Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789
Results 121 to 130 of 130

Thread: keran sector??

  1. #121
    Contributor cataphract's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Oct 12
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    648
    Quote Originally Posted by antimony View Post
    Captain,

    Yes, I understand all of this.

    Now tell me, should we not look at our own interest while trying to resolve our problems - energy, water etc.?

    First of all, there can be no dispute that terrorism needs to stop. In fact, I am in favour of military action each time some act of terrorism hapens, including cross border strikes by our side.

    Now to the issues

    1. Siachen : Pakistan bleeds more (in sustainability terms) than India. India bleeds less than she used to, especially with improved infrastructure on our side. Consequently, our stance has hardened. While previously we used to discuss withdrawal, now we are discussing delineation past NJ9842. I support holding onto this, till we can get some major level concession
    2. Water : no quarter, there is already IWT. We also had the ICA rule in our favour this spring. Things are going to get tighter for them, then we can talk. Though I favour a continuous process of dialogue
    3. Sir Creek : I am confused by the opposition to this. We are sitting on a bed of oil and gas that we refuse to let each other explore. India had proposed an equitable energy sharing arrangement way back in 2006 and has given signals about opening up a dialogue again on this one. Just to clarify this issue, we claim that the Creek should be divided in the middle, they claim the whole of it. So an equitable arrangement is actually in our favour, and would also benefit them. so again, why do we have opposition to this issue?
    4. Cross border trade: What exactly is being gained by opposition to this? Why would it be bad to buy their cement, in exchange for us sending them a bunch of our stuff? Why do we have to use Dubai as a mid point for trade between Bombay and Karachi. Can someone explain to me why that is a good thing, for us?
    5. Power sharing arrangements : Earlier this year there were talks about selling power to Pakistan. That stopped. How does that benefit us? We lose revenue as well as some amount of leverage
    6. Energy pipeline to get access to Central Asian and Iranian energy sources: As I have explained already, there is a lot to be gained from this, with appropriate systems in place.


    In fact, being the zionist Hindoo Baniya that I am, I propose we go even more and think of opening up a trade and commerce corridor linking Central Asia/ Iran right up to Bangladesh/ Myanmar. Both of our countries would be minting money and generating jobs just allowing the use of land for the transit.



    Captain, our side has already agreed to have a dialogue on many of these issues, including Siachen and Sir Creek.
    These are all the things India wants. What is India willing to give up to get them? Trading territory is political suicide. What else can Pakistan want from us, besides territory, be it Sir Creek or Kashmir?

  2. #122
    Senior Contributor antimony's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Feb 08
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    4,164
    Quote Originally Posted by cataphract View Post
    These are all the things India wants. What is India willing to give up to get them? Trading territory is political suicide. What else can Pakistan want from us, besides territory, be it Sir Creek or Kashmir?
    You are missing the point:

    Pakistan wants a change in the status quo, not India.

    India is perfectly happy with the status quo on all of these. Pakistan is the one running after us. That is why you see Miansaab being so nice, because he understands where his country is headed.

    1. Siachen : This is a cut for us, it is a gash for them. They need this resolved, not us
    2. Water and power : India has a better hand in this. We have already built a number of projects and have several lined up, while Pakistan is being torn by internal disagreements between their provinces


    See, all of these things are icing and cake for us, while it may soon become a daily bread issue for Pakistan. In conclusion, Pakistan eeds to play ball more than India does. So why not do a deal to our favour when we have the upper hand?

    Also, where exactly are we losing territory?

    If Siachen is delineated, then we gain. Pakistan loses the right to Siachen permanently, but they stop bleeding.
    If there is equitable energy sharing over Sir Creek, the we gain. Pakistan loses on their demand over the whole creek, but gets to enjoy the energy
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

  3. #123
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    5,861
    A year old article by Minhaz Merchant, giving an insight of what should be done.

    Make Pakistan pay

    There is a way to tackle Pakistan’s decades-long undeclared war on India. It needn’t involve hot pursuit or surgical strikes across the LoC that could escalate into a broader conflict.

    But it needn’t be the do-nothing-except-protest-officially approach the Indian government has adopted. There is a robust intermediate strategy available. Let’s break it down into several key steps.

    First, we must continue to talk to Pakistan and engage with both its government and military. But India must set the agenda for that dialogue.

    Action on the 26/11 trial in Pakistan is the first red marker. Four years after the Mumbai terror attack, we must set a timeframe for Pakistan to bring the perpetrators of that crime to book.

    What if Pakistan does not? Consequences will follow. What those consequences are is dealt with later in this article.

    Second, the brutal attack on the two Indian soldiers on Tuesday cannot go unpunished. India must present its evidence to the international community and seek sanctions against Pakistan if it does not put on trial and punish the men who killed and mutilated Lance Naik Hemraj and Lance Naik Sudhakar Singh in Jammu & Kashmir’s Mendhar sector.

    The attackers were clearly members of the black-uniformed Pakistan Special Services Group (SSG) backed by the 29 Baloch regiment. The reason for the attack given by Pakitani sources is “retaliation” for the death of a Pakistani soldier on Sunday following cross-firing across the LoC.

    If this is a justification for Tuesday’s brutal mutilation of two Indian soldiers, it must be dismissed with the contempt it deserves. The Geneva Convention sets clear rules for the conduct of war. What the Pakistani army engaged in was jihadism, not war.

    Third, future dialogue, visas, people-to-people contacts and trade must be made conditional to Pakistan satisfying the stipulations laid out in the points above.

    Pakistan is a serial offender. Its army, jihadis and mullahs form a troika sworn to enmity with India. Lower infiltration levels in the Kashmir Valley over the past two years are not due to a softening of this troika’s stand but because Pakistan’s military is pinned down fighting on its western border the terrorist-Frankenstein it created to destabliise India.

    Indian peaceniks say there is a peace constituency building among the middle-class in Pakistan. But scratch beneath the surface – including Pakistani “liberal” media and civil society – and apologia for quasi-jihadism rapidly emerges. The veneer is wafer-thin. Much of it is expedient pretence.

    Now the key question: what if Pakistan doesn’t play ball? What consequences can we impose on it? There are three.

    1. Diplomatic. We can downgrade Pakistan to consular status, allowing its embassy limited diplomatic functionality till Rawalpindi GHQ delivers on 26/11 and the other terrorist-criminal acts it has perpetrated on India.

    Pakistan posseses whatever international credibility it has by being associated with India. Downgrade that relationship and you downgrade Pakistan internationally. (Its relationship with the United States is merely that of a paid client-state.)

    2. Economic: As with diplomatic relations, Pakistan needs India. India doesn’t need Pakistan. Pakistan’s GDP is barely 12% of India’s and growing at less than 2% a year. India’s trade volume (the sum of its global exports and imports) is $800 billion and dwarfs Pakistan’s. Make trade ties conditional to Pakistan delivering on terrorism.

    3. Legal: India is unduly sensitive about “internationalising” its conflict with Pakistan. It should instead make it clear to the world that Pakistan’s repeated bluff about holding a plebiscite over Kashmir’s disputed status is just that – bluff.

    All 1948 UNSC resolutions Pakistan constantly refers to – and wilfully distorts – actually demand that Pakistan vacate PoK before a plebiscite can even be considered in the whole of Jammu & Kashmir.

    By taking Pakistan’s state terrorism to international fora India can legally shame-and-name a country globally accepted as the epicentre of terrorism – and make it pay damages and reparations. War crimes committed by Serb army generals and politicians in the Balkan conflicts of the 1990s have been tried and punishment handed out by an international war crimes tribunal in the Hague.

    All of this does not mean we reduce Pakistan to a pariah state – it has achieved that without outside help. We must continue to talk, to engage and to trade – but with conditionalities.

    You can’t change your neighbours. But you can change their behaviour. The United States has shown how to do it with Mexico’s drug mafia and Israel with its hostile Arab neighbours. So can India.

  4. #124
    A Self Important Senior Contributor troung's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    8,108
    Third, future dialogue, visas, people-to-people contacts and trade must be made conditional to Pakistan satisfying the stipulations laid out in the points above.
    They aren't going to end terrorism for visas to India.

    1. Diplomatic. We can downgrade Pakistan to consular status, allowing its embassy limited diplomatic functionality till Rawalpindi GHQ delivers on 26/11 and the other terrorist-criminal acts it has perpetrated on India.
    Impotent gesture.

    Pakistan posseses whatever international credibility it has by being associated with India.
    No it doesn't. It does so by being a diseased crack whore.

    2. Economic: As with diplomatic relations, Pakistan needs India. India doesn’t need Pakistan. Pakistan’s GDP is barely 12% of India’s and growing at less than 2% a year. India’s trade volume (the sum of its global exports and imports) is $800 billion and dwarfs Pakistan’s. Make trade ties conditional to Pakistan delivering on terrorism.
    Not going to bring them to their knees
    Trade with India won

    Bilateral trade has increased to $2.4 billion, which may soar to $6 billion in the next two years if both countries decide to treat each other equally. Currently, most of the trade between India and Pakistan takes place via Dubai and its volume is estimated at over $4 billion.
    Trade between India and Pakistan surges 21% to $2.4 billion – The Express Tribune
    He said bilateral trade volume between the two countries was $2 billion.
    3. Legal: India is unduly sensitive about “internationalising” its conflict with Pakistan. It should instead make it clear to the world that Pakistan’s repeated bluff about holding a plebiscite over Kashmir’s disputed status is just that – bluff.
    Is India going to withdraw most of its troops as called for in said toothless resolution?

    The United States has shown how to do it with Mexico’s drug mafia
    We sell the cartels guns and allow every Mexican who wishes to come here.

    =========
    Really unless India states "we will launch our entire army against you, regardless of the season or international pressure, the next time Pakistani backed/housed terrorists attack us" - they won't stop. Ergo learn to deal with them sending raiding parties and terrorists.
    Last edited by troung; 26 Oct 13, at 20:50.
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  5. #125
    Liberté, Unité, Egalité Senior Contributor Tronic's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Dec 04
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    3,997
    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    Is India going to withdraw most of its troops as called for in said toothless resolution?
    The UN resolution actually called for Pakistan to withdraw it's troops from erstwhile-J&K, as a precursor to the plebiscite, and the subsequent removal of Indian forces. Pakistan did not oblige, and the rest is history.
    Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
    -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

  6. #126
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Bandaid

    Join Date
    04 Oct 04
    Location
    India
    Posts
    5,001
    Quote Originally Posted by antimony View Post
    Now to the issues

    1. Siachen : Pakistan bleeds more (in sustainability terms) than India. India bleeds less than she used to, especially with improved infrastructure on our side. Consequently, our stance has hardened. While previously we used to discuss withdrawal, now we are discussing delineation past NJ9842. I support holding onto this, till we can get some major level concession
    1. You will get no agreement from them on this issue.

    2. Water : no quarter, there is already IWT. We also had the ICA rule in our favour this spring. Things are going to get tighter for them, then we can talk. Though I favour a continuous process of dialogue
    We have an agreement with them and we have abided by it and not diverted the water flow from J&K. They want to dictate terms on building run-of-the-river power projects, that is not acceptable.

  7. Sir Creek : I am confused by the opposition to this. We are sitting on a bed of oil and gas that we refuse to let each other explore. India had proposed an equitable energy sharing arrangement way back in 2006 and has given signals about opening up a dialogue again on this one. Just to clarify this issue, we claim that the Creek should be divided in the middle, they claim the whole of it. So an equitable arrangement is actually in our favour, and would also benefit them. so again, why do we have opposition to this issue?

  • We say share it equally, and Pakistan does not want to share it. Once each nation agrees a little give and take the issue will be solved. Pakistan wants to take, but not give.

    Cross border trade: What exactly is being gained by opposition to this? Why would it be bad to buy their cement, in exchange for us sending them a bunch of our stuff? Why do we have to use Dubai as a mid point for trade between Bombay and Karachi. Can someone explain to me why that is a good thing, for us?
    India will the biggest market for Pak made goods and good for them, but till the Pak military and civil govt stop the killing, hatred, animosity, they can be no wholesome trade.

  • Power sharing arrangements : Earlier this year there were talks about selling power to Pakistan. That stopped. How does that benefit us? We lose revenue as well as some amount of leverage Once the rabid hatred stops, trade will start.

  • Energy pipeline to get access to Central Asian and Iranian energy sources: As I have explained already, there is a lot to be gained from this, with appropriate systems in place.
  • Agreed, but we have to destroy the fountain head of terrorism first.

    In fact, being the zionist Hindoo Baniya that I am, I propose we go even more and think of opening up a trade and commerce corridor linking Central Asia/ Iran right up to Bangladesh/ Myanmar. Both of our countries would be minting money and generating jobs just allowing the use of land for the transit.
    This is an alien concept to the Pakistanis jihadi-military machine.

    Captain, our side has already agreed to have a dialogue on many of these issues, including Siachen and Sir Creek.
    That was done to see what can be achieved - the result is nothing. Pakistanis want but don't want to give back.

    Cheers!...on the rocks!!

  • #127
    Senior Contributor anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Sep 12
    Location
    Mumbai
    Posts
    781
    test..

  • #128
    Senior Contributor Agnostic Muslim's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Dec 07
    Location
    Michigan/Lahore
    Posts
    2,459
    Here is yet another Indian media report quoting 'anonymous Indian government officials' (judgements on the veracity of the article, given the use of anonymous sources, are up to the reader) casting doubt on the Indian Army's version of events regarding alleged 'infiltration bids and ceasefire violations by the Pakistani Army'. The point behind posting these reports is to highlight the fact that the Indian military (or elements within the Indian military) is itself involved in manipulating Indian public and political opinion and undermining the peace process between India and Pakistan.

    Government refuses Army’s claim of infiltration bid in Keran

    NEW DELHI: Amid questions over what happened during the long intrusion by infiltrators from Pakistan in Keran sector, Government has refused to accept claims of Army, saying there was no evidence on ground to suggest any infiltration bid.

    At a high-level security meeting here recently, it was also felt that Army should fortify the "reception area" to trap militants who escape from the anti-infiltration grid-- which extends 4 to 5 km on the Indian side from the Line of Control(LoC)-- after they cross over, official sources said today.

    The "reception area" is usually located at a place five km from the LoC which is set up by the Army to neutralise all those militants who manage to give a slip to troops at the border.

    The meeting was of the view that the veracity of the much talked about infiltration bid from Pakistan, believed to be from its special forces, from Shalabhatu, a village split between Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir, was in doubt as evidence for the same was not available with any other agency., the sources said. Shalabatu village was one of the much used infiltration route in early 1990s.

    The meeting, in which a representative of Army had also participated, also took into account the technical intelligence which apparently did not back up any claims made by the Army, the sources said.

    The Army has already rejected all doubts expressed over the Keran operation and asserted that the troops on the ground were dominating the LoC and regularly approaching their own posts all the time. The Keran operation was called off nearly two weeks after it began in the last week of August.

    During the security meeting, J and K police again highlighted the point that there were two major infiltration bids in other areas -- Gujjar Dor and Fateh Gali-- and not in Keran.

    Army claimed in its FIR with state police that three militants were killed but handed over only two bodies, saying that the third could not be retrieved as it was lying on the LoC.

    This prompted the state police to launch an investigation and shared its report at the meeting in which it said that on the intervening night of 4-5 October this year, a group of nine militants entered from Athmuqam side in PoK out of whom two were killed and seven others had managed to enter.

    In the second incident, the Army in its FIR had said that four militants entered and were killed in Fatehgali, a place 30 km from the Keran area.

    However, police said that during the incident, five militants had already managed to enter, the sources said.

    Army's claims about the Keran infiltration bid had come under scrutiny as it had claimed that nearly 30 militants had entered and had been encircled.

    However, troops could not trace any militant or ammunition or tell tale signs of infiltration in the Shalabatu village of Keran, official sources said.

    "Terrorists initially made a desperate infiltration bid in Shalabatu area, which was foiled by own troops. The survivors attempted to infiltrate from multiple points in adjacent areas in the same sector, like Gujjar Dor and Fatehgali, where they were engaged and eliminated," Army had said in a statement.
    Government refuses Army's claim of infiltration bid in Keran - The Economic Times
    Last edited by Agnostic Muslim; 13 Nov 13, at 20:48.
    Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
    https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

  • #129
    Regular SajeevJino's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Mar 13
    Location
    Chennai,TN
    Posts
    109
    Here is yet another Indian media report quoting 'anonymous Indian government officials' (judgements on the veracity of the article, given the use of anonymous sources, are up to the reader) casting doubt on the Indian Army's version of events regarding alleged 'infiltration bids and ceasefire violations by the Pakistani Army'. The point behind posting these reports is to highlight the fact that the Indian military (or elements within the Indian military) is itself involved in manipulating Indian public and political opinion and undermining the peace process between India and Pakistan.
    My point is I can't believe what you said or your govt said nor my Govt Said ..but i will openly accept what the armed Peoples said .They are saving our life from Pakistani Pigs .. Not you your media and not my govt


    It's Clear I saw in Times Now Television Channel they Broadcasting a Short Clip got from the Army's Camera " There are 4 to five Peoples armed with ak 47 and slowly breaching our Borders ..and Tomorrows News IA send some Pigs into hell to enjoy the 72 dating services ..on DFI there is a IA major Clearly debunked the Infiltrators are all Pakistani Special forces

    and even here everyone knows who was the Infiltrator .. But some Pakistani's only saying they are all Aliens we don't know

  • #130
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Bandaid

    Join Date
    04 Oct 04
    Location
    India
    Posts
    5,001
    At a high-level security meeting here recently, it was also felt that Army should fortify the "reception area" to trap militants who escape from the anti-infiltration grid-- which extends 4 to 5 km on the Indian side from the Line of Control(LoC)-- after they cross over, official sources said today.

    The "reception area" is usually located at a place five km from the LoC which is set up by the Army to neutralise all those militants who manage to give a slip to troops at the border.
    This paragraph by the reporter speaks of incorrect information and wrong terminology.
    I shall not reveal the proper terms or the correct details, but the forum memebrs can rest be assured that the above para is crap.

    Cheers!...on the rocks!!

  • Thread Information

    Users Browsing this Thread

    There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

    Similar Threads

    1. Private sector job creation not as bad as advertised?
      By Roosveltrepub in forum American Politics & Economy
      Replies: 77
      Last Post: 12 Sep 11,, 23:14
    2. Sask. public sector strike
      By Ironduke in forum International Politics
      Replies: 0
      Last Post: 08 Jan 07,, 04:23
    3. Pak Telecom sector share in FDI to go up 4-fold in 2005-06
      By Asim Aquil in forum International Politics
      Replies: 0
      Last Post: 21 Jul 05,, 14:58
    4. The demise of the US IT sector
      By IITeur in forum Science & Technology
      Replies: 21
      Last Post: 04 Apr 05,, 10:59
    5. US service sector optimism soars
      By Gio in forum International Economy
      Replies: 5
      Last Post: 06 Apr 04,, 06:12

    Tags for this Thread

    Share this thread with friends:

    Share this thread with friends:

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •