Pakistan: News and Discussions

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
You can take what ever helps you sleep at night Mr. Ray.

Indeed.

Since you cannot reply one single post of mine and you are having nightmares!

Look friend, if you state something, you should have the facts to reply.

It can't be a one way street.

I could answer each one of your fabfrications, but then there are so many, that I am losing track!
 

Kasrkin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
21
Likes
1
Look friend, if you state something, you should have the facts to reply.
I don’t want to upset you [Mod edit]. But like I said, I don’t deal in rants. It would be no sport. I rather address real arguments.

Totally focussed and addressing issues you have raised.
Actually, none of the rants you’ve made pertained to issues raised by me.

I have quoted Pakistan links. And yet, you call them rants!
Pakistanis talking about them in their context and place is not ranting. Do you even know what ranting means?

The only thing the Pakistani links prove is that in Pakistan these issues are recognized, discussed, debated, considered and addressed by the press, media and public. It, however, does not mean it is any Indian business. I would’ve loved to discuss the issues, but I’m well aware that you do not seek discussion for scholarly or constructive purposes, only so that you can feel better about India in contrast, and satisfy your hate for Pakistan in the process.

Your Indian links are not worth an objective debate or my time.

The only mutual concern Pakistanis and Indians can reasonably have is that of Kashmir, which I’ve addressed. I’ve tried to address disputes about any comments I’ve made, provided they’re reasonably sourced and sound. There is nothing to address in simple taunts, rebuttals, denials and rants. Irrelevant, crude and random jibes at Pakistan are not worth my time or concern.

Thanks.
 

Singh

Phat Cat
Super Mod
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
20,311
Likes
8,403
Country flag
I don’t want to upset you kiddo. But like I said, I don’t deal in rants. It would be no sport. I rather address real arguments.

Actually, none of the rants you’ve made pertained to issues raised by me.

Pakistanis talking about them in their context and place is not ranting. Do you even know what ranting means?

The only thing the Pakistani links prove is that in Pakistan these issues are recognized, discussed, debated, considered and addressed by the press, media and public. It, however, does not mean it is any Indian business. I would’ve loved to discuss the issues, but I’m well aware that you do not seek discussion for scholarly or constructive purposes, only so that you can feel better about India in contrast, and satisfy your hate for Pakistan in the process.

Your Indian links are not worth an objective debate or my time.

The only mutual concern Pakistanis and Indians can reasonably have is that of Kashmir, which I’ve addressed. I’ve tried to address disputes about any comments I’ve made, provided they’re reasonably sourced and sound. There is nothing to address in simple taunts, rebuttals, denials and rants. Irrelevant, crude and random jibes at Pakistan are not worth my time or concern.

Thanks.
Now, now... this is a rant coupled with ad hominem attacks.

As per forum rules it is expected that all members would please address military professionals with respect, so please comply with the same.

My suggestion to you my friend is to please reply only to those posts where you have real arguments to offer, as you yourself declare is your preferred way of arguing; rather than posting "rants" yourself.

Cheers
Singh
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
I don’t want to upset you kiddo. But like I said, I don’t deal in rants. It would be no sport. I rather address real arguments.



Actually, none of the rants you’ve made pertained to issues raised by me.



Pakistanis talking about them in their context and place is not ranting. Do you even know what ranting means?

The only thing the Pakistani links prove is that in Pakistan these issues are recognized, discussed, debated, considered and addressed by the press, media and public. It, however, does not mean it is any Indian business. I would’ve loved to discuss the issues, but I’m well aware that you do not seek discussion for scholarly or constructive purposes, only so that you can feel better about India in contrast, and satisfy your hate for Pakistan in the process.

Your Indian links are not worth an objective debate or my time.

The only mutual concern Pakistanis and Indians can reasonably have is that of Kashmir, which I’ve addressed. I’ve tried to address disputes about any comments I’ve made, provided they’re reasonably sourced and sound. There is nothing to address in simple taunts, rebuttals, denials and rants. Irrelevant, crude and random jibes at Pakistan are not worth my time or concern.

Thanks.
Friend,

I still say you have not answered any of the issues of yours that I have replied to.

Do your really believe this is a rant. It is a point by point.

But then, could it be that English is not the forte in Pakistan?

Originally Posted by Kasrkin View Post

I can understand how you could be subject to disinformation. I must point out, however, that the Pakistani Army has not trained, sponsored or tolerated any of the terrorist factions it is confronting right now. Be that the TTP lead by Betullah Mehsud in FATA or his lieutenant Fazrullah in Swat. Most of the rebellion Pakistan faces presently in the west is tribal and ethnic in nature. As I'm sure you know, FATA was never an area where the Pakistan Army (or the British Indian Army before them) had much control. Now many of the tribes there, infiltrated by al-Qaeda (again no Pakistani connection with OBL's organization has ever been credited), are resisting the governments on both sides of the Durand. Pakistan gives US/NATO considerable logistical facilitation for their operations in Afghanistan, in return for which they provide economic and military aid. Much like the Marshal Plan or Truman Doctrine that the US used to secure an alliance with Turkey and Greece during the Cold War, Pakistan too is important to the US, thus it is assisted. The Pakistani Army is geared for conventional war, and COIN operations require specialized orientations and a lot of resources that Pakistan does not have presently.



I don't think such reports are credible, or verifiable. Admiral Mullen did claim something like this happened once but Pakistan has dismissed it as American paranoia. Certainly no details or particulars regarding the incident have been made available, and no neutral source has reported or independently confirmed it.



Terror is never a one way flow. Terrorists have been emulating from Afghanistan into Pakistan as well, have been doing so for quite some time. And, if Pakistani intelligence reports are to be believed, terrorist operatives sponsored by India find their way to places like FATA, Swat, Balochistan, even Lahore. Lastly, terrorists are terrorists, unless there is proof that their acts have been directed from the Pakistani government, which is something India has claimed but not been able to substantiate so far, I see no reason why the rest of Pakistan should 'apologize' for a crime that they didn't commit. Its like an Indian student studying in the UK rapes a British girl, and the British say that 'India should apologize', would that be fair? I don't think so. The Mumbai attacks have been condemned by Pakistan, thus unless it is proved that the Pakistani representative government or institutions were behind it, it would be unfair and racist to try and degrade the whole of Pakistan.

Actually, if Indians are subject to disinformation, then it is the Pakistani Brigadier Generals who are responsible. Have you read The Bear Trap, by Brig Md Yousuf, the deputy director of the ISI. Further, a neutral source, Admiral Mike Mullen had this to say recently-
ISI must stop fomenting chaos in Kashmir, says Admiral Mullen
Philippine Times
Friday 24th July, 2009
(IANS)
The top most US military official has said Pakistan's spy agency ISI has been 'fomenting chaos' in Kashmir and advised Islamabad to restrain it.
ISI must stop fomenting chaos in Kashmir, says Admiral Mullen
Please note that it is from a neutral source – The Philippine Times.

Regarding Pakistan is trained for COIN, it is a moot point. Here are some links:
Pakistani troops Surrender to the Taliban

The Arabic newspaper Asharaq Alawsat article indicates the training standard:

Pakistan Militants Parade 48 Captured Soldiers

02/11/2007

CHARBAGH, Pakistan (AFP) -Islamic militants loyal to a pro-Taliban cleric in northwest Pakistan paraded 48 men said to be paramilitary troops who surrendered during a week of fierce clashes.
Television crews were allowed to videotape conversations with the detainees -- who were later released -- in the troubled Swat Valley tourist area, where security forces are trying to crush a rebellion by insurgents seeking to impose strict Islamic law.
Pakistani troops surrender to Taliban

I would be indeed surprised if the Pakistani Taliban is taking Indian help to fight their wars. Notwithstanding what Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, the leader of the Pathans during Independence had to say that Pakhtoonistan should be a part of India, Pakistan got the majority of Pathan to join Pakistan and then toppled the Chief Minister. Therefore, if the majority of Pathans are for Pakistan, then why should they take help from non Muslims? Or are you suggesting that Pathans find money more worthwhile than the religion? Because that could only be the means how any foreign nation could influence them. Or do you feel that they want their age old desire of having Pakhtoonistan and so are going against Pakistan? And does this same analogy apply to the Baloch?

Here is a discussion on the Balochistan question and the Baloch apparently don't accept that they are Pakistanis. Surely, India could not have bought them all of them:

YouTube - Balochistan's struggle for independence from Pakistani occupation - A discussion 01 of 05


YouTube - Balochistan's struggle for independence from Pakistani occupation - A discussion 02 of 05


YouTube - Balochistan's struggle for independence from Pakistani occupation - A discussion 03 of 05


YouTube - Balochistan's struggle for independence from Pakistani occupation - A discussion 04 of 05


YouTube - Balochistan's struggle for independence from Pakistani occupation - A discussion 05 of 05



As far as the Mumbai attack, Kasab has been owned up as a Pakistani and the others have a court case going on in Pakistan.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
I don’t want to upset you kiddo. But like I said, I don’t deal in rants. It would be no sport. I rather address real arguments.



Actually, none of the rants you’ve made pertained to issues raised by me.



Pakistanis talking about them in their context and place is not ranting. Do you even know what ranting means?

The only thing the Pakistani links prove is that in Pakistan these issues are recognized, discussed, debated, considered and addressed by the press, media and public. It, however, does not mean it is any Indian business. I would’ve loved to discuss the issues, but I’m well aware that you do not seek discussion for scholarly or constructive purposes, only so that you can feel better about India in contrast, and satisfy your hate for Pakistan in the process.

Your Indian links are not worth an objective debate or my time.

The only mutual concern Pakistanis and Indians can reasonably have is that of Kashmir, which I’ve addressed. I’ve tried to address disputes about any comments I’ve made, provided they’re reasonably sourced and sound. There is nothing to address in simple taunts, rebuttals, denials and rants. Irrelevant, crude and random jibes at Pakistan are not worth my time or concern.

Thanks.
Friend,

I still say you have not answered any of the issues of yours that I have replied to.

Do your really believe this is a rant. It is a point by point.

But then, could it be that English is not the forte in Pakistan?

Originally Posted by Kasrkin View Post

I can understand how you could be subject to disinformation. I must point out, however, that the Pakistani Army has not trained, sponsored or tolerated any of the terrorist factions it is confronting right now. Be that the TTP lead by Betullah Mehsud in FATA or his lieutenant Fazrullah in Swat. Most of the rebellion Pakistan faces presently in the west is tribal and ethnic in nature. As I'm sure you know, FATA was never an area where the Pakistan Army (or the British Indian Army before them) had much control. Now many of the tribes there, infiltrated by al-Qaeda (again no Pakistani connection with OBL's organization has ever been credited), are resisting the governments on both sides of the Durand. Pakistan gives US/NATO considerable logistical facilitation for their operations in Afghanistan, in return for which they provide economic and military aid. Much like the Marshal Plan or Truman Doctrine that the US used to secure an alliance with Turkey and Greece during the Cold War, Pakistan too is important to the US, thus it is assisted. The Pakistani Army is geared for conventional war, and COIN operations require specialized orientations and a lot of resources that Pakistan does not have presently.



I don't think such reports are credible, or verifiable. Admiral Mullen did claim something like this happened once but Pakistan has dismissed it as American paranoia. Certainly no details or particulars regarding the incident have been made available, and no neutral source has reported or independently confirmed it.



Terror is never a one way flow. Terrorists have been emulating from Afghanistan into Pakistan as well, have been doing so for quite some time. And, if Pakistani intelligence reports are to be believed, terrorist operatives sponsored by India find their way to places like FATA, Swat, Balochistan, even Lahore. Lastly, terrorists are terrorists, unless there is proof that their acts have been directed from the Pakistani government, which is something India has claimed but not been able to substantiate so far, I see no reason why the rest of Pakistan should 'apologize' for a crime that they didn't commit. Its like an Indian student studying in the UK rapes a British girl, and the British say that 'India should apologize', would that be fair? I don't think so. The Mumbai attacks have been condemned by Pakistan, thus unless it is proved that the Pakistani representative government or institutions were behind it, it would be unfair and racist to try and degrade the whole of Pakistan.
The answer was:

Actually, if Indians are subject to disinformation, then it is the Pakistani Brigadier Generals who are responsible. Have you read The Bear Trap, by Brig Md Yousuf, the deputy director of the ISI. Further, a neutral source, Admiral Mike Mullen had this to say recently-
ISI must stop fomenting chaos in Kashmir, says Admiral Mullen
Philippine Times
Friday 24th July, 2009
(IANS)
The top most US military official has said Pakistan's spy agency ISI has been 'fomenting chaos' in Kashmir and advised Islamabad to restrain it.
ISI must stop fomenting chaos in Kashmir, says Admiral Mullen
Please note that it is from a neutral source – The Philippine Times.

Regarding Pakistan is trained for COIN, it is a moot point. Here are some links:
Pakistani troops Surrender to the Taliban

The Arabic newspaper Asharaq Alawsat article indicates the training standard:

Pakistan Militants Parade 48 Captured Soldiers

02/11/2007

CHARBAGH, Pakistan (AFP) -Islamic militants loyal to a pro-Taliban cleric in northwest Pakistan paraded 48 men said to be paramilitary troops who surrendered during a week of fierce clashes.
Television crews were allowed to videotape conversations with the detainees -- who were later released -- in the troubled Swat Valley tourist area, where security forces are trying to crush a rebellion by insurgents seeking to impose strict Islamic law.
Pakistani troops surrender to Taliban

I would be indeed surprised if the Pakistani Taliban is taking Indian help to fight their wars. Notwithstanding what Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, the leader of the Pathans during Independence had to say that Pakhtoonistan should be a part of India, Pakistan got the majority of Pathan to join Pakistan and then toppled the Chief Minister. Therefore, if the majority of Pathans are for Pakistan, then why should they take help from non Muslims? Or are you suggesting that Pathans find money more worthwhile than the religion? Because that could only be the means how any foreign nation could influence them. Or do you feel that they want their age old desire of having Pakhtoonistan and so are going against Pakistan? And does this same analogy apply to the Baloch?

Here is a discussion on the Balochistan question and the Baloch apparently don't accept that they are Pakistanis. Surely, India could not have bought them all of them:

YouTube - Balochistan's struggle for independence from Pakistani occupation - A discussion 01 of 05


YouTube - Balochistan's struggle for independence from Pakistani occupation - A discussion 02 of 05


YouTube - Balochistan's struggle for independence from Pakistani occupation - A discussion 03 of 05


YouTube - Balochistan's struggle for independence from Pakistani occupation - A discussion 04 of 05


YouTube - Balochistan's struggle for independence from Pakistani occupation - A discussion 05 of 05



As far as the Mumbai attack, Kasab has been owned up as a Pakistani and the others have a court case going on in Pakistan.
Therefore, there is no rant.

Point by point rebuttal of falsehood, if you don't mind! ;)

You are merely avoiding the truth and runnning away from the truth!!
 

hit&run

United States of Hindu Empire
Mod
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
14,104
Likes
63,369
First of all, you will not find me claiming to have proof or evidence of Indian material support to insurrectionist elements in Pakistan. If the Pakistani establishment has proof, which they say they do, they're keeping their cards very close to the chest presently. Apparently, the Americans and Afghans have been approached with such information. However it has not been made available to the public. I do believe that such support has been extended in the past, and is being done so presently, but I acknowledge your right to dismiss my views due to a lack of evidence. Historically, KGB and KHaD, have been fomenting rebellion in Pakistani territories. These agencies are known to operate closely with RAW, I also know that RAW's mandate is fairly Pakistan specific. Either way, you'll notice that even though we have cases where RAW operatives, involved in terrorist activities, have been arrested, their case has never been admitted to by the Indian authorities. So you're at a liberty to deny it. I will stick to my view, but I will not argue over it.


Oh, for a forty-parson power to chant Thy praise, Hypocrisy! Oh, for a hymn Loud as the virtues thou dost loudly vaunt, Not practise!( Don Juan, Canto X. LORD BYRON).

Indians those who are arguing to different Pakistanis for proof on RAW involvement in pakistan are wasting time. I can create as many as proof needed by sitting on my chair. Thanks for not arguing on it.

Pakistan has never acknowledged allowing any 'good Taliban' to operate from its territory against international and Afghan forces in Afghanistan, and neither will I. It is only natural that the Pakistani Army will prioritize between different militant groups operating within the lawless tribal areas with regards those that constitute a greater threat to the Pakistani state and populace. That does not mean that Pakistan is supportive, or appreciative, of groups that keep a lower profile but still use Pakistani territory. Pakistan does not have infinite military resources, only a fraction of what international forces across the border do in fact, and this is going to be a long fight. It is only natural that Pakistan would be prudent enough to address the issue district by district, group by group. Needless to say, a time will come when all non-state factions will be eliminated or expelled from their havens in the tribal areas, that is what the Pakistan Army plans to do eventually. But we need time and support. The Pakistan Army has done a fairly good job so far, given that FATA represents some of the toughest guerrilla territory in the world, demographically and topographically speaking. The War on Terror has been the first time the Pakistani Army entered these legendary and fiercely autonomous tribal areas, the problems there will not be solved in a day. The situation in Afghanistan too will need to be greatly improved, if FATA is to be stabilized and purged entirely.

You mean Blood is thicker then water. Fair enough.................................

It is important for you to understand that these groups like LeT don't operate like the Lal Masjhid brigade. The Lal Masjhid militants had gone crazy, relying on the notion that 'anti-military' political parties will not allow a crackdown against them, they had been indulging in acts of vandalism and terrorism openly for months, right in the middle of our capital city. These groups operating in Azad Kashmir could not be more different, they run no fixed training centers or mosques or madrassahs anymore. They keep changing everything from their hideouts to their names in order to avoid identification and attention. Even their formidable humanitarian wings operate discreetly.

Away, and mock the time with fairest show; False face must hide what the false heart doth know. Macbeth, Act i. Sc. 7. SHAKESPEARE


It is not a matter of 'no capability' or 'no will'. Pakistan does have the capability, but is a matter of time, resources and other factors. If India, with its formidable military footprint in the Kashmir valley, has not been able to eliminate these groups operating there despite much heavy-handedness, how can Pakistan do so?

Now a common pakistani feels the pain of these insurgents conspiring against the unity of a nation.

Especially when many of these groups, and their cause in Kashmir, has popular appeal and support in Kashmiris and Pakistanis alike. The Pakistan Army has almost eliminated cross border infiltration by these groups so that a window for peace may be opened. India will need to cover the other half and move towards facilitating a genuine and credible solution to the Kashmir dispute, with regards to the wishes of the Kashmiri people, so that these groups can be sidelined, their appeal negated and eventually eliminated entirely.

You have courage to talk like this cause you sense that now 50 years of Pakistani propaganda is maturing and is fruitful enough to harvest for pakistani interest. Its a fiction mate. Opinions can be changed within few seconds. i been to Kashmir 10000 times(its like second home to me). People there know what is Pakistan. Do what ever you want to do. we are listening since 60 years. we have patience to listen Pakistani kashmir ''Ragga".


I'm sure that this report and General Pasha's words, if they were indeed his words, have been taken out of context. Both General Kayani and General Pasha are stanch supporters of civilian control, and of this civilian government in particular. Both, on numerous occasions, have shown an unwillingness to accept much autonomy from their civilian masters, even in military matters, saying that any and all military endeavors will be in accordance with the explicit instructions of the government. We know that General Pasha, at the suggestion from the President, was ready to fly off to India after the Mumbai attacks despite much indignation from within his own military circles. The decision was withdrawn, but General said he would've liked to go. Therefore, I think, General Pasha may have been trying to express the ISI's willingness to cooperate directly with Indian authorities, in the hopes of cementing trust and avoiding bureaucratic hurdles. However, I can assure you, it was not meant to be a disregard to the wishes or importance of the civilian government. It is more probable that this incident was misreported, or someone couldn't resist putting a spin on it, given that it was related by Indian officials and is reported by the Indian press. Pakistan, obviously, has rightly denied it.

O serpent heart, hid with a flowering face! Did ever a dragon keep so fair a cave? Romeo and Juliet, Act iii. Sc. 2. SHAKESPEARE.

I know that they're bad eggs everywhere, I don't deny that. But I must point out that in the forum I moderate, we pride ourselves on our neutrality and expect high standards from posters. Had such comments been made on my board, against Indians or anyone else, you could be sure that person would be receiving an infraction atleast. What the rules here are is obviously not for me to judge, but I couldn't help but express my disgust with those particular comments, and others like Pakistan’s ‘pathetic existence’.

Dissembling courtesy! How fine this tyrant Can tickle where she wounds! Cymbeline, Act i. Sc. 1. SHAKESPEARE.



I can see how disinformation can allow for the belief that Pakistanis are glad or appreciative of the Mumbai attacks. However this is simply not the case. I’ve come across many right wing Pakistanis, but not one of them said that he/she approved of the Mumbai massacre. Pakistanis are decent humans as well, who know the difference between right and wrong.
In act more graceful and humane;
A fairer person lost not heaven: he seemed
For dignity composed and high exploit;
But all was false and hollow
; though his tongue
Dropped manna, and could make the worse appear
The better reason, to perplex and dash
Maturest counsels: for his thoughts were low;
To vice industrious, but to nobler deeds
Timorous and slothful: yet he pleased the ear,
And with persuasive accent thus began”

John Milton, Paradise Lost


Nice effort mate but all in vein, Indians are not misinformed, you are trying hard. T he ground reality is that we are suffering because of Pakistan. We are checking our corrupt politicians time to time but when Pakistan factor haunts our growth we become helpless. After independence Pakistanis ran away with there piece of land. we were never a perfect nation.We were having no privileges like Pakistanis to face off from malignant indian problems.We are improving faster then anyone on this planet but the list is still ever growing till date. Being a neighbour Pakistan is adding on to our problems for sure. Now we are getting more aware and mentally prepared by means of these channels(DFI). We are waiting for the time when Pakistani options will exhaust and they will attack on us. We are creating pressure on your nation by many means that hey Pakistan friend this is going to very costlier and you guys are still prioritizing your efforts for the same.

you have courage to speak like this for many reasons but i must tell you do not consider our politeness as our weakness.
 

Kasrkin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
21
Likes
1
This post that you’ve re-quoted is something I kindly said I would address:

If you don’t mind, I will love to address the rest of the posts if, and when, I have time. Thanks.
Your posts following that contain nothing I’m going to entertain. You can tell yourself I’m incapable of doing so, no problem. Now to your one remotely relevant post:

Further, a neutral source, Admiral Mike Mullen had this to say recently-
Nowhere has the good admiral said that Pakistan is still supporting these groups. Mullen’s statements have been reported widely, none of it is a rebuttal of my viewpoint. It is in line with my narration of ISI’s change in outlook. Note his emphasis on the word ‘historically’.

Asked to elaborate on his comments, Mullen said: 'What I mean is that they have clearly focused on support of ... historically of militant organisations both east and west. I mean that's been a focus of theirs in Kashmir historically as well as in FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas).

I didn’t claim that Pakistan has never encouraged rebellion in Occupied Kashmir before. There is no point pretending that Mullen is claiming that the ISI is still involved in insurrectionist activities. Had he done so, there would've been a strict denial from Islamabad, but he didn't.

Have you read The Bear Trap, by Brig Md Yousuf, the deputy director of the ISI.
I have. Again, this is a historical book about the Afghan Jihad. There is no mention of the present cadre of the tribal warlords Pakistan is confronting presently, all of whom are relatively young and have never been related to the ISI. Please note, I never tried denying that Pakistan had a critical part to play in the Afghan Jihad. So I’m at a loss to understand exactly what point you tried to make or refute.

Regarding Pakistan is trained for COIN, it is a moot point. Here are some links:
I am aware that some para-military militia-men of the Frontier Corps and Army’s logistical units have surrendered when surrounded and outnumbered by tribal fighters in the mountains of Waziristan. But I see no reason why you think this disregards my opinion that Pakistan lacks in COIN oriented and efficient fighting forces. It, in fact, validates my narration that Pakistan is lacking important COIN equipment and resources, that can cover these gaps, which the US feels obliged to provide. That particular incident did not represent the norm however and was not repeated once combat operations got underway. Its just lack of transport helicopters means that long logistic lines are vulnerable to deadly ambushes, and sometimes kidnapping, of rear echelon troops.

About your links from the Pakistani media, which you feel has suddenly become very credible, pertaining to the issue of Baluchistan, my reply will be the same as before. The aspirations of the Baluchis is not something that should be of concern to India, neither is it relevant to the issue of Kashmir, and it certainly does not justify Indian terrorism in sovereign Pakistani territory. What it, however, proves is that the Pakistani public is aware of the issues and does not need reminding by Indians. Also, I’m not interested in youtube videos are ‘proof’ of anything.

Now that I’ve already ‘ranted’ out my reasons for not addressing rants. I think this concludes our discourse Mr. Ray.:bye:

As per forum rules it is expected that all members would please address military professionals with respect, so please comply with the same.
Thank you Mr. Singh, I’ll keep that in mind. But I hope that the right of respect applies to all members who conduct themselves politely.

My suggestion to you my friend is to please reply only to those posts where you have real arguments to offer
No. I’ll address the posts I want to, with issues that have potential for legitimate and constructive debate, if you don’t mind.

Thanks.
 

hit&run

United States of Hindu Empire
Mod
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
14,104
Likes
63,369
har ek baat pe kahate ho tum ki tuu kyaa hai
tumhii.n kaho ke ye a.ndaaz-e-guftaguu kyaa hai


To every argument you say you are wrong, please tell me whats your exact way of discussion.

na shole me.n ye karishmaa na barq me.n ye adaa
koii bataao ki vo shoKh-e-tu.nd-Khuu kyaa hai


Neither your bombs have any effect nor your lightening bullets have grace.
Please can someone explain to me why they are hot headed, rigid and voilent.


ye rashk hai ki vo hotaa hai hamsuKhan hamase
vagarnaa Khauf-e-bad_aamozii-e-adu kyaa hai


This is Jealousy/Malice that they do not surrender/listen to us, what whould be a Awe misinformed enemy otherwise.

chipak rahaa hai badan par lahuu se pairaahan
hamaarii jeb ko an ab haajat-e-rafuu kyaa hai


why should i worry about my pocket hole for stitching,when My cloths are adhering to my skin with bleeding, (I cant grow when i am loosing blood cause of enemy)

jalaa hia jism jahaa. N dil bhii jal gayaa hogaa
kuredte ho jo ab raakh justajuu kyaa hai


When our bodies were burnt so heart were burnt too, what is your desire to scrach/spoil our ashes now.

rago.n me.n dau.Date phirane ke ham nahii.n qaayal
jab aa.Nkh hii se na Tapakaa to phir lahuu kyaa hai


Now my blood has no desire to run into my vessels, It not my blood if it is not in my eyes.

vo chiiz jisake liye hamako ho bahisht aziiz
sivaa_e baadaa-e-gulfaam-e-mushkabuu kyaa hai


The object i love to have more then heaven is the victory and is like a fregnance of musk to me.

banaa hai shaah kaa musaahib, phire hai itaraataa
vagarnaa shahar me.n “Ghalib” kii aabaruu kyaa hai


He was/is exulting unduly/self-conceitedness/boastful/ arrogant/insolence; as he is/was comerade/friend of mighty. Otherwise what is the status/stand of him.

Mother of all Answers to Pakistan's arguments on kashmir.

Kashmir: Legal Documents: Instrument of Accession

INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION

Instrument of Accession executed by Maharajah Hari Singh on October 26, 1947
Whereas the Indian Independence Act, 1947, provides that as from the fifteenth day of August, 1947, there shall be set up an independent Dominion known as INDIA, and that the Government of India Act 1935, shall with such omissions, additions, adaptations and modifications as the Governor General may by order specify, be applicable to the Dominion of India.

And whereas the Government of India Act, 1935, as so adapted by the Governor General, provides that an Indian State may accede to the Dominion of India by an Instrument of Accession executed by the Ruler thereof.

Now, therefore, I Shriman Inder Mahinder Rajrajeswar Maharajadhiraj Shri Hari Singhji, Jammu & Kashmir Naresh Tatha Tibbet adi Deshadhipati, Ruler of Jammu & Kashmir State, in the exercise of my Sovereignty in and over my said State do hereby execute this my Instrument of Accession and


1. I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of India with the intent that the Governor General of India, the Dominion Legislature, the Federal Court and any other Dominion authority established for the purposes of the Dominion shall by virtue of this my Instrument of Accession but subject always to the terms thereof, and for the purposes only of the Dominion, exercise in relation to the State of Jammu & Kashmir (hereinafter referred to as "this State") such functions as may be vested in them by or under the Government of India Act, 1935, as in force in the Dominion of India, on the 15th day of August 1947, (which Act as so in force is hereafter referred to as "the Act').

2. I hereby assume the obligation of ensuring that due effect is given to provisions of the Act within this State so far as they are applicable therein by virtue of this my Instrument of Accession.

3. I accept the matters specified in the schedule hereto as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make law for this State.

4. I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of India on the assurance that if an agreement is made between the Governor General and the Ruler of this State whereby any functions in relation to the administration in this State of any law of the Dominion Legislature shall be exercised by the Ruler of the State, then any such agreement shall be construed and have effect accordingly.

5. The terms of this my Instrument of Accession shall not be varied by any amendment of the Act or the Indian Independence Act, 1947, unless such amendment is accepted by me by Instrument supplementary to this Instrument.

6. Nothing in this Instrument shall empower the Dominion Legislature to make any law for this State authorizing the compulsory acquisition of land for any purpose, but I hereby undertake that should the Dominion for the purpose of a Dominion law which applies in this State deem it necessary to acquire any land, I will at their request acquire the land at their expense, or, if the land belongs to me transfer it to them on such terms as may be agreed or, in default of agreement, determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Chief Justice of India.

7. Nothing in this Instrument shall be deemed to commit in any way to acceptance of any future constitution of India or to fetter my discretion to enter into agreement with the Government of India under any such future constitution.

8. Nothing in this Instrument affects the continuance of my Sovereignty in and over this State, or, save as provided by or under this Instrument, the exercise of any powers, authority and rights now enjoyed by me as Ruler of this State or the validity of any law at present in force in this State.

9. I hereby declare that I execute this Instrument on behalf of this State and that any reference in this Instrument to me or to the Ruler of the State is to be construed as including a reference to my heirs and successors.
Given under my hand this 26th day of October, nineteen hundred and forty seven.

Hari Singh

Maharajadhiraj of Jammu and Kashmir State.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ACCEPTANCE OF ACCESSION BY THE GOVERNOR GENERAL OF INDIA
I do hereby accept this Instrument of Accession. Dated this twenty seventh day of October, nineteen hundred and forty seven.

Mountbatten of Burma

Governor General of India.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SCHEDULE OF INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION
THE MATTERS WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THE DOMINION
LEGISLATURE MAY MAKE LAWS FOR THIS STATE
A. Defence

1. The naval, military and air forces of the Dominion and any other armed forces raised or maintained by the Dominion; any armed forces, including forces raised or maintained by an acceding State, which are attached to, or operating with, any of the armed forces of the Dominion.

2. Naval, military and air force works, administration of cantonment areas.

3. Arms, fire-arms, ammunition.

4. Explosives.

B. External Affairs

1. External affairs; the implementing of treaties and agreements with other countries; extradition, including the surrender of criminals and accused persons to parts of His Majesty's Dominions outside India.

2. Admission into, and emigration and expulsion from, India, including in relation thereto the regulation of the movements in India of persons who are not British subjects domiciled in India or subjects of any acceding State; pilgrimages to places beyond India.

3. Naturalisation.

C. Communications

1. Posts and telegraphs, including telephones, wireless, broadcasting, and other like forms of communication.

2. Federal railways; the regulation of all railways other than minor railways in respect of safety, maximum and minimum rates and fares, station and services terminal charges, interchange of traffic and the responsibility of railway administrations as carriers of goods and passengers; the regulation of minor railways in respect of safety and the responsibility of the administrations of such railways as carriers of goods and passengers.

3. Maritime shipping and navigation, including shipping and navigation on tidal waters; Admiralty jurisdiction.

4. Port quarantine.

5. Major ports, that is to say, the declaration and delimitation of such ports, and the constitution and powers of Port Authorities therein.

6. Aircraft and air navigation; the provision of aerodromes; regulation and organisation of air traffic and of aerodromes.

7. Lighthouses, including lightships, beacons and other provisions for the safety of shipping and aircraft.

8. Carriage of passengers and goods by sea or by air.

9. Extension of the powers and jurisdiction of members of the police force belonging to any unit to railway area outside that unit.

D. Ancillary

1. Election to the Dominion Legislature, subject to the provisions of the Act and of any Order made thereunder.

2. Offences against laws with respect to any of the aforesaid matters.

3. Inquiries and statistics for the purposes of any of the aforesaid matters.

4. Jurisdiction and powers of all courts with respect to any of the aforesaid matters but, except with the consent of the Ruler of the acceding State, not so as to confer any jurisdiction or powers upon any courts other than courts ordinarily exercising jurisdiction in or in relation to that State.
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
115
With that logic, we could claim that the West Bank and Jerusalem is a sovereign part of Pakistan for all that matters. Also, I won’t be addressing rants about 65 and 99, if you don’t mind.
The mention of 65 and 99 was to point out your micalculation in terms of the expected scale of Indian response. I did not refer to the perceived result for you. So relax.

Actually, the brutal crackdown, or so called ‘genocide’, was only instigated after the rebellion supported by India was apparent. India had been training Mukti Bahini terrorists for a while, and was able to pump train loads of them into East Pakistan to drive the civil war. It is a matter of pride for some Indian politicians that ‘India broke up Pakistan’. Furthermore, if your claim of Pakistani mistreatment of Bengalis is a justification for India meddling in and invading sovereign Pakistani territory, then the same can apply to your mistreatment of the population in the Disputed Territory of Kashmir, with much more credibility.
There is nothing going on in Kashmir that is even a fraction of what you did in East Pakistan/Bangladesh. It is a tough counter insurgency and India is coming out tops. Anyway lets move on. If you want to discuss 1971 or Kashmir in detail, it is for another thread.
A very weak argument. The exact same applies to India’s illegal annexation of Kashmir. East Pakistan was sovereign Pakistani territory, therefore as per international law, it is not for India or anyone to judge what country East Pakistanis want, let alone to interfere militarily. I’m surprised that you haven’t spotted the hypocritical contradictions in your line of arguments against Pakistan.

This would be my answer to all those seeking to lecture me about Baluchistan. I'm aware of the issues there, more than most here. However that should be of no concern to India, as per international protocol. Indian energies would be better focused in helping extend to Kashmiris living in Disputed Territory their right of self-determination.
You seem to stress a lot on "sovereign". Pakistan was created 60 years back and East Pakistan decided to join it. Balochistan's case is different and if that video is any indication, it was a fraud on them. Are you saying they have no right to correct their mistakes if they see them as clear as sun! Well, Bangladeshis already did and you could do nothing except what you did in 1971.

The international protocol does not allow genocide of people to maintain so called sovereignty.

I understand that it your job to moderate this board. However I must point out that I was referring to contention, and not the person, i.e. your argument is naïve.
I suggest you leave that to us and don't lecture around on that. Just see the number of times you have used the word "rant" here. It shows an attitude that is superficial, shallow and negative. Anything not to your liking is a rant?

You continue to wish to see Pakistan as a jealous rival and adversary, instead of a potential partner. There is the difference in our analogies.
I was talking specifically about the Pakistani attitude to Kashmir. Pakistan can be a partner and I think eventually will be, after they have tried everything else.
Pakistan does not claim Kashmir to be its own. Pakistan considers it, and labels it, Disputed Territory. As does the rest of the world. If Kashmiris would prefer to be part of Pakistan as opposed to India, then that is their prerogative. So yours was a straw-man argument.
Oh really, how sweet of you. Wonder why don't you think of the Baloch and East Pakistanis the same way! Why their aspirations are never on your radar. Oh I remember, it was sovereign territory so their aspirations don't matter and so will the Kashmir's once they become a prt of the IRP.

Same can be said of India’s track record in terms of religious and ethnic minorities, however I don’t wish to rant. The issue here is Kashmir, and the fact that it is internationally recognized Disputed Territory has no bearing on Baluchistan or East Pakistan.

Thanks.
Thats what you just did.
 

Kasrkin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
21
Likes
1
The mention of 65 and 99 was to point out your micalculation in terms of the expected scale of Indian response.
Just because India responds to an attack on illegally annexed Disputed Territory as an attack on sovereign territory, does not make it sovereign territory.

There is nothing going on in Kashmir that is even a fraction of what you did in East Pakistan/Bangladesh.
I highly doubt you can substantiate that very dubious comment, but since this is not a historical thread, I won't expect you to try. It is irrelevant anyway. Again, I see no relation between and Bangladesh and Kashmir, the former having been sovereign Pakistani territory and the latter internationally recognized Disputed Territory. The situations are completely incomparable, morally and legally, and the political issues in the former cannot be used to justify illegal annexation of the latter. Neither can military interference in East Pakistan, direct or indirect, ever be justified as per international law. Now instead of wasting time with this circular and pointless debate about events that happened four decades ago, our energies would be better spent discussing India’s continuous suppression of the Kashmiri right to self-determination.

Are you saying they have no right to correct their mistakes if they see them as clear as sun!
No, I'm saying it’s not for you to decide and judge what the Baluchis want, based on your narrow, highly selective and inevitably biased understanding, and also because it is an integral part of Pakistan. The Baluchis made their choice, and you can’t ‘prove’ that Balochis want everything you say they do based on a video. Instead, we should discuss Kashmir, the people of which were not given the option of self-determination in the first place.

The international protocol does not allow genocide of people to maintain so called sovereignty.
Just because you say its ‘genocide’, does not make it so. Regardless of the strength of disinformation you might have been subject to, no neutral, impartial or objective source refers to the civil war as ‘genocide’. You’re welcome to try and look up some credible sources to back your dramatic contention and PM me at your leisure.

It shows an attitude that is superficial, shallow and negative. Anything not to your liking is a rant?
True, since I dislike rants, as I hope you would too. Everything else is interesting and spirited debate to be appreciated on its merits. Also, I’m not lecturing you on anything, so chill.

I was talking specifically about the Pakistani attitude to Kashmir. Pakistan can be a partner and I think eventually will be, after they have tried everything else.
Again the same attitude, you feel that Pakistan can only be ‘forced’ or ‘coerced’ into vouching for peace. I disagree.

Oh really, how sweet of you. Wonder why don't you think of the Baluch and East Pakistanis the same way!
We do, actually. But even if we didn’t, hypothetically speaking, that should have no bearing on Kashmir, and your excesses and suppression in regards to the Kashmiris. This impulsive, knee-jerk reaction where you raise unrelated, and irrelevant, issues will only distract people so much. It is not, officially, India’s claim to take up the cause of the Baluchi people, and there is a reason for that. It would be excessively irresponsible and stupid, legally and diplomatically speaking. Therefore like your government, I don't consider the aspirations of Pakistan smallest ethnic group to be a legitimate issue of debate between us.

Why their aspirations are never on your radar. Oh I remember, it was sovereign territory so their aspirations don't matter and so will the Kashmir's once they become a prt of the IRP.
Their aspirations do matter, which is why the issue is a subject to much debate in parliament and the media. However, Baluchistan is part of Pakistan, therefore it is not for you decide what Baluchis want, how much of it they want, how many of them want it, how best it would be to address their wants, etc. You should focus on Kashmir instead, which is not even part of India, and is also a subject that pertains to the future of both Pakistan and India.

Same can be said of India’s track record in terms of religious and ethnic minorities, however I don’t wish to rant.
Thats what you just did.
If merely mentioning the fact that India has ethnic and religious issues is a ‘rant’. Then I wonder what you’ve been doing for the last couple of posts in regards to Pakistan.

Thanks.
 

tharikiran

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
763
Likes
1,040
Country flag
Kashmiri right to self-determination.

Well, they more than willingly participated in their elections many times as of now.
Each time breaking the record for previous elections.

Inshallah , the remaining separatists who are being fed on PAK money will fall in line too.

By the way, do you guys in Pakistan have the right to self determination ???

When you have,then come back and worry about Jammu & Kashmir.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Nowhere has the good admiral said that Pakistan is still supporting these groups. Mullen’s statements have been reported widely, none of it is a rebuttal of my viewpoint. It is in line with my narration of ISI’s change in outlook. Note his emphasis on the word ‘historically’.
Janab,


ISI fomenting 'chaotic activity' in Kashmir: US
Elaborating, he said the ISI has been supporting militant groups in Kashmir and the Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA) bordering Afghanistan.
ISI involvement in Kashmir

I agree that you find English a foreign language but what he has said is simple English and even a an elementary student would know!


I didn’t claim that Pakistan has never encouraged rebellion in Occupied Kashmir before. There is no point pretending that Mullen is claiming that the ISI is still involved in insurrectionist activities. Had he done so, there would've been a strict denial from Islamabad, but he didn't.
My link in the earlier post indicates that it was said as late as this July. Hardly hostorical!

I have. Again, this is a historical book about the Afghan Jihad. There is no mention of the present cadre of the tribal warlords Pakistan is confronting presently, all of whom are relatively young and have never been related to the ISI. Please note, I never tried denying that Pakistan had a critical part to play in the Afghan Jihad. So I’m at a loss to understand exactly what point you tried to make or refute.
A servant obeys his Master and more so in a Feudal country as Pakistan!



I am aware that some para-military militia-men of the Frontier Corps and Army’s logistical units have surrendered when surrounded and outnumbered by tribal fighters in the mountains of Waziristan. But I see no reason why you think this disregards my opinion that Pakistan lacks in COIN oriented and efficient fighting forces. It, in fact, validates my narration that Pakistan is lacking important COIN equipment and resources, that can cover these gaps, which the US feels obliged to provide. That particular incident did not represent the norm however and was not repeated once combat operations got underway. Its just lack of transport helicopters means that long logistic lines are vulnerable to deadly ambushes, and sometimes kidnapping, of rear echelon troops.
Sorry, they were in a convoy they calmly surrendered.

About your links from the Pakistani media, which you feel has suddenly become very credible, pertaining to the issue of Baluchistan, my reply will be the same as before. The aspirations of the Baluchis is not something that should be of concern to India, neither is it relevant to the issue of Kashmir, and it certainly does not justify Indian terrorism in sovereign Pakistani territory. What it, however, proves is that the Pakistani public is aware of the issues and does not need reminding by Indians. Also, I’m not interested in youtube videos are ‘proof’ of anything.
Well, if Pakistani media govt controlled is not credible, it does indicate that nothing is credible in Pakistan. A free for all, as we are witnessing.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Kersin Janab.

Here is something that will break your heart and show how you wish to pull wool.

Taliban capture over 100 Pakistani soldiers in South Waziristan
By Bill RoggioAugust 31, 2007 3:00 PM


The Taliban insurgency in the Northwest Frontier Province intensifies as a large force of Taliban fighters captured a company of Pakistani soldiers in South Waziristan. The Taliban captured “over 100 security forces personnel after intercepting a military convoy in the Mehsud-dominated tribal area,” Dawn reported. The Taliban have claimed over 300 Pakistani soldiers were captured by a large Taliban force near Luddah, which is about 25 miles north of Wana, but the highest estimate given by Pakistani sources is 130. “The Taliban had also impounded 17 trucks which were carrying troops,” Pakistani sources told Dawn. “Nine of the hostages were reported to be officers including a colonel.”

Maj. Gen. Waheed Arshad, the Pakistani military spokesman, initially claimed the troops sought shelter in a valley during a storm, and contact was lost. "There is no suggestion of kidnapping or fighting," said Arshad at the initial reports of the capture of the Pakistani soldiers. Arshad later backtracked and told CBS News the soldiers have been freed by the Taliban and the "situation has almost been resolved."

But there is no indication the troops have been freed. “Intelligence officials in South Waziristan said the militants had taken the soldiers to different hideouts in the mountains,” Reuters reported. Both Dawn and Reuters have reported the Pakistani government has sent emissaries to negotiate with the Taliban to secure the conditions of the release. A Pakistani security official told Dawn that “contacts had been established with the Mehsud jirga to approach militant commander Baitullah Mehsud at the earliest and help secure the safe release of the security personnel.” Baitullah Mehsud is one of the most the powerful Taliban commanders in South Waziristan; it is estimated he commands upwards of 30,000 well-trained fighters.

One issue that is not being discussed is both the skill and size of military units needed to force a company of Pakistani troops to surrender with no violence. A senior US intelligence official told The Long War Journal that this Pakistani unit was an experienced regular army unit, not a paramilitary unit such as the Levies or Frontier Constables. “This was a Punjabi company, loyal to Musharraf, which conducts operations against the Taliban when needed,” the official stated.

Dawn provides some hints on how the troops were captured.

The incident occurred following a verbal argument between officers and some militants. “Not a single shot was fired.” The official account was confirmed by locals who said the militants had stopped the military convoy at four places before taking the drastic action. One security official said the militants had objected to the military’s attempt to establish pickets on the route of the convoy.

Based on this account, which was given to Dawn by both South Waziristan locals and Pakistani security officials, the Pakistani convoy was well aware of the rising tensions in the region. With the convoy having been stopped at four checkpoints and there being arguments with the Taliban, the Pakistani troops were not taken unawares.


The Taliban either prepared for the operation in advance, or quickly assembled and planned the operation. The Taliban had enough foot soldiers with sufficient heavy weapons placed in prepared fighting positions to impress upon the regular Pakistani army officers to surrender without firing a shot. Depending on the terrain and available armaments to the Taliban, perhaps 500 to 1,000 Taliban fighters were on hand to conduct the operation. As we have noted in the past, the Taliban are organizing into well-trained military formations.

The Pakistani troops also surrendered while knowing that 19 soldiers were currently in the custody of Baitullah Mehsud’s Taliban. One of those soldiers was brutally beheaded by a 12-year-old boy. This gruesome acted was videotaped and distributed to the media as a warning.

Despite the repeated attacks against Pakistani troops, the beheadings of captured personnel and the continual kidnappings, the Pakistani government is still interested in preserving the failed “peace accords” signed with the Taliban in 2005 and 2006. This is clear from a statement made by Dawn’s source. “[The military] have been told to establish immediate contact with the militant commander [Baitullah Mehsud.] On our part the Sara Rogha agreement [the South Waziristan Accord] is intact.”

Baitullah, who is wanted for his involvement with a suicide bombing campaign in the spring of 2007, has been behind many of the Taliban attacks against the military in South Waziristan and sends his Taliban into Afghanistan to attack NATO and Afghan forces and civilians. Baitullah has also sheltered al Qaeda operatives and has established al Qaeda training camps in South Waziristan. Yet the Pakistani government still seeks to negotiate with Mehsud and others committing violence against the state.

Paksitan Army SURRENDERS to the Taliban WITHOUT FIRING A SHOT

That much for your claim!
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
As far as Baloochistan is concerned, I have posted Youtube stuff from Pakistan TV.

Damning they are.

You have any comments?

Why are you avoiding that?
 

youngindian

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
1,365
Likes
77
Country flag
Why Pakistan Balks at the U.S. Afghanistan Offensive

Tuesday, Jul. 28, 2009

Pakistan is not betting on a U.S. victory in Afghanistan, nor is it going out of its way to help achieve one. Instead, say analysts and former top officials in Islamabad, Pakistan views the conflict in Afghanistan through the lens of its own national interests and its conflict with India — and it will act accordingly, prioritizing securing its own interests in Afghanistan's future. And that could be bad news for a U.S.-led military campaign that depends on Pakistan's help for thwarting the Afghan insurgency.Pakistan officials expressed anxiety two weeks ago when 4,000 U.S. Marines were sent into Helmand province in the first major offensive under the command of President Barack Obama's new Afghanistan commander, General Stanley McChrystal. McChrystal was forced to visit Pakistan on July 26 to allay its security chiefs' fears that a squeeze on Taliban militants in Helmand could push them across the border and further destabilize Pakistan.Helmand shares a porous border with Baluchistan, the vast and restive southwestern province of Pakistan where for years the military has been battling — under a thick media blackout — Baluch separatists in the mountains. Having committed troops to fighting the Pakistani Taliban in the tribal areas of the northwest and insisting on maintaining a heavy troop concentration along the Indian border in the east, Pakistan complains that it lacks the troops to rebuff a Taliban spillover from Helmand.

"What the Pakistanis are asking the Americans to do is encircle [the Taliban militants] within Afghanistan instead," to prevent them from crossing the border, says a senior Western diplomat familiar with the discussions. Washington, for its part, has been urging both India and Pakistan to agree to a reciprocal reduction of troop levels along their mutual border, in order to free up more Pakistani forces to tackle the Taliban. But that may be missing the point: one of the reasons for the divergent strategic priorities between Washington and Islamabad is that Pakistan sees Afghanistan as another theater of its conflict with India.

"There is a genuine concern that when there's a military operation across the border, there is a spillover," says Ayesha Siddiqa, an independent Pakistani military analyst. But of equal concern may be the prospect that a weakened Taliban may actually diminish Pakistan's influence in Afghanistan. "Is it," says Siddiqa, "less to do with the actual movement of militants into Pakistan, and more with the fact that greater U.S. military pressure in Afghanistan may lead to a situation where Pakistan is left with no space in the country?"


Pakistan has certainly been ambivalent about the U.S. invasion that took down the Taliban regime at the end of 2001. Rustam Shah Mohmand, a former Pakistani ambassador to Afghanistan, says that Islamabad was "party to the dismantling of the Taliban regime and creating the conditions for the emergence of Hamid Karzai as Afghan President." But it is widely suspected that Pakistan has never really relinquished the Afghan Taliban as a proxy for pursuing its own long-term interests in Afghanistan, since it regards Karzai as an ally of its enemy India. Thus Pakistan's own campaign against the Taliban on its soil has focused on those groups directly attacking the Pakistani state, while largely turning a blind eye to militant groups that simply use its soil as a base from which to wage war on Western forces in Afghanistan.

Why Pakistan Balks at the U.S. Afghanistan Offensive - TIME
 

Known_Unknown

Devil's Advocate
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
2,626
Likes
1,670
Kasrkin,

I don't think India accepts the UN ruling on Kashmir. India had a sound legal argument for going to the UN, believing that as per the terms of the Indian Independence Act 1947, princely states had the right to decide which country to accede to, or to remain independent. The Maharaja of Kashmir decided to join India after Pakistan invaded his kingdom, thus breaking the ground rules. India had very good reason to believe that since the Maharaja had decided to join India, she was entitled to the entire territory of J&K, and that Pakistan had no legal case.

However, the UN made a very bad decision. By requiring India to hold plebiscite, it awarded the naked aggression of Pakistan, and ruled against India, which had played by the rules. This solution was obviously not acceptable to India. And that is where it remains to this day.

India has a sound legal basis for claiming all of J&K. And while Pakistan might keep claiming that J&K is disputed territory, India will never accept that contention, and on the basis of the Instrument of Accession, continue considering it an integral part of the country.

Now on to the second part of the argument. If India is to accept that Kashmir is a disputed territory, on the basis of the naked aggression of Pakistan on the princely state of J&K, then the question arises that why should India not rake up the issue of Baluchistan? The Baluchistan situation is similar. In fact, it is worse because the Balochis decided NOT to join Pakistan, and inspite of that, the Pak airforce bombed them into submission. The Pakistani government oppresses the Balochis, and they want independence from Pakistan with India's help. If India does start supporting them publicly in international forums, Balochistan could soon be turned into a dispute between India and Pakistan. Not a territorial dispute, but a dispute on how to treat the Balochis. The Balochis are culturally and linguistically linked to northern India, and an argument could be made that India cannot see the human rights of its ethnic cousins being repeatedly violated by Pakistan........and then go on to support them covertly. Just like Turkey recently slammed China for the Uighur crackdown.

My point is that a dispute can be created easily. If Pakistan believes that Kashmir is disputed and that it somehow has a right to Kashmir inspite of violating the Indian Independence Act, India can start believing likewise about the rest of Pakistan's provinces.
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
115
Just because India responds to an attack on illegally annexed Disputed Territory as an attack on sovereign territory, does not make it sovereign territory.
Well it seems you want to decide the provocation and also want to decide how much we should respond to that. Doesn't work in the real world, sorry.

Your continuous rants of "disputed territory" doesn't make it any less Indian territory irrespective of what you may proclaim from rooftops.

I highly doubt you can substantiate that very dubious comment, but since this is not a historical thread, I won't expect you to try. It is irrelevant anyway. Again, I see no relation between and Bangladesh and Kashmir, the former having been sovereign Pakistani territory and the latter internationally recognized Disputed Territory. The situations are completely incomparable, morally and legally, and the political issues in the former cannot be used to justify illegal annexation of the latter. Neither can military interference in East Pakistan, direct or indirect, ever be justified as per international law. Now instead of wasting time with this circular and pointless debate about events that happened four decades ago, our energies would be better spent discussing India’s continuous suppression of the Kashmiri right to self-determination.

No, I'm saying it’s not for you to decide and judge what the Baluchis want, based on your narrow, highly selective and inevitably biased understanding, and also because it is an integral part of Pakistan. The Baluchis made their choice, and you can’t ‘prove’ that Balochis want everything you say they do based on a video. Instead, we should discuss Kashmir, the people of which were not given the option of self-determination in the first place.
I can actually substantiate that very easily. It is already substantiated in your own forum with so many links and graphic evidences. Too bad if you choose to not look at it.

Just look up any issue of Guinness book genocide section.

Just because you say its ‘genocide’, does not make it so. Regardless of the strength of disinformation you might have been subject to, no neutral, impartial or objective source refers to the civil war as ‘genocide’. You’re welcome to try and look up some credible sources to back your dramatic contention and PM me at your leisure.
In fact there are several neutral sources that call it the biggest genocide after WW-2. Bigger than Bosnia, bigger than Rwanda and bigger than Combodia. I can dig up sources for you if you really want. You can as well do that easily by looking up the thread in your own forum. Some Bangladeshi members have done a good job of it already.

True, since I dislike rants, as I hope you would too. Everything else is interesting and spirited debate to be appreciated on its merits. Also, I’m not lecturing you on anything, so chill.
Lets move on.

Again the same attitude, you feel that Pakistan can only be ‘forced’ or ‘coerced’ into vouching for peace. I disagree.
No. Pakistan can choose to decide for itself what is best for itself and for the region. This is not what we have seen so far but future can always be better than the past.

We do, actually. But even if we didn’t, hypothetically speaking, that should have no bearing on Kashmir, and your excesses and suppression in regards to the Kashmiris. This impulsive, knee-jerk reaction where you raise unrelated, and irrelevant, issues will only distract people so much. It is not, officially, India’s claim to take up the cause of the Baluchi people, and there is a reason for that. It would be excessively irresponsible and stupid, legally and diplomatically speaking. Therefore like your government, I don't consider the aspirations of Pakistan smallest ethnic group to be a legitimate issue of debate between us.
But you are not going to decide it for others. May be for yourself.

We can discuss what we want to. Being the smallest ethnicity doesn't take away their rights, does it? That is strange argument to say the least!

We raise the issue of Baloch to point out your hypocrisy in lecturing us about the "right of self determination". You better practice what you preach.

Their aspirations do matter, which is why the issue is a subject to much debate in parliament and the media. However, Baluchistan is part of Pakistan, therefore it is not for you decide what Baluchis want, how much of it they want, how many of them want it, how best it would be to address their wants, etc. You should focus on Kashmir instead, which is not even part of India, and is also a subject that pertains to the future of both Pakistan and India.
Well we are intersted in what goes on in our region and it may have a bearing on us. So to ask us to look the other way is not going to work.

May be you should stop focusing on Kashmir and things will be better for all of us.

If merely mentioning the fact that India has ethnic and religious issues is a ‘rant’. Then I wonder what you’ve been doing for the last couple of posts in regards to Pakistan.

Thanks.
My rant comment was not for that specific statement but you general accusations about everything being said here being rant.

Let's avoid denigrating other viewpoints and deal with them on merit. If you don't see merit, you can chose to ignore them.

Thanks.

Also would appreciate you opening a intro thread. Many of us know you, many may not.
 

Kasrkin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
21
Likes
1
Well it seems you want to decide the provocation and also want to decide how much we should respond to that. Doesn't work in the real world, sorry.
Hardly. Only point I made here is that just because India wishes to see it as sovereign territory doesn't make it.

Your continuous rants of "disputed territory" doesn't make it any less Indian territory irrespective of what you may proclaim from rooftops.
It is what it is. I didn't make that term up. The UN and a host of different international organizations consider it such, and so will I. If you wish to disregard my very relevant use of the term, you may do so, but it in no way can be considered a rant.

I can actually substantiate that very easily. It is already substantiated in your own forum with so many links and graphic evidences. Too bad if you choose to not look at it.
I've been through that thread. Which is why I felt confident enough to ask you for neutral sources, because I know there are none. 'Some' disgusting images of dead bodies does not 'prove' that a genocide of a whole race has taken place. Lets be professional about it and not substitute facts with cheap dramatics and third rate nationalist websites.

Just look up any issue of Guinness book genocide section.
In fact there are several neutral sources that call it the biggest genocide after WW-2. Bigger than Bosnia, bigger than Rwanda and bigger than Combodia. I can dig up sources for you if you really want.
So you keep saying. In this case it should be very easy for you to look it up. Please provide a link or reference to any internationally recognized or reasonably neutral source of information that records 'Operation Searchlight' as genocide. BTW I might remind you, that genocide is a very serious term with very grave connotations. It is only used in the most extreme and serious instances of ethnic cleansing. And has only been used very occasionally since WWII and these few cases have been handled very seriously in the international criminal court and other international forums. If you're using the term loosely, don't. I await your substantiation.

We can discuss what we want to. Being the smallest ethnicity doesn't take away their rights, does it? That is strange argument to say the least!
I never said it does, don't attack straw-men. I never made that argument. All I've said is that the Baluchis are still an ethnic group of Pakistan, even if they are the smallest.

We raise the issue of Baloch to point out your hypocrisy in lecturing us about the "right of self determination". You better practice what you preach.
No, in raising the issue you're being the hypocrite given that you're suppressing the will of a people who've never even been part of your country. These issues have no comparison, they represent completely different dimensions and realities. Talk about issues on their merit, even if it were true that most Balochis want to be rid of Pakistan, like most Kashmiris do India, it has no bearing on the rights and wrongs of the Indian occupation of Kashmir. IF Pakistan's control over Baluchistan was inherently wrong and illegal, which it is not, that still does not excuse India's disregard for the Kashmir issue, the Kashmiri people, international protocol, and the chances of peace between our two countries which is negated because of Kashmir. Two wrongs don't make a right. You're whole argument is inherently and fundamentally flawed, so I won't even bother entertaining it and explaining to you the endless differences.

If China was to invade an Indian province up north and annex it without the international community recognizing it, and Pakistan justifies the invasion by saying 'Indians should worry about the issues of Tamils down south before lecturing China about suppression', would that impress anyone? No. So instead of this rhetorical posturing, which basically comes down to 'who are you to tell us what is wrong', we should move beyond these childish, superficial, shallow and negative attitudes. If we sink to such a low denominator then the whole point of discussion becomes little more than bickering. Discuss the issue on its merit. If not, then I'll take myself somewhere else.

Well we are intersted in what goes on in our region and it may have a bearing on us. So to ask us to look the other way is not going to work.
You can only delude yourself for so long. If you think that Baluchistan has more bearing on you than the long lingering dispute of Kashmir, then what more can I say. Kashmir is a dispute which has already caused 3 bloody wars and probably gave birth to nuclear weapons in the region. It is not something that can be shoved under the carpet, neither can military or diplomatic muscle alone make it vanish. But you still want to talk about Baluchistan instead, why? Because it has a greater bearing on you and you can't afford to look the other way? Maybe you if muster the courage to look away, you'd see the bleeding wound in our region called Kashmir. That is where the healing will start, if India wants to truly heal relations that is.

May be you should stop focusing on Kashmir and things will be better for all of us.
If I, like you, try to ignore Kashmir then I know in the long term things will be worse for the both of us. Which is why I won't do so. I want Pakistan and India to have a future. The Kashmiri people deserve the chance to choose, a chance they were never given, and Pakistan and India need to respect that.

My rant comment was not for that specific statement but you general accusations about everything being said here being rant.
As you wish.

Let's avoid denigrating other viewpoints and deal with them on merit. If you don't see merit, you can chose to ignore them.
A very good piece of advise. I shall follow it from now on.

Thanks.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Balochistan – 60 Years Ago: the Twilight of Independence

Reasons for which the world community should be concerned with Balochistan: its great geo-strategic position between Iran, Central Asia, and India, its long coastland at the exit of the Ormuz straits, its role as regards a political containment of Iran, and its function as break waves against Islamic extremism.

These days, the mind of the multi-divided and tyrannized Balochs goes back to late March and early April 1948. It was at those days when through intimidation and compulsion the state of Kalat took an end, and Balochistan’s largest part became Pakistani territory.

Kalat was a historical state that had existed in the area of Balochistan for hundreds of years. It may have entered in agreement with the British (1876), but it never had the status of the Indian princely states.

It was repeatedly assumed, stated, and admitted that with the termination of the British colonialism, Kalat would become independent. It is noteworthy to remember the trickery that condemned the modern offspring of the Most Ancient and Noble Gedrosians to division, poverty, and underdevelopment.

We re-publish here integrally an illuminating article written by the Baloch intellectual Hussain Bux Thebo in the informative Baloch portal Baloch Voice (Balochvoice Historiacal Facts). It helps better understand the rightful Cause of the Baloch parties, fronts, organizations and associations, and the struggle of the entire Baloch people for Freedom, Independence, and Unity.

There are even more important reasons for which the world community should be concerned with Balochistan: its great geo-strategic position between Iran, Central Asia, and India, its long coastland at the exit of the Ormuz straits, its role as regards a political containment of Iran, and its function as break waves against Islamic extremism.

In addition, Balochistan’s rich natural resources would help create an islet of tolerance and wealth in the midst of a serious turmoil. We will analyze all this in a forthcoming article; for the time being, we can follow Hussain Bux Thebo’s narrative about the critical events that took place between March 27 and April 15, 1968.

The exact date of Kalat's occupation by Paki army in 1948

Kalat was an independent and sovereign state; its status was different from other princely states of British India, its relations with the British government was based on various mutual agreements and treaties. That Kalat is not an Indian state, its relations with India being of only a formal nature by virtue of Kalat's agreements with the British; with the ceasing of the Agreement of 1876 with the Kalat government, Kalat would regain its complete independence, as it existed prior to 1876. All such regions, including Quetta Municipality, were given under the control of the British in consequence of any treaty would be returned to the sovereignty of the Kalat state, and resume their original status as parts of the Kalat state.

On March 22, 1947, Lord Mountbatten, the last of the Viceroys of India, arrived in Delhi to wind up British supremacy in this part of the British dominions. The final partition plan of June 3, 1947 stated in respect of transfer of power in India. Mr. Jinnah wrote to the Khan of Kalat that since the position of the Kalat State was different from the other Indian States, representation on behalf of the state should be made directly to the Viceroy in Delhi to discuss the future position of Kalat and the return of Baloch regions hitherto under the control of the British Government. Accordingly, the Chief Secretary of Kalat State was sent to Delhi with a draft of the new position of Kalat as prepared by legal experts. This resulted in a round table conference, held on August 4, 1947, in which Lord Mountbatten, Mr. Jinnah, Mr. Liaqat Ali Khan, Chief Minister of Kalat, Sir Sultan Ahmed, the legal Advisor of Kalat State and the Khan of Kalat took part in the deliberations. The following points were agreed upon:

"Kalat State will be independent on August 5, 1947, enjoying the same status as it originally held in 1838, having friendly relations with its neighbours. In case the relations of Kalat with any future government got strained, Kalat will exercise its right of self-determination, and the British Government should take precautionary measures to help Kalat in the matter as per the Treaties of 1839 and 1841".

As a corollary to the round table conference at Delhi, another agreement was signed between Kalat and Pakistan on August 4, 1947. The points agreed upon were broadcast on August 11, 1947, as under:

"The Government of Pakistan agrees that Kalat is an independent state, being quite different in status from other states of India; and commits to its relations with the British Government as manifested in several agreements..... In the meantime, a Standstill Agreement will be made between Pakistan and Kalat by which Pakistan shall stand committed to all the responsibilities and agreements signed by Kalat and the British Government from 1839 to 1947 and by this,.... In order to discuss finally the relations between Kalat and Pakistan on matters of defense, foreign relations and deliberations will be held in the near future in Karachi".

A few weeks after the agreement, the Agent to the Governor-General informed the rulers of Kharan and Lasbela that the control of their regions had been transferred to the Kalat State. Hence they once again came under the direct influence of Kalat. The Marri and Bugti tribal region was also returned into the Kalat fold soon after. Thus the whole of Balochistan came under the suzerainty of the Khan of Kalat in the same confederacy of Baloch tribes that Nasir Khan I, in 1666-67, was able to create.

The Kalat government made a formal declaration of its independence on August 15, 1947, soon after the end of British supremacy, and a day after Pakistan's coming into being on the map of the subcontinent. Immediately, a delegation comprising the Kalat prime minister and foreign minister was sent to Karachi, the then capital of Pakistan, for discussions and an honorable settlement vis-a-vis relations with Pakistan in the light of the mutually endorsed Standstill Agreement of August 11, 1947.

To shock and grief of Khan of Kalat Mr. Jinnah coarsely persuaded the Khan to expedite the merger. The Khan replied, "I have great respect for your advice......but Balochistan, being a land of numerous tribes, the people there must be duly consulted in the matter prior to any decision I take; for, according to the prevalent tribal convention, no decision can be binding upon them unless they are taken into confidence beforehand by their Khan".

With this provisional agreement, the Khan returned to Kalat and promptly summoned the Kalat State Houses of Parliament, the Dar-ul-Awam and Dar-ul-Umra and proposed to the House to accord him a mandate on the matter of Kalat's merger with Pakistan. Both the Houses, however, contended unanimously that the proposal of Kalat's merger militated against the spirit of the earlier agreement arrived at between Kalat Government and the spokesmen of Pakistan on August 4, 1947, as also against the Independence Act of 1947.

This decision of Kalat's Parliament was forwarded to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Pakistan, for necessary processing. Shortly afterwards, the Mr. Jinnah visited Sibi and during his stay there insisted upon the Khan to sign the merger documents in his personal capacity. Finding reluctance in Khan Govt: Pakistan Cabinet under the leadership and instruction of Mr. Jinnah working on a scheme to breakup the 500-year old state. The nature of their scheme, as it turned out subsequently, was tantamount to a political castration of the Baloch people.

Illegally and in violation of 4th August 1947 round table conference declaration and agreement made by Mr. Jinnah on the very day with Khan, Stand Still Agreement and also Govt; of Pakistan's earlier decision, it had decided to punish and encircle Kalat and Baloch people cut off Kharan and Lasbela by giving them an equal status as Kalat and obtaining their "mergers" with Pakistan directly. Makran, which had been a part of the Kalat State for the last 300 years, was made independent of Kalat on March 17, 1948; and one of the three Sardars made its ruler.

Thus Makran, too, was made a part of Pakistan. These hasty, illogical, irrational and politically illegal and oppressive steps naturally disillusioned the Baloch people. They rightly felt that all their erstwhile services and sacrifices in the cause of Pakistan were now forgotten. So deep was their despair and frustration that several of them wanted to revolt. Meanwhile, the wave of hatred and animosity generated by the irrational policies of the Government of Pakistan against Kalat was fast gaining dangerous dimensions all over Balochistan. Feelings in the tribal areas particularly were running high against Pakistan and the Baloch people were calling the position of the Khan of Kalat himself into question.

Things were moving fast towards a show down. The Government of Pakistan instructed the Brigadier in Command at Quetta to go on full alert for action against Kalat state and the Agent to the Governor General began to prepare for police action. This was the situation as it stood in the first quarter of 1948 triggered by the illogical actions of the Pakistan.

Under duress Khan of Kalat signed the merger documents in his personal capacity on March 27, 1948, in an effort to diffuse the situation in Balochistan. In his autobiography, he admits that he did not have the mandate to sign the merger without the consent of the Houses of Parliament of Kalat State. A fortnight after the merger, on April 15, 1948, the Agent to the Governor General in Balochistan issued an order in the name of Mr. Jinnah, and the legal entity of the Khan of Kalat was abolished and within 20 hours of the order many of the members of the Balochistan Cabinet were arrested or exiled from Balochistan. Prince Abdul Karim's revolt and first Baloch armed struggle started in this back ground.

By Hussain Bux Thebo 30.3.07

Balochistan Annexed
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
499
Congratulations to Kaskrin, for successfully bringing 'Kashmir' into a thread that is dedicated to 'Pakistan', if thats what he intended to do.

BTW Kaskrin, your position is old. The newly released joint statement of Indo-Pak mentions Balochistan and not Kashmir. That makes discussing Balochistan more relavent than discussing an obsolete issue like Kashmir.
 

Global Defence

Articles

Top