accounts of Indian officials admitting it. There are also numerous third party neutral sources confirming it. India armed them and trained them. This is no different than Pakistan supporting the freedom struggle in Kashmir. Yet the Mukti Bahini rebels are regarded by ur government and the Indian ppl as Freedom Fighters who valiantly fought against oppression while Kashmiri freedom fighters are terrorists and Pakistan supporting them means Pakistan is supporting terror against India.(refer to the bold part above).

For now this will be all there is on this topic. I would like to know where u stand in terms of perspective before I waste my time discussing this topic at length. The Indian fellow who I had such a discussion with before u, held the title of think tank. He also had the same views that are common place on this forum and many other forums like this...The same old narrative
1) Pakistan sponsors terrorism
2) Pakistanis differentiate between good terrorists and bad terrorists while Indians are just and right, they do no such thing.

So what I'm interested in knowing is if Indians are such divinely just beings and don't differentiate. Would u describe the Kashmiris fighting ur armed forces as Freedom Fighters just like Mukti Bahini?

Or perhaps the other way around...call Mukti Bahini "terrorists" just like u describe Kashmiris fighting ur armed forces. If u go with this option then that means India supported a terrorist organization(MB in this case).

Once u have answered that and I see that it won't be a waste of time discussing more, maybe I'll dive a bit deeper in this subject

The terrorist organizations in Pakistan are not a monolithic entity. LeT and JuD are India-centric, whereas the Haqqani network, while not being India centric, was also involved in attacks on Indian assets in Afghanistan. Of these, the Pak Army has only moved against the Haqqani network to a very limited extent under Zarb e Azb, and now that the Haqqani network has fractured, undoubtedly one part of it will continue its previous activities.

Of the other organizations, there has been no action against any. Sartaj Aziz in a 2014 interview to BBC specifically mentioned that Pakistan does not target Afghan Taliban or Haqqani network as they do not threaten the security of Pakistan. Now how is anyone supposed to react to such news?

U can't pick and choose when Sartaj Aziz is credible and when he is not based on if it's in ur favor. When he talks against India u r not willing to take him seriously and when he says something that goes against Pakistan u use his words as credible evidence? It flies in the face of logic.

As for not targeting Afghan Taliban u must consider the situation from Pakistan's perspective bcuz it is Pakistan and Pakistanis that would have to live with the repercussions not u. First let's get some context.
1) Afghan Taliban are not on the US list of Foreign Terrorist Groups.
Note: Here I am assuming u r getting ur definition of who is a terrorist and who is not through the lens of the western media therefore I just wanted to correct u that Afghan Taliban are so far not considered terrorists(refer to the bold part above).
https://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm
2) Prior to US war on terror in Afghanistan, there were no terror attacks in Pakistan(at least not as common place as they became after that).

There are two reasons for that 2nd bullet point above. One was that those "elements"(Taliban, Haqqani Network, etc.) were mostly operating in Afghanistan, that changed with the US invasion and they rushed into Pakistan. The second reason was that US pressured Pakistan into joining hands with it and declare war on them. This is the reason why Pakistan was hesitant and is still somewhat hesitant against all of these elements. Pakistan was completely fine before this but by joining the war on terror bcuz of US pressure, Pak created a multitude of enemies for itself out of thin air. U can see that for urself, just compare the Pakistan a decade before WoT and a decade after. U'll see how many innocent civilians were blown to bits, the economic losses and the cost of a decade long war. For US it was rather simple just as it is for u and many others not affected by it bcuz the enemy was far away from its soil. For Pakistan it was increasingly complicated and it still is bcuz by doing that Pakistan was to create an enemy on its own land, an enemy that can hide among civilians, which even the most advanced militaries in the world had a hard time defeating.

And of course this narrative of Pakistan not doing "enough". Again I assume u r looking through the lens of the western media bcuz thats the narrative they keep repeating. Well the answer to that is just compare the frequency of terrorist attacks in Pakistan and see how much they've gone down. Peace is returning. If that's not winning a war against terror I don't know what is. Pakistan has done enough for Pakistanis by destroying terrorists. If u meant that Pakistan is not doing enough by bringing peace to Afghanistan, how is that Pakistan's problem? The duty of Pakistan's government and the military is to its ppl and I can't say much about the government but at least the military has done its job.

The American security apparatus has maintained its fixation and hostility towards Russia, long after the Cold War. To the extent that it has impaired their ability to counter a rising China. Has that made them reconsider the folly of engaging Russia everywhere long after they have become a second rate power?

What option do u think the US had? Stop countering Russia? Russia may have become a second rate power but it still has immense power that US needed to counter to maintain its hegemony and sphere of influence. The problem u r trying to identify here is not a rising China. If not China then some other country would have inevitably risen. Power doesn't always stay in one place. Take a look at history and u'll see that it tends to shift around. The problem instead is the US ambition to police the world. Sooner or later some country or countries were gonna rise making it impossible to continue on with such a policy. If US had stopped with Russia and focused on China instead then Russian sphere of influence would have grown. Also if US would stop with Russia and turn it's focus on China then some other country would have a chance to rise. To what end would US keep this up? Check every country's rise?
With such a huge population and landmass the rise of China was inevitable. What US should've done and what it still should do is go with Jefferson's view. He wanted US to focus on itself. I think US would be much better off spending the billions of dollars at home than fighting wars, supporting/changing regimes across the globe.

What is most amazing that after every major terror attack, Pakistanis turn towards their Army for rescue. Instead for rage and seething anger upon the people who have caused this situation, they are hailed as heroes. All too much to handle, really.

Oh yes another prevailing Indian narrative..."Pakistanis are sheep easily controlled and fooled by their military"

So when ur military performs "surgical strike" with no proof and no third party confirmation it is treated as "truth" and that's not sheep like behavior at all? Please spare me this baseless Indian narrative. Do u honestly expect a nation of 200 million to be completely stupid?

As for the answer to ur statement. Pakistanis are not angry against the Pakistani military bcuz they understand the circumstances under which Pakistani military(ISI) and CIA created the Taliban and other such factions. They also understand what caused these Talibans and other factions to turn against Pakistan. At the time of their creation they were necessary to stop an advancing Soviet Union in Pakistan's backyard.

Who says there is no response from us? But the response is not the type you think. Because our version involves diplomatic offensive and making the cost of military escalation unacceptable. Just as the Pakistani security apparatus intends to bleed us through the war of thousand cuts, we intend to bleed them through a regime of de facto isolation where apart from maintaining diplomatic presence, Pakistan has no relations with most countries.
You think that today all South Asian countries are on India's side by accident? You think it is just a coincidence that when Nawaz Sharif mentioned Kashmir in UNGA, he was met with silence?

Yes most third world developing countries don't have "relations" with most other countries other than diplomatic presence. Do u know why? Bcuz their economies are small. They r not a major world power and therefore they don't hold as much sway. Other countries don't have to do what that third world developing country wants bcuz it can't offer them much in return. In the end it's simple and it has do with interests. A country like Botswana for example could be willing to do lots for a country like US bcuz it can gain aid, weapons, and other strategic benefits in return but would US be willing to do anything for Botswana? US has nothing to gain from it so most likely it won't and that reduces Botswana to have a mere diplomatic presence in US and nothing more.

This is the reality for most countries including India. The only reason it started changing for India recently is bcuz it's economy took off. Now other countries have something to gain from India(money). This is the only reason why India was given that exemption by NSG. The second(the biggest) reason being that India can be propped up to counter China. It's just like how the west became friendly for a brief period in the 60s with China in order to counter Russia. So enjoy while that lasts. Pakistan saw its fair share of "relations more than the diplomatic presence" when it was useful and the price paid at the end was not a pretty picture. If India continues down this path of "usefulness", most likely it'll end up something like China and India coming to blows and both ending up much weaker and with destroyed economies starting their journey again as poor third world countries.

As for the isolation...again, it's not real.
- Countries who stood with Pakistan as it's hardcore allies still stand with Pakistan(China, Turkey).
- Countries who were with Pakistan based on interest some are still with Pakistan(GCC) others are currently not with Pak but not completely against it(US and the west - their focus has shifted to India to counter China).
- Countries who were indifferent to Pakistan are still indifferent to Pakistan.
- Countries who were against Pakistan are still against Pakistan.

Where exactly is the isolation? Which country changed their stance against Pakistan? Declared itself an enemy of Pak? Imposed sanctions? Anything?

...and no need to get on ur high horse just bcuz of some South Asian nations being in ur camp. India's only sway(that counts) lies with the west and like I said that has more to do with a sudden interest in India as a counter to China than anything else. The South Asian nations that u mentioned don't really count as a meaningful sway but if it makes u happy let's count those too.

South Asian countries:
Nepal? Yes(its a landlocked country heavily dependent on India and not at all on Pakistan)
Bhutan? Yes(same as Nepal)
Bangladesh? Yes(troubled history with Pak due to the civil war...And the ruling party's close ties with India)
Sri Lanka? Somewhat(it's a tiny nation that can't afford to have India as enemy but not entirely in India's camp)

Other than South Asian countries
GCC? No
Turkey? No
China? No
Central Asia? No
Any African country? No
Any other countries besides US and it's allies? No

The UN is just a puppet. Anyone who believes otherwise is a fool. It only does what the western countries(US, Europe) want it to do and nothing they do not bcuz the western countries are also some of the biggest donors to UN. Kashmir issue not getting any traction in UN is bcuz of this. Right now the western countries want India to be firmly in their camp and hence nothing came out of the Kashmir issue being raised in the UN.

What were Operation Parakram and subsequent cold start doctrine? Simply means of ensuring that Pak Army stays mobilized forever and this bleeds your country's coffers. Apart from bravado, ask any military personnel you know as to how long Pak Army can maintain a posture on the eastern border if India mobilizes once again. The aim is not to go to war, it is simply to leech your very limited resources as and when we feel like.

Cold start and many such provocations are indeed resource intensive. It causes Pakistan to spend money on various weapons for its defense but its a double edged sword and it cuts both ways. It forces Pakistan to adopt such unconventional means like the tactical nukes. So u see India is unwittingly escalating the tensions. While u r here chest thumping and showing off such an amazing Indian tactic. Consider this
1) both our nations spend billions on weapons and defense while millions of ppl in our countries don't have enough to eat nor access to clean water, etc. The hardships are too many for me to list here. Both can use that money for the welfare of these ppl instead of their defense needs.
2) a threat like cold start doctrine leading to the development of tactical nukes lowers the nuclear threshold. This means that now the decision to use a nuclear armed weapon has been moved down the chain of command. Giving more ppl such access means more chances of a wrong judgement. Once a wrong judgement is made a nuke is launched, which could easily end up with MAD scenario. So go ahead and feel proud I guess. I wouldn't be proud if I were u.

As long as you keep believing that against all evidence, nothing will change. If we deny then it is for Pakistan to prove. The existence of spies does not prove that. The existence of intelligence personnel in the consulates in Afghanistan does not prove that.

What proves it is if after a terror attack, a clear forensic trail can be established to the handlers in India. Then foolishness like Sartaj Aziz waving around a meaningless dossier will stop and we will also get some stick from the world.

Of course, we may choose to simply ignore the fact that everyone knows we sponsor terror, just as Pakistanis have chosen to do for decades.

The problem isn't what u r describing here. Pak and India being enemies is the result. The problem is the cause. The cause being Kashmir issue that keeps the animosity alive and well. Even that problem can be solved. What's keeping that solution is India maintaining that it can do no wrong and Pakistan is the menace. Conflict resolution happens by both parties admitting where they were wrong and conceding some things in return for a solution. India isn't ready to do that yet

 

[Fledgingwings]

NASR and JF17 will be included in a while...

Dont forget The Super panjratan along with Hanumaan G ki Army outside indian defence ministry