Why Modi sarkar is desperate for peace with Pakistan

[ito]

Pakistan was never a priority for Modi. For all, Modi would like to forget that there is a country called Pakistan. It is the US and West that prevailed upon Modi for a meeting with NS. The problem is you cannot force a solution when you make a person sit against his wishes. That is what happened. You can see that from Modi's body language when he met NS

Somehow Modi managed Ufa statement with out the K word. Now Modi will insist on Ufa. The question is can Pakistan agree for talks that include no K word. My guess is the talks will fail miserably if it ever happens.

 

[Spectre]

It can only be done secretly. Open emotions wont work for the idiots of today's social media and Television infected age.
See how Obama took care of Iran.

Well said

The most important challenge is to make negotiations spoiler proof by that what I mean is certain acts of terrorism be it Samjhota express by Indian extremists or Mumbai by Pakistani extremists should not have a major impact on the ongoing dialogue. Vitriol ejected by hotheads on both sides is a part and parcel of India-Pakistan relationship, we have to move beyond that.

Easier said then done of-course, That's why negotiations on thornier issues should be done in dark as public opinion shaped by media would more often hamper progress. Iranian elements, Influential Jewish lobby in states and other assorted elements in Gulf did their best to derail the Iran Nuclear Deal but it's the testament to the leadership and negotiators that they kept at it.

Everything is negotiable provided the incentive is there

I cannot stress the importance of dialogue b/w India and Pakistan, this policy of we won't talk by Modi Govt is an attitude of a sullen child which has been fortunately corrected.

 

[ito]

Well said

The most important challenge is to make negotiations spoiler proof by that what I mean is certain acts of terrorism be it Samjhota express by Indian extremists or Mumbai by Pakistani extremists should not have a major impact on the ongoing dialogue. Vitriol ejected by hotheads on both sides is a part and parcel of India-Pakistan relationship, we have to move beyond that.

Easier said then done of-course, That's why negotiations on thornier issues should be done in dark as public opinion shaped by media would more often hamper progress. Iranian elements, Influential Jewish lobby in states and other assorted elements in Gulf did their best to derail the Iran Nuclear Deal but it's the testament to the leadership and negotiators that they kept at it.

Everything is negotiable provided the incentive is there

I cannot stress the importance of dialogue b/w India and Pakistan, this policy of we won't talk by Modi Govt is an attitude of a sullen child which has been fortunately corrected.

It is not simply Modi Govt won't talk. Now tell me what happened after Mumbai. The culprits are roaming freely in Pakistan. If you wish other party to be sincere in talks, you should also be sincere. Where is the sincerity of Pakistan regarding punishing Mumbai terrorists?

Again lot of people compare Mumbai to Samjhota. Mumbai happened on Indian soil by Pakistani terrorists, while Samjhota happened on Indian soil by a Indian terrorist. Mumbai has international implication while Samjhota doesn't.

 

[Spectre]

It is not simply Modi Govt won't talk. Now tell me what happened after Mumbai. The culprits are roaming freely in Pakistan. If you wish other party to be sincere in talks, you should also be sincere. Where is the sincerity of Pakistan regarding punishing Mumbai terrorists?

Again lot of people compare Mumbai to Samjhota. Mumbai happened on Indian soil by Pakistani terrorists, while Samjhota happened on Indian soil by a Indian terrorist. Mumbai has international implication while Samjhota doesn't.

What do you suggest? Either Indian Govt has the cajones to go inside Pakistan and take out the targets like Israel and US do or we shut our traps and talk. We don't have covert or over expertise needed to do so otherwise likes of Daewood and Lakhvi would be dead and buried.

Saying we won't talk and then talking is making a mockery of ourselves.

 

[Hellfire]

That is because the usual brinkmanship is going nowhere. The nukes have ended it all.
What is needed is either some economic and diplomatic victory. Nawaz sees it for what benefits it will bring and so does modi. But can one get the hawkish PA and the IA's own hawks to agree is the big question.

I would not characterize the situation as such. You see, the biggest challenge for Indian policy makers post-1999 is, what are the Indian objectives in any war with Pakistan? Nobody has the answer to this question. As Vajpayee famously said to the generals in 2001-02, it is easy to go to war, but what are our objectives, the same questions still guide the Indian policy towards Pakistan. There is no military agenda, it is not in India's interest to dismember Pakistan. The ground realities, as I have oft repeated in this forum, are such that today Pakistan as a state and Pakistani Army as an institution are our indirect allies. The scourge of radicalization that had been used by Zia and US to counter the USSR and then by Zia in Kashmir, is something that has eroded the social fabric of modern Pakistan. In a situation where sectarian violence and increasing radicalization led insurgency against Pakistan is prevalent, any war with India may (hypothetically and keeping nukes out of here for sake of argument) lead to a potential collapse of Pakistani central authority. That shall be disastrous for Pakistan immediately and India in short and near future. So the logic of India fighting Pakistan is redundant. On the other hand, the political games over Kashmir and reactionary actions by India in Pakistan's restive areas are the norm of the great games being played throughout history by powers against each other. Since 1988, India has been threatening Pakistan with dire consequences, and it is still going on, and reverse. The one fact that neither side is willing to publicly accept is that today the situation is where the LC must be made in to a permanent boundary, regular trade ties must be established between the two neighbors for the greater good of the sub-continent, and the legacy of partition be forever put to rest. Whether you agree or not, this can not be permitted by PA as it will leave the army redundant as paramount guardian of the Islamic state and make the civil rule supreme in Pakistan, which is a situation. as any good politician will tell, where no one who has tasted power will want to loose it. On Indian side, there are still a small fraction of people who love to think of a day when Pakistan is wiped off the face of map. So idiocy, is common on both sides my friend.

What do you suggest? Either Indian Govt has the cajones to go inside Pakistan and take out the targets like Israel and US do or we shut our traps and talk. We don't have covert or over expertise needed to do so otherwise likes of Daewood and Lakhvi would be dead and buried.

Saying we won't talk and then talking is making a mockery of ourselves.

Do you understand the politics of keeping people like Dawood Ibrahim alive? Or for that matter, Kasab alive? Think it over first ...

 

[Spectre]

Do you understand the politics of keeping people like Dawood Ibrahim alive? Or for that matter, Kasab alive? Think it over first ...[/QUOTE]

No, I don't see the politics of keeping people who killed our innocent citizens alive. Please elucidate.

Murderers should be punished, else a country is basically declaring an open season on it's citizens. Killing terrorists outside one's borders has a deterrent effect.

Now our capability to punish them is another matter. In such a case we should shut our whining as they re-enforce our impotency in such matters.

 

[SQ8]

I would not characterize the situation as such. You see, the biggest challenge for Indian policy makers post-1999 is, what are the Indian objectives in any war with Pakistan? Nobody has the answer to this question. As Vajpayee famously said to the generals in 2001-02, it is easy to go to war, but what are our objectives, the same questions still guide the Indian policy towards Pakistan. There is no military agenda, it is not in India's interest to dismember Pakistan. The ground realities, as I have oft repeated in this forum, are such that today Pakistan as a state and Pakistani Army as an institution are our indirect allies. The scourge of radicalization that had been used by Zia and US to counter the USSR and then by Zia in Kashmir, is something that has eroded the social fabric of modern Pakistan. In a situation where sectarian violence and increasing radicalization led insurgency against Pakistan is prevalent, any war with India may (hypothetically and keeping nukes out of here for sake of argument) lead to a potential collapse of Pakistani central authority. That shall be disastrous for Pakistan immediately and India in short and near future. So the logic of India fighting Pakistan is redundant. On the other hand, the political games over Kashmir and reactionary actions by India in Pakistan's restive areas are the norm of the great games being played throughout history by powers against each other. Since 1988, India has been threatening Pakistan with dire consequences, and it is still going on, and reverse. The one fact that neither side is willing to publicly accept is that today the situation is where the LC must be made in to a permanent boundary, regular trade ties must be established between the two neighbors for the greater good of the sub-continent, and the legacy of partition be forever put to rest. Whether you agree or not, this can not be permitted by PA as it will leave the army redundant as paramount guardian of the Islamic state and make the civil rule supreme in Pakistan, which is a situation. as any good politician will tell, where no one who has tasted power will want to loose it. On Indian side, there are still a small fraction of people who love to think of a day when Pakistan is wiped off the face of map. So idiocy, is common on both sides my friend.



Do you understand the politics of keeping people like Dawood Ibrahim alive? Or for that matter, Kasab alive? Think it over first ...

Could not have said it better myself. That is exactly the big issue now. Keeping Pakistan intact is now a Hobson's choice for India.. "Damned if you do it, damned if you dont".

 

[ito]

What do you suggest? Either Indian Govt has the cajones to go inside Pakistan and take out the targets like Israel and US do or we shut our traps and talk. We don't have covert or over expertise needed to do so otherwise likes of Daewood and Lakhvi would be dead and buried.

Saying we won't talk and then talking is making a mockery of ourselves.

I didn't said that Indian govt conduct operations inside Pakistan. This is dangerous given that Pakistan is a nuclear state. In my opinion unless Pakistan show sincerity towards peace with India and a genuine interest for good relations with India, talks will fail. And more importantly, there is Pakistan army, whose bread and butter is enmity with India. How to take Pakistan army along is a big challenge. There is no need for having talks for talks. I would rather prefer no war-no peace equation with Pakistan.

 

[SQ8]

Do you understand the politics of keeping people like Dawood Ibrahim alive? Or for that matter, Kasab alive? Think it over first ...

No, I don't see the politics of keeping people who killed our innocent citizens alive. Please elucidate.

Murderers should be punished, else a country is basically declaring an open season on it's citizens. Killing terrorists outside one's borders has a deterrent effect.

Now our capability to punish them is another matter. In such a case we should shut our whining as they re-enforce our impotency in such matters.[/QUOTE]

Keeping them alive keeps an odd peace. Sounds ridiculous but it is essentially part and participle of the dirt that is international diplomacy. The US could have bombed Iran earlier but it held off knowing that something could be achieved with talks later on.

 

[Spectre]

Keeping them alive keeps an odd peace. Sounds ridiculous but it is essentially part and participle of the dirt that is international diplomacy. The US could have bombed Iran earlier but it held off knowing that something could be achieved with talks later on.

Talks can and will happen whether these people live or don't. I don't feel Pakistan sees any value in Lakhvi and likes it's judt that eliminating them is more trouble than worth it due to the hold these people have among the short-sighted and idiotic elements on Pakistan establishment and populace.

Of-course Pakistan cannot allow India to take them out as some people have suggested US was allowed to take out Osama but that is besides the point.

Now if ties b/w India and Pakistan were better I am certain something could be worked out, if not deportation then atleast incarceration of these elements. That's why talks are imperative to normalize ties.

India sulking like a sullen child and not talking to Pakistan is unlikely to win it any friends in the harshly realistic world of International diplomacy

 

[MandarK]

Okk So mOdi govt is desperate to have peace with pakistan.....lets check..

1. Paksiatn didnot listen to India regarding Hurriyat Meeting ...Talks cancelled.

2. Joint statement with pakistan: No mention of kashmir

3. Pakistan accuses India of border firing in which many civilians got killed.

I can clearly see who is desperate to have peace

 

[doppelganger]

well your asking me

well i rather like the likes of her after a "few pegs"

View attachment 238914

That's more an indication of the difference in our ages than our taste in women.

 

[Rau]

I would not characterize the situation as such. You see, the biggest challenge for Indian policy makers post-1999 is, what are the Indian objectives in any war with Pakistan? Nobody has the answer to this question. As Vajpayee famously said to the generals in 2001-02, it is easy to go to war, but what are our objectives, the same questions still guide the Indian policy towards Pakistan. There is no military agenda, it is not in India's interest to dismember Pakistan. The ground realities, as I have oft repeated in this forum, are such that today Pakistan as a state and Pakistani Army as an institution are our indirect allies. The scourge of radicalization that had been used by Zia and US to counter the USSR and then by Zia in Kashmir, is something that has eroded the social fabric of modern Pakistan. In a situation where sectarian violence and increasing radicalization led insurgency against Pakistan is prevalent, any war with India may (hypothetically and keeping nukes out of here for sake of argument) lead to a potential collapse of Pakistani central authority. That shall be disastrous for Pakistan immediately and India in short and near future. So the logic of India fighting Pakistan is redundant. On the other hand, the political games over Kashmir and reactionary actions by India in Pakistan's restive areas are the norm of the great games being played throughout history by powers against each other. Since 1988, India has been threatening Pakistan with dire consequences, and it is still going on, and reverse. The one fact that neither side is willing to publicly accept is that today the situation is where the LC must be made in to a permanent boundary, regular trade ties must be established between the two neighbors for the greater good of the sub-continent, and the legacy of partition be forever put to rest. Whether you agree or not, this can not be permitted by PA as it will leave the army redundant as paramount guardian of the Islamic state and make the civil rule supreme in Pakistan, which is a situation. as any good politician will tell, where no one who has tasted power will want to loose it. On Indian side, there are still a small fraction of people who love to think of a day when Pakistan is wiped off the face of map. So idiocy, is common on both sides my friend.
..

I also have same thought .... "Too weak Pakistan is more harm-full to us than too strong Pakistan" we just have to maintain the balance ,current state of Pakistan is just fine they are busy in their own house which means more time for us to concentrate on our development . This is most critical point considering future of Pakistan, one decision right or wrong at this time have enormous implication on not only on S. Asia but on world too....

 

[IceCold]

Again lot of people compare Mumbai to Samjhota. Mumbai happened on Indian soil by Pakistani terrorists, while Samjhota happened on Indian soil by a Indian terrorist. Mumbai has international implication while Samjhota doesn't.

But those who were killed in Samjhota express were they not Pakistanis? It does not matter to us where the incident happened, but what matters is that because of that Pakistanis lost their lives and hence the comparison.
I could only wish if India would have allowed our investigating team to talk to Kasab before he was hanged, things would have been different.

 

[doppelganger]

It is a fallacy to imagine that the state and army of Pakistan is an indirect ally of India and what stands between us and the ravenous barbarians let loose, a la ISIS style anarchy.

What stands between them and us is and has always been the Indian Army. And that is enough for us.

Such sense of false security (the promise of bonhomie even) always comes in when Pakistan is getting whupped and friendly often logical and sensible sounding voices emerge from within.

Fact of the matter is that the sensible voices in Pakistan do not count. And the Army calls the shots. And they Army only makes the right noises when its getting whupped.

Stop the whupping and you will be dealing with a different Pakistan withing a year. Maybe 6 months.

India knows that. Hence no, the whupping will continue. Helped along by India wherever the opportunity presents itself.