Paks think India is out there itching for war. The question is for what?
India does’nt want AK, it only wants to convert the LOC into a permanent border.
India wants to build its economy - A war would throw it back by a decade or more.
During the AK Quake, India gave help and even offered helicoptors…
India never attacked West Pak after the 1971 war, not did it threaten Pak after India’s Atom ‘peaceful’ explosion in 1974.
India wants to open up the borders, more Confidence Building proposals.
India has given Pakistan the most favoured trade benifits and wants the SE Asia to have one large market. Economy is the aim (NO WAR).
People of India & Pak have shown affection whenever they visit each other - so why this talk of war.
Well though it is common talk these days in both the countries that why should we have a war, India has exacerbated water problems of Pakistan by exploiting waters of Pakistani Rivers, Kashmir may be a gone cause for War but Water problems may lead to flare up some time in future
No way,
If that is the case why thousands of people have sacrificed their lives? India doesnt want war because it is illegally occupying Pakistan's land. Indians are hypocrite and highly untrustworthy, dispite UN Resollution, their own PM's pledge, they dont honour it, and constantly battering innocent Kashmiries. Cordial relations are only possible after cracking the core issue of Kashmir.
Otherwise, India is enemy and will remain enemy.
well according to president musharraf india was planning to attack pakistans' postions across the line of control in 1999 thats why kargil war happened.
Khushaal - unfortunately this is a political problem and highly debateable.
If only we people can 'freeze' this problem for the future - and concentrate on the war on poverty in both our countries. India wants peace - we both can prosper in an environment of mutual trade.
I think malhot has a very valid argument and we should not brush it aside just that way
Tell you the truth. all my Pakistani friends, i have recently came into contact with a lot of Indians due to change of job and i have found that the best i can enjoy anyone's company outside Pakistan is an Indian.
One of my new friend is an Indian Army officer who has served in some UN mission in Congo and he told me that he was living with a Pakistani officer in one house, used to cook together, eat together and discuss all type of topics under the sun. same story was previously told to me by a Pakistani Friend who had served with Indian Army officer some where in the UN. He said the best of the company is made by pakistani and indian officers.
isn't it a good sign, actually i believe it is due to globalization & proliferation of real knowledge beyond state censors. all the schooling is done in both countries to create a typical mindset, remember the famous statement in one lesson in Urdu book
"Raat (night) Kay Andharay (darkness) mein Makkar (wicked) dushman (enemy) nein baghair ailan-e-kay hamaree sarhaddon (border) per hamla kar diya". After all what was going on there in 1965 since April, was there any need of Ailan-e-jang and what makaree (wickidness) was there in that issue (we sent insurgents and attacked on chamb, they broadened the war, as simple as that). did we require some invitations or should Indian high command have discussed their war plans with Pakistan government & why should they have come in day light, most of the attacks have been done in night)). But the impact of the statement on a young mind is far beoynd that simple history, it makes our opinion which is not easily changed afterwards.
similar things were told to me by the indian friends and sometime even they did not know till the time i refuted and explained the case on our side of the border. like in movie Gandhi, Gandhi as a last ditch effort to save India from Partition offered the premiership to jinnah, which jinnah refused and said, either Pakistan or Bloodshed. I had to get all the books on Jinnah written by neutral authors to show him that this is fabricated history. Jinnah rather accepted the offer of a confedration under one nation in Cabinet Mission which congress under Nehru refused.
I think we should get out of this stupid approach of Indian hegemony, we are unable to properly run our country, what benefit will India have by taking us over be it militarily or non-militarily.
yes states have their vested interests than but you cannot expect that if you do not care for your interests some one else will, like we always say that USA was not faithful to us in 1965 war or 1971 war (after all that havoc we played in name of counter insurgency why shoud someone come to our rescue).
first be loyal to yourself and than expect others to be faithful (not loyal) to you
Very true !bade dino bad koi post pad kar maza aya.
Tell you the truth. all my Pakistani friends, i have recently came into contact with a lot of Indians due to change of job and i have found that the best i can enjoy anyone's company outside Pakistan is an Indian.
One of my new friend is an Indian Army officer who has served in some UN mission in Congo and he told me that he was living with a Pakistani officer in one house, used to cook together, eat together and discuss all type of topics under the sun. same story was previously told to me by a Pakistani Friend who had served with Indian Army officer some where in the UN. He said the best of the company is made by pakistani and indian officers.
isn't it a good sign, actually i believe it is due to globalization & proliferation of real knowledge beyond state censors. all the schooling is done in both countries to create a typical mindset, remember the famous statement in one lesson in Urdu book
"Raat (night) Kay Andharay (darkness) mein Makkar (wicked) dushman (enemy) nein baghair ailan-e-kay hamaree sarhaddon (border) per hamla kar diya". After all what was going on there in 1965 since April, was there any need of Ailan-e-jang and what makaree (wickidness) was there in that issue (we sent insurgents and attacked on chamb, they broadened the war, as simple as that). did we require some invitations or should Indian high command have discussed their war plans with Pakistan government & why should they have come in day light, most of the attacks have been done in night)). But the impact of the statement on a young mind is far beoynd that simple history, it makes our opinion which is not easily changed afterwards.
similar things were told to me by the indian friends and sometime even they did not know till the time i refuted and explained the case on our side of the border. like in movie Gandhi, Gandhi as a last ditch effort to save India from Partition offered the premiership to jinnah, which jinnah refused and said, either Pakistan or Bloodshed. I had to get all the books on Jinnah written by neutral authors to show him that this is fabricated history. Jinnah rather accepted the offer of a confedration under one nation in Cabinet Mission which congress under Nehru refused.
I think we should get out of this stupid approach of Indian hegemony, we are unable to properly run our country, what benefit will India have by taking us over be it militarily or non-militarily.
yes states have their vested interests than but you cannot expect that if you do not care for your interests some one else will, like we always say that USA was not faithful to us in 1965 war or 1971 war (after all that havoc we played in name of counter insurgency why shoud someone come to our rescue).
first be loyal to yourself and than expect others to be faithful (not loyal) to you
If only we people can 'freeze' this problem for the future - and concentrate on the war on poverty in both our countries. India wants peace - we both can prosper in an environment of mutual trade.
I never knew India wants peace. If that is the case why India does not withdraw from its intransigent stand, knowing well that Indian stand on Kashmir is highly unjustified and that's the reason she does not support any arbitrator in Kashmir dispute.
I think they (Indians) are hypocrite, if they want a real peace in the region and have a serious approach to alleviate poverty from poverty stricken region, then they should revive their policy on Kashmir and show some flexibility in this regard.
Tell you the truth. all my Pakistani friends, i have recently came into contact with a lot of Indians due to change of job and i have found that the best i can enjoy anyone's company outside Pakistan is an Indian.
One of my new friend is an Indian Army officer who has served in some UN mission in Congo and he told me that he was living with a Pakistani officer in one house, used to cook together, eat together and discuss all type of topics under the sun. same story was previously told to me by a Pakistani Friend who had served with Indian Army officer some where in the UN. He said the best of the company is made by pakistani and indian officers.
MKF, whenever we are going to decide on such an important issue of our entire history, we have to cater for many things. All the aspects mentioned by you in your post are though true but only one side of the picture. We have to examine the issue in much more detail.
What is our dispute with Israel by the way, the answer is nothing, but still we are reluctant to establish diplomatic relations with them. There are reasons for that.
Similarly since 1947, we are confronted with an enemy who is far stronger than us. We have fought several wars, we have ruined our economy, we are keeping a strong army, which this poor country can ill-afford. There are always reasons for it, we must see them in detail.
Just take Kashmir issue, consider Pakistan's stand in relation to UN Resolutions and see the intransigence of Indian govt. Compare the stand of both countries. Despite the fact that Pakistan's stand is duly backed by UN Resolution, Pakistan has time and again shown its desire to move from its present stand in order to bring an end to this unending problem of Kashmir.
And see the Indian stand who adamantly refused to even talk on the issue. Now you analyze as who is more sincere in establishing good relations. If she expects us to forget about Kashmir and establish good economic relations then she is really showing her hegemonic designs whether you accept it or not.
well, Khushaal i admit that you have weight but the reason we could not get the plebiscite in kashmir were partly our own as well.
we were so busy in political musical chair and went straight away into Cento an alliance which did not give us anything that we gave India all the reasons to avoid the plebiscite.
Question is that after 60 years, no country can afford to open a pandora box of division, i think plebiscite is a wonderful and only viable solution to kashmir, whole goes to Pakistan or India, because partitioing of Kashmir on religious lines is something which India can ill afford.
How early Kahsmir solution can happen depends on how early we can normalize our relations, because it is political suicide for anyone in India to suggest some solution of Kashmir which involves redrawing of Indian map and in Pakistan it is political suicide to agree on LoC becoming international boundary.
What Pakistan should do is to keep its principled stand on Kashmir, no need to hurry on anything by accepting LoC as international boundary as demanded by the Indians, however keeping the two countries hostage to this dispute is also not a solution but aggravating the problem. Only once the relations will be normailzed and stay normalized for quite sometime, we can reach a point where people can get accomodative, once you are at logger heads you are simply not accomodative.
Kashmir problem may need more than one generation to solve. Why is Pakistan in a hurry. The illegitimate stand is in our eyes, but we have ourselves made the issue complex by repeated military adventures & insurgency by giving Indians excuses to avoid the issue & mediation / arbitration.
However had we not encouraged mercenaries going into Kashmir and let the indigenous population take charge of Freedom struggle and just provide logistics and weapons, perhaps Kahsmir issue might have reached near to solution. However it would have taken a lot of time and we are a nation asking for quick results (we planted euclypyus every where for the same reason & now cutting them all over because of their problem, evident of our nature).
[QUOTE]
Question is that after 60 years, no country can afford to open a pandora box of division, i think plebiscite is a wonderful and only viable solution to kashmir, whole goes to Pakistan or India, because partitioing of Kashmir on religious lines is something which India can ill afford.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
Kashmir problem may need more than one generation to solve. Why is Pakistan in a hurry. The illegitimate stand is in our eyes, but we have ourselves made the issue complex by repeated military adventures & insurgency by giving Indians excuses to avoid the issue & mediation / arbitration.
[/QUOTE]
Please read your above two statements. Our leaders in early 50s thought like wise that we are not in hurry for the solution of Kashmir and now Indians even yourself have the arbitrary stand of how could they bound themselve to a commitment which is 60 years old.
And in your second statement you want us to delay it further and then instead of 60 years Indian will be quoting 100 years and then 200 years and so on and by then what would be the state of Kashmiris only God knows.
I think the only solution is through dialogues and talks and not war but then talks should be there. If a country is not ready for talks even I think it would be far better to keep the relations strained.
okay, i admit that may be my logics were not that good
definitely the dialogue process has to go one, but what i was suggesting that we need not to leave our principled stand of plebiscite as suggested by our President because so far Kashmir is unfinished partition, while if we propose to divide it on may be religious lines or chenab formula, that won't go well with the international community because currently the world is very much against changing geographical boundaries.
what i was saying was not to abandon our stance, but not to hope for a quick solution. We have very limited options at the bargaining table because of our own follies. Our only hope to bargain is to get some territory and legitimize Inidan control over rest of the terrritory, which of course Indians understand as well and they are not playing ball and this stance goes on to cement the impression in minds of Kashmiris what propaganda India has always been doing in occupied Kashmir, Pakistan is for Kashmir not Kashmiris.
Frankly in the current geopolitical scenario i do not see any way you can force India to come on the negotiating table for Indian Occupied Kashmir. ALL THEY ARE READY TO DISCUSS IS TAKE AJK& LEGITIMIZE IHK. That is why i have said that we have to be patient and see if situation comes to our rescue.
Meanwhile there is no harm in normal bilateral relations between the countries i believe. why to keep the both countries at loggerheads on one issue. OK i believe that their stance is illegitimate, but does any one outside even in so called Islamic world is listening now? I think it is the time for nation building. Once we will be strong enough to be heard, geopolitics will automatically help us. Nuclear Blackmailing for Kashmir will never work in contemporary world trust me.
That should be an ideal solution, but the ground realities speak different. If we can train Afghans and force the superpower to evict Afghanistan, we can also train Kashmiries/Pakistanis to play the same role in India. And force them to come on table. Though for India to agree on a solution like division of Kashmir seems to be far easier than withdrawal of Russians.
Or
We just forget about the Kashmir and Kashmiries, their sacrifices and concentrate on our own development. But then what about that staggering $40 Bn dollars debts? What we achieved in last 60 years? just debts.
Hmm
i do not understand what you are advocating. you mean that Pakistan from once again start the insurgency in Kashmir and develop a bargaining card for the negotiations. If it can do and sustain the world pressure & good will of the kashmiri community, why not.
The problem is that these so called mujhaideens have if not completely but partially lost their influence in ordinary kashmiris. Once Indian army entered Kashmir to quell insurgency, they were greeted everywhere with placards like "Indian Dogs, get out" and there used to be marches on road, people would happily give the freedom fighters place to stay and take care of them. However over a period of time they have lost influence with the locals due to their own misbehaving.
The critical time would have been early nineties once India wanted to get rid of this insurgency and might have agreed to divison on chenab formula but we got carried away with the notion that we will be able to snatch whole kashmir with this movement so why settle for less. You can see that changing geopolitics forced Pakistan to abandon this struggle without any thing in quid pro quo.
historically we have tried to bite more than we can chew
Well in a future plebescite, the option of independence also is being demanded by Kashmiri parties, unlike the U.N. resolution which gave the option of only India or Pakistan.
Besides, I don’t think that India will allow Jammu and Ladakh for plebescite, only Kashmir valley (if a referendum is agreed to).
Actually, you may not believe, but Kashmir is the most egalitarian state in India with lowest poverty level (only 3.5%).
Some parties in Indian Kashmir are suggesting that the status of Kashmir (on both sides of the LoC) must be brought to the status of 1947-52, and only after that can any progress actually be made.
It is not the matter of some parties, I am talking of official stand. Indian govt never showed any flexibility in this regard.
If we read the UN Resolutions and the statement of your Fist PM, then the state of Kashmir is quite clear but your govt never honour either.
Despite all this what is the harm in dividing Kashmir and bringing a permanent peace in the region?
Why your govt never comes on the table to discuss this very issue?