Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 80

Thread: Stone pelting a conspiracy by Pakistan and its agents in Kashmir

  1. #61
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Land of the One Horned Rhino
    Posts
    2,794
    India, Pakistan DGMOs Agree to Fully Implement 2003 Ceasefire Pact

    Initiated by the Paks. Not buying it, and India should not have agreed to it.

  2. #62
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Land of the One Horned Rhino
    Posts
    2,794
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Another thought i've had about this is that we've not really changed our policy towards Pakistan about Kashmir since the 90s. So there isn't much for the US to do

    That is to say if we do change our policy, say become more aggressive towards Pakistan that the Americans could change their stance. What i'm saying is just because they don't say anything these days doesn't mean we have carte blanche to do whatever. If we get attacked that is one thing but lets say we decide to become more unilateral i doubt that would go down well

    https://youtu.be/nP3DOqhn4ak

    If you listen from 5min mark, she asks Dulat about a tit for tat policy and he thinks that isn't a good idea. If you employ terrorists to kill other terrorists say. This is from a previous book he wrote on Kashmir back in 2015

    The other point that was mentioned in that talk was if we up the stakes then it becomes a no holds barred contest, in other words our restrained reactions, very carefully calibrated act as a brake on how high or far the Paks can vertically escalate in response. This runs counter to what the Army chief said earlier. That if we escalate they would find it harder to counter because our force is more superior.

    Well, then why aren't we becoming more unilateral, could be Delhi still doesn't want to go down that route and prefers the same route we've been on since the 90s. Like most pols they are risk averse. The PA is not and can be more adventurous

    Surgical strikes and operation all out aren't very large departures from existing policy. They are meaningful but still limited.
    Yes, US can only mediate if both India and Pak agrees to mediation. The Shimla Agreement cut off any meaningful mediation by a 3rd party, hence the word bilateral. Also, note how, even China says it's a bilateral dispute, in tone with what the US has been saying.

    If you look back into policy making, when Sharif was in US (Kargil, 1999) to save the Pak Army's ass, he tried to extract whatever mileage he could from President Clinton to save his political career, to which President Clinton told Sharif that the world cannot be subjected to nuclear blackmail and that the Pak Army must withdraw its troops. It was a de-facto recognition from the US President that the sanctity of LoC must be maintained. This Kargil misadventure is costing Pak to this day, and will cost them in the future.

    From Kargil to Coup confirms that the civilian leadership was never taken into confidence on the operation, leave aside getting its approval that is legally required. It was in May 1999, almost six months after the start of the operation, that the then prime minister Nawaz Sharif and the Defence Committee of the Cabinet was given a full briefing by the military leadership about it. By then, the incursion had already become known. “This was near identical replay of the operation Gibraltar with the only difference that in Kargil the civilian and military leadership were not on the same page,” the book points out. Operation Gibraltar was the code name for the incursion into Kashmir that led to the 1965 war.

    The Kargil operation, code-named operation Koh-e-Paima, was launched a year after both India and Pakistan conducted nuclear tests that made them nuclear weapon states. The secret operation led by the then army chief General Pervez Musharraf was based on the assumption that the control of strategic peaks overlooking the main highway that worked as a supply line to the Indian forces in Siachen could force New Delhi to come to the negotiating table.
    COURTESY-Facts and fiction

    Before Kargil, US stance towards India was not that positive, but after 1999, US has refused to toe the Pak line altogether. Pak almost every week complains to visiting US delegations about Indian firing across the LoC and the IB, as also to the UN. Who listens? Only the meaningless ghosts of Jinnah, Zia, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto do.

    Agree with you that we don't have a carte blanche to do whatever. But I don't think the US will press India with utmost sincerity if limited strikes come into play. Kargil 1999, Parliament attacks 2001, Mumbai 2008 - it was US which saved Pak. The biggest headache for US planners was how to get Americans out of India (estimates are, at any point of time, there are a million plus Americans in India), being totally unsure of the Indian governments move. Indian restraint has been highly commended too. But that tone has been changing. Many believe it would be impossible for the US to stop India if another Mumbai happens. One 9/11, and US turned Afghanistan into a graveyard. As a sovereign nation, we can attack if, like always, shit happens, and is then traced back to Pak. Actually in all of the above attacks it was US intelligence that helped Indian intelligence to track and expose the Paks.

    Another thing that flies off under the radar is the nukes of Pak. When OBL was killed in a stealth op, the first thing that Gen Kayani (then COAS) thought was that the US came for Paks nukes. Has nukes made Pak safer? Or respected? Or stronger? Nopes. GHQ Abduls haven't been able to figure this (nation-building) out.

    Don't agree with Dulat on tit for tat policy. He is a spook, shouldn't comment on military matters, and that too after retirement. What is wrong with some of these ex-government people. It's fine if India is not employing the Balochis or the Pushtuns to hit back at the Pak Army (I'd actually ask for it), but escalation across the borders suits us fine. For every LMG fire, light up the Pak side of the border with MBRL and artillery. The idea is not to give the PA breathing space, which is why I don't like a bit of the current move to go back to 2004 levels of ceasefire, that too on Paks request.

    What I think is Indian policy makers still haven't figured out a way to fight a war under a nuclear overhang. They aren't that confident, and is prime reason why shoring up the economy makes more sense. Have mollah, good, buy those shiny toys from America and Russia and prop up the conventional strength. The military is confident of calling Paks nuclear bluff, but this ain't the 80s and Gen Sundarji is no more. Ultimately we also have to remember that Pak is a bug we can crush any time. Our main threat is China.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    If only mushraf can take credit for trying then its even more justifiable that we looked out for his well being. What if he was taken out, this would have been in the early 2000s, we would have been saying he might have changed the way things are.
    Musharraf is still alive, and foreign policy is not made on hope. You're seeing the results today.

  3. #63
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Yes, US can only mediate if both India and Pak agrees to mediation. The Shimla Agreement cut off any meaningful mediation by a 3rd party, hence the word bilateral. Also, note how, even China says it's a bilateral dispute, in tone with what the US has been saying.

    If you look back into policy making, when Sharif was in US (Kargil, 1999) to save the Pak Army's ass, he tried to extract whatever mileage he could from President Clinton to save his political career, to which President Clinton told Sharif that the world cannot be subjected to nuclear blackmail and that the Pak Army must withdraw its troops. It was a de-facto recognition from the US President that the sanctity of LoC must be maintained. This Kargil misadventure is costing Pak to this day, and will cost them in the future.
    As far as Sharif and Kargil goes, i believe he had an idea about it but not a veto. He certainly would want to take credit for it had it been successful

    This article only confirms how the military is more likely to take steps that risk averse pols would not. Which is why its always the Paks that appear to have the initiative wheres we always appear to be on the backfoot.

    An interesting aside about the '65 war is Indonesia threatened to encircle the Andamans & Nicobar in solidarity with the Paks. Just 90 nautical miles separates us. Today Indonesia wants to be our friend. PM is over there now.

    Before Kargil, US stance towards India was not that positive, but after 1999, US has refused to toe the Pak line altogether. Pak almost every week complains to visiting US delegations about Indian firing across the LoC and the IB, as also to the UN. Who listens? Only the meaningless ghosts of Jinnah, Zia, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto do.
    My deduction on the lack of US & Chinese involvement in Kargil is we intimated both that we would not cross the LoC. That lowers temperatures greatly. Now the US & China do not come to help the Paks, thereby depriving them of any support and leaving them alone to face us and the conflict reached its logical conclusion. I always wondered why Vajpayee was so adamant not to cross the LoC

    Agree with you that we don't have a carte blanche to do whatever. But I don't think the US will press India with utmost sincerity if limited strikes come into play. Kargil 1999, Parliament attacks 2001, Mumbai 2008 - it was US which saved Pak.
    Key factor is whether we change the status quo, otherwise we're in the clear. Given we are a status quo power and a real stickler i doubt there is cause for concern with others. Limited strikes are just that, limited.

    The thing that gets me is i'm unaware of any concerted effort to get POk back by force. All we do is protest and mention law. Musharaf's plan was to make the Loc the IB iow, give up Pok for good. A ratification of the status quo by Pakistan

    The biggest headache for US planners was how to get Americans out of India (estimates are, at any point of time, there are a million plus Americans in India), being totally unsure of the Indian governments move. Indian restraint has been highly commended too.
    You don't think we have more of our own over there at any point in time than Americans in India ?

    But that tone has been changing. Many believe it would be impossible for the US to stop India if another Mumbai happens. One 9/11, and US turned Afghanistan into a graveyard. As a sovereign nation, we can attack if, like always, shit happens, and is then traced back to Pak. Actually in all of the above attacks it was US intelligence that helped Indian intelligence to track and expose the Paks.
    Then american intelligence will be critical in preventing another 26/11

    Another thing that flies off under the radar is the nukes of Pak. When OBL was killed in a stealth op, the first thing that Gen Kayani (then COAS) thought was that the US came for Paks nukes. Has nukes made Pak safer? Or respected? Or stronger? Nopes. GHQ Abduls haven't been able to figure this (nation-building) out.
    If you believe in the concept of deterrence then nukes have made wars of the past unlikely and this is precisely why those GHQ Abduls as you put it have grown complacent.

    Don't agree with Dulat on tit for tat policy. He is a spook, shouldn't comment on military matters, and that too after retirement. What is wrong with some of these ex-government people. It's fine if India is not employing the Balochis or the Pushtuns to hit back at the Pak Army (I'd actually ask for it), but escalation across the borders suits us fine. For every LMG fire, light up the Pak side of the border with MBRL and artillery.
    I suppose Dulat is talking about a time in the past when views were different. The political atmosphere then was more accomodating.

    The idea is not to give the PA breathing space, which is why I don't like a bit of the current move to go back to 2004 levels of ceasefire, that too on Paks request.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUsEYMiizxA

    People agree but this program doesn't explain what and why made us agree to this recent cease fire ?

    Why this flip flop ? humanitarian reasons ?

    The general says, the dilemma is if you talk there is terror, if you don't talk then the terrorists are winning and they are controlled by the army anyway.

    Our firing was definitely hitting them harder. How long this cease fire holds depends on the other side

    What I think is Indian policy makers still haven't figured out a way to fight a war under a nuclear overhang. They aren't that confident, and is prime reason why shoring up the economy makes more sense. Have mollah, good, buy those shiny toys from America and Russia and prop up the conventional strength. The military is confident of calling Paks nuclear bluff, but this ain't the 80s and Gen Sundarji is no more. Ultimately we also have to remember that Pak is a bug we can crush any time. Our main threat is China.
    So we're back to risk averse pols then ? or you have the Pak equivalent of generals who pull off a kargil and then silence anything or person who talks about it

    Musharraf is still alive, and foreign policy is not made on hope. You're seeing the results today.
    Dulat was referring to the early 2000s, surely you see the point of warning Musharaf of an imminent JeM attack on his life
    Last edited by Double Edge; 31 May 18, at 07:34.

  4. #64
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,224
    A new development

    India protests Pakistan’s Gilgit-Baltistan order | Hindu | May 27 2018

    “It was clearly conveyed that the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir which also includes the so-called ‘Gilgit-Baltistan’ areas is an integral part of India by virtue of its accession in 1947. Any action to alter the status of any part of the territory under forcible and illegal occupation of Pakistan has no legal basis whatsoever, and is completely unacceptable,” the official press release said.
    They want to make GB the fifth province of Pakistan


    India’s sharp response coincided with the Afghan government’s rejection of the Pakistan National Assembly’s merger of FATA and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa during the weekend.
    Afghans too it seems
    Last edited by Double Edge; 31 May 18, at 07:38.

  5. #65
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Land of the One Horned Rhino
    Posts
    2,794
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    As far as Sharif and Kargil goes, i believe he had an idea about it but not a veto. He certainly would want to take credit for it had it been successful
    After Kargil and being kicked out of power, Sharif did an interview with NDTV. He said he wasn't consulted, nor did he know. Since lying is the favourite hobby of Paks, I take it with a truckload of salt. So, basically agree with you on that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    This article only confirms how the military is more likely to take steps that risk averse pols would not. Which is why its always the Paks that appear to have the initiative wheres we always appear to be on the backfoot.

    An interesting aside about the '65 war is Indonesia threatened to encircle the Andamans & Nicobar in solidarity with the Paks. Just 90 nautical miles separates us. Today Indonesia wants to be our friend. PM is over there now.
    Didn't know about the ummah chummah Indonesia part of 65. India was nursing its wounds that time after the defeat of 62. Having said so, Indonesia couldn't have been a threat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    My deduction on the lack of US & Chinese involvement in Kargil is we intimated both that we would not cross the LoC. That lowers temperatures greatly. Now the US & China do not come to help the Paks, thereby depriving them of any support and leaving them alone to face us and the conflict reached its logical conclusion. I always wondered why Vajpayee was so adamant not to cross the LoC
    You're missing the point. Clinton admonished Sharif saying Pak was at fault, and that the PA has to withdraw its troops. China followed US tone. Before that the diplomats in India and Pak would have made their moves through diplomatic letters reminding the US State Dept of an impending nuclear crisis, if the issue is not solved. Meanwhile US satellites picked up the locations of the PA inside Indian territory. Urging restraint (diplomatically), the US probably asked for the crisis to be handled with maturity, and Vajpayee told them that Indian troops would not cross the border.

    The thing is PA were inside Indian territory, so we were free to bomb those. But crossing the IB or LoC would have started a war that the Paks would not have been able to manage, and an unnecessary conflagration of sorts. Bigger headache for the US. Kudos for Vajpayee. And as I said, after Kargil, US saw maturity vis-a-vis the political environment in India and Pak, and continue to support India.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Key factor is whether we change the status quo, otherwise we're in the clear. Given we are a status quo power and a real stickler i doubt there is cause for concern with others. Limited strikes are just that, limited.

    The thing that gets me is i'm unaware of any concerted effort to get POk back by force. All we do is protest and mention law. Musharaf's plan was to make the Loc the IB iow, give up Pok for good. A ratification of the status quo by Pakistan
    There's no need to change the status-quo as of now. Let's things run its natural course. Limited strikes can cause destruction too. The least, if we use the AF with full power, is PoK becomes kind of a wasteland. But the government is reluctant even in the face of overwhelming evidence, being corroborated by the US. This to me is thinking about the economic prospects of the country.

    1987 was the year to take PoK by force. And Musharraf's plan is dead.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    You don't think we have more of our own over there at any point in time than Americans in India ?
    It's not about Indians in US. US was not at war then. India was, and it was the State Dept which was more concerned about Americans in India. Even if they tried to rush Americans from India to the US, it could not have been entirely possible. The State Dept was aware of that. I got to know this from leaked Wikileaks cables that I read some years back.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Then american intelligence will be critical in preventing another 26/11
    They just averted an attack on nuke installations and navy bases.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    If you believe in the concept of deterrence then nukes have made wars of the past unlikely and this is precisely why those GHQ Abduls as you put it have grown complacent.
    Deterrence is between equals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    I suppose Dulat is talking about a time in the past when views were different. The political atmosphere then was more accomodating.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUsEYMiizxA

    People agree but this program doesn't explain what and why made us agree to this recent cease fire ?

    Why this flip flop ? humanitarian reasons ?

    The general says, the dilemma is if you talk there is terror, if you don't talk then the terrorists are winning and they are controlled by the army anyway.

    Our firing was definitely hitting them harder. How long this cease fire holds depends on the other side
    If India doesn't talk, how do terrorists win? And if India talks, then terrorists lose? We fall every time for the Pindi narrative. Fools.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    So we're back to risk averse pols then ? or you have the Pak equivalent of generals who pull off a kargil and then silence anything or person who talks about it
    Not back to. India has been on it for decades.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Dulat was referring to the early 2000s, surely you see the point of warning Musharaf of an imminent JeM attack on his life
    I see it my friend. I just don't see anything coming from the Paks, until the Generals rule that country, covertly or overtly. And until that time, let guns do the talking at the border.

    I also think, the US State Dept has nudged India a little to go for talks, see if that can accomplish anything.

  6. #66
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Before Kargil, US stance towards India was not that positive, but after 1999, US has refused to toe the Pak line altogether. Pak almost every week complains to visiting US delegations about Indian firing across the LoC and the IB, as also to the UN. Who listens? Only the meaningless ghosts of Jinnah, Zia, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto do.
    What is responsible for this change in US attitude ?

    Cold war is over for close to a decade. The Paks are suddenly less important. Same goes for China.

    India opening up and they see a huge market potential.

    It may be also by this time the US realises that China is going to be a potential rival.

    Shortly after this time we hear talk of natural partners

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    I also think, the US State Dept has nudged India a little to go for talks, see if that can accomplish anything.
    Why do you say State dept ? Has anyone come over recently.

    But see who Modi has been hanging out with lately. That really is the appropriate term since it isn't formal

    Xi & Putin

    I too sense there has been some external encouragement here
    Last edited by Double Edge; 31 May 18, at 22:49.

  7. #67
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Land of the One Horned Rhino
    Posts
    2,794
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    What is responsible for this change in US attitude ?

    Cold war is over for close to a decade. The Paks are suddenly less important. Same goes for China.

    India opening up and they see a huge market potential.

    It may be also by this time the US realises that China is going to be a potential rival.

    Shortly after this time we hear talk of natural partners
    Big market and all, China - yeah. But US is in for a big disappointment if they think India is a natural partner. India's foreign policy is independent irrespective of who holds the stick, and we extract the maximum from almost every country.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Why do you say State dept ? Has anyone come over recently.

    But see who Modi has been hanging out with lately. That really is the appropriate term since it isn't formal

    Xi & Putin

    I too sense there has been some external encouragement here
    There are visiting delegations all the time. But it could be Xi and Modi's recent meeting at Wuhan. China needs a stable environment for CPEC.

  8. #68

  9. #69
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Land of the One Horned Rhino
    Posts
    2,794

  10. #70
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,224
    Strange. Why ask for it only to renege a few days later. I wonder if the unrest recently had something to do with it as a show of solidarity.

    Two or three stone pelters got run over by police vehicles.

  11. #71
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Land of the One Horned Rhino
    Posts
    2,794
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Strange. Why ask for it only to renege a few days later. I wonder if the unrest recently had something to do with it as a show of solidarity.

    Two or three stone pelters got run over by police vehicles.
    An assessment by BSF suggests that while Pakistani forces failed to maintain ceasefire despite a commitment made on May 29, a particular Commander of Pak Rangers is not listening to his seniors and has probably participated with non-state actors in the firing, sniping of jawans and shelling last three-four days, said an official.
    Will retaliate when provoked, BSF tells Pak Rangers at flag meeting

  12. #72
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,224
    Ah yes, not everybody got the memo
    Last edited by Double Edge; 04 Jun 18, at 23:28.

  13. #73
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Land of the One Horned Rhino
    Posts
    2,794
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Ah yes, not everybody got the memo
    Had it been the Indian military, the guy would have got the boot, and got thrown in a cell for the foreseeable future.

  14. #74

  15. #75
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Land of the One Horned Rhino
    Posts
    2,794

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 9 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 9 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. India and Pakistan in Kashmir border skirmish
    By Mohan in forum Central and South Asia
    Replies: 312
    Last Post: 02 May 13,, 13:15
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 20 Sep 10,, 13:21
  3. Levitating stone !!!
    By sun in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 30 Dec 08,, 07:55
  4. Indian Kashmir 'more free' than all of Pakistan: report
    By Archer in forum International Politics
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01 Feb 07,, 03:27

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
  •