Given a chance I would spend my money and time in eliminating those facts that are anti towards India. Talks should be just name sake to show the world that we are doing our best, rest should be played in a way to remover rouge elements by political assassinations. Do you think they will action any of our request, its just waste of time and money.
During June 1947 when British was dividing India based on religion, it was decided that Mus1im majority areas will join Pakistan and Hindu majority areas will join India. This was agreed by both Nehru and Jinnah. And Hari Singh of Kashmir also agreed to this. But immediately after August 15, Hari Singh changed his mind and decided to stay independent. Moreover, during his tenure after August 1947, there are reports that he started partial taxation based on religion in Kashmir and as a result people protested. Pakistan took the opportunity and armed the protesters and sent more Afghan tribes into the region. This prompted HAri Singh to call Delhi (Nehru) and he took the opportunity to sign letter of accession with India, which was neither the original British plan agreed by both parties nor approved by the people of Kashmir. It should be also mentioned that British said in 1947 that those Princely states who want remain independent should decide later according to the wish of their people whether to join with India or Pakistan, which was accepted by both India and Pakistan. So, at the end, it was Nehru who decided to act against Pakistan and take back the land in which his ancestors lived once.
Negotiations can be done with rational players, and Pakistani Army is also a rational player, though Jihadis are not. The presumption that their Army can not be made to see reason needs reconsideration. To make Pakistan a friendly nation, it is necessary to have a friendly Pakistani Army as well. A disinterested approach to negotiation process is necessary.
Just because a goodwill gesture is made by India to its neighbors, the intent does not get convey by itself. the surfacing of suspicions is natural for there are all kinds of constituencies in any society who see things from varying perspectives. Such resistance is also healthy component of nation to nation relationship, and it is necessary to be seen as such.
Re: disinterested approach, this implies sattvik thought is neces
by Ramesh on Aug 24, 2014 04:37 AM
The deepening of democracy in Pakistan has exposed a regionalization trend which threatens internal unity of Pakistan.
The Asian pivot paradigm has made Pakistan vulnerable and forces it to make a choice for long term.
These two major developments provide an opportunity for Indo-Pak dialogue to foster economic and social unity via common market. And initiate sensible steps for insulating the region from being proxy players in the emerging scenario; and if a choice has to be made, be on the side of fellow democracies.
This new context creates conditions for ending the low intensity hostilities immediately and initiate trust building measures.
Re: kue
by samir khan on Aug 21, 2014 11:29 AM
Situation Critical at hajin Paramilitary forces raiding in houses to arrest boys,, whole Hajin appeared on Roads as announcement are made on loudspeakers to come out from houses with axes, sickles, in their hands,,, Hajin shouting and chanting anti india Slogans
It takes time for trust amongst India' neighbors (excluding Pak)to be brought back. Modi has surely made the first moves. It takes time. Efoor is surely there.
Nawaz is himself in a shaky position. So what could have been achieved by talking to him? The past Govts of India allowed Huriyat's meeting Pak Diplomats. That alone is not necessary for the new Govt to follow the same policy. For once, the Indian Govt has clearly questioned the Locus Standi of the Huriyat. they are not elected by the people nor are participants in the democratic policy.
