It has been an old grouse of a lot of Indians that India lost in diplomacy what its army won in wars. In 1948 the military operation to liberate Kashmir was wound up right after the army got the upper hand and the the issue was handed to diplomats in UN. 1965 war was a stalemate but the peace initiative after that failed to even pull up Pakistan for having initiated the misadventure. 1971 was a routing military success but the Shimla accord returned the 90K Pakistani POW's without any iron clad guarantees. Despite the authors call to support democratic forces in pakistan, no-one in power in Pakistan(military or politicians) ever supported a sane policy towards India. When our diplomats call Kashmir an Indo-pakistan issue(as compared to Balochistan which is supposedly an internal pakistan issue) do they clarify that the Pakistani involvement to the dispute is the area of kashmir in pakistani control(and demographically altered by pakistan without giving them a seat in their national parliament). If India wants to discuss POK, it will have to be with Pakistani govt and if it want to discuss J&K(Indian Kashmir) it should be with internal dissidents. A wrong policy of allowing Pakistani govt to talk directly to Indian citizens for 2 decades does not become right even if 5 years out of the 2 decades was a BJP govt. Will Pakistan allow India to bypass its govt in talking to citizens of POK?
Re: With ambassadors like this no wonder India lost in diplomacy.
by American Indian on Aug 20, 2014 02:19 AM
Mr Bhadrakumar feels Modi is not fulfilling the promise of a grand vision for southasia(since the swearing in invitation), yet he describes a possible scenario for repeal of article 370 as a conspiracy theory. Wont it be a grand vision for him if Modi's grand vision for southasia places a strong India at the center of it. Why does India have to sacrifice its core-interest to cultivate friendship in neighbourhood that may vanish at the next regime change. I feel it would be magnanimous of India to not hanker on for POK but to sacrifice even J&K would be disastrous. I dont feel Modi will get a Nobel prize but he will be remembered by future Indians as fondly as Patel. As the man whose vision strengthened India. A south Asia vision is useful only it it supports a strong India. A south asia strengthened at the cost of India will be of no advantage to us and nor would it be stable.
It has been an old grouse of a lot of Indians that India lost in diplomacy what its army won in wars. In 1948 the military operation to liberate Kashmir was wound up right after the army got the upper hand and the the issue was handed to diplomats in UN. 1965 war was a stalemate but the peace initiative after that failed to even pull up Pakistan for having initiated the misadventure. 1971 was a routing military success but the Shimla accord returned the 90K Pakistani POW's without any iron clad guarantees. Despite the authors call to support democratic forces in pakistan, no-one in power in Pakistan(military or politicians) ever supported a sane policy towards India. When our diplomats call Kashmir an Indo-pakistan issue(as compared to Balochistan which is supposedly an internal pakistan issue) do they clarify that the Pakistani involvement to the dispute is the area of kashmir in pakistani control(and demographically altered by pakistan without giving them a seat in their national parliament). If India wants to discuss POK, it will have to be with Pakistani govt and if it want to discuss J&K(Indian Kashmir) it should be with internal dissidents. A wrong policy of allowing Pakistani govt to talk directly to Indian citizens for 2 decades does not become right even if 5 years out of the 2 decades was a BJP govt. Will Pakistan allow India to bypass its govt in talking to citizens of POK?
It has been an old grouse of a lot of Indians that India lost in diplomacy what its army won in wars. In 1948 the military operation to liberate Kashmir was wound up right after the army got the upper hand and the the issue was handed to diplomats in UN. 1965 war was a stalemate but the peace initiative after that failed to even pull up Pakistan for having initiated the misadventure. 1971 was a routing military success but the Shimla accord returned the 90K Pakistani POW's without any iron clad guarantees. Despite the authors call to support democratic forces in pakistan, no-one in power in Pakistan(military or politicians) ever supported a sane policy towards India. When our diplomats call Kashmir an Indo-pakistan issue(as compared to Balochistan which is supposedly an internal pakistan issue) do they clarify that the Pakistani involvement to the dispute is the area of kashmir in pakistani control(and demographically altered by pakistan without giving them a seat in their national parliament). If India wants to discuss POK, it will have to be with Pakistani govt and if it want to discuss J&K(Indian Kashmir) it should be with internal dissidents. A wrong policy of allowing Pakistani govt to talk directly to Indian citizens for 2 decades does not become right even if 5 years out of the 2 decades was a BJP govt. Will Pakistan allow India to bypass its govt in talking to citizens of POK?
Bhadrakumar is a promotee and a promoter of the Congress party, who does not serve India's interests. He must first note that the South Asian (SAARC) nations including Afghanistan, Burma, Srilanka, Bhutan and Nepal, besides Pakistan and Bangladesh are all part of the Indian subcontinent. These nations cannot run a successful democracy of the British and American style. These states will be educationally, economically, militarily of such poor quality that in the near future they will be governed as Indian states as they were ruled by the British. Narendra Modi knows this and he anticipates the break-down of the artificial geopolitical boundaries in the wake of extreme income differentials. The question of Kashmir is a small issue and must be dealt with first by the abolition of Article 370 from the Indian Constitution. Bhadrakumar is an unpatriotic and useless diplomat who is a stooge of the Congress party, a politically party that was decimated in the recent elections. Bhadrakumar is not interested as a former diplomat in the power of India under the Vistara Bharat formula, but is more interested in recognizing the sovereignty of the useless SAARC nations that will disintegrate and join the Indian Union in a few years. Bhadrakumar wants to point out chinks on Modi's armor that do not exist in reality. He relishes the nostalgia of a Congress rule that will not be realized in the foreseeable future. His opinions do not carry much weight in this politcal scenario.
Is this guy a Paki agent to criticize move by the Govt. Do you like the lame ducks keep talking for 65 years without any output and keep insulting yourself ? Such articles are paid articles to oppose the Govt.
I completely failed to understand the logic of Mr.Badrakumar except that he is paid a huge amount or he has something very personal about Modi Govt.I think it is better to have a pakistani or a seperatist stooge of Pakistan who is a known enemy then people like of Mr.Badrakumar as an Indian citizen .Lastly Pakistan has to decide whom they want to talk to is they prefer Seperatist ,then they should not talk to India .The Pakistanis cannot play double agent.
Re: Paki as Indian
by Varadarajan Ravindran on Aug 20, 2014 01:37 AM
You got the idea correctly. The Congress party diplomats usually have this mind-set as they do not have India's long-term interests as their main theme.
