Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No more break ups please!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    No more break ups please!

    Whenever breakups occur, you invite a colonisation, at least historically speaking. If India breaks up, China, Russia or a western US MNC consortium can easily colonise gradually and without malicious intent. Same holds for Pakistan breaking up.

    So if Indians and Pakistanis are desirous of not losing tradition, culture and raw materials should work to keep unity, if not between India and PAkistan, atleast within India and Pakistan.

    I say unity between India and Pakistan not in any 'unpartition' way but in the economic fates way. Both of us spending significant amounts if GDP in neutralising each others' imported weaponry. This makes the US defence contractor stocks go up, which I appreciate as a stock holder there but I'd rather my health care and leisure care and manufacturing stocks go up rather than defence stock.

    Kashmir is great but not worth the price both countries have paid and seem ready to pay.

    If either India or Pakistan break up, the status of the nukes (the bombs are well accounted for, it is the corallary material, spent reactor fuel etc.) can become undeterminate and cause world wide problems.


    #2
    Who's talking of India's breakup?

    PS: Kashmir is not part of India.

    Comment


      #3
      Do not come back with a 'freedom of speech' argument.

      [This message has been edited by Akif (edited June 23, 2002).]

      Comment


        #4
        Not much space here for bigotry.
        So either fix up your posts, or dont post at all.

        [This message has been edited by Akif (edited June 23, 2002).]

        Comment


          #5
          Im all for better relations with India... As long as they respect us and our nations integrity...

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Adnan Ahmed:
            Im all for better relations with India... As long as they respect us and our nations integrity...
            Oh we absolutely do!!! It is Pakistan that doesn't seem to respect International norms much.

            Something has to be worked out for Kashmir, that is for sure.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Adnan Ahmed:
              Im all for better relations with India... As long as they respect us and our nations integrity...
              Let Indian Hindu and Indian Muslim and Indian Kashmiri people live peacefully together and don't try to destroy the communal harmony between them. We will be definitely comming forward for a better relation with Pakistan.



              [This message has been edited by Bijay (edited June 24, 2002).]

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Bijay:
                Let Indian Hindu and Indian Muslim and Indian Kashmiri people live peacefully together and don't try to destroy the communal harmony between them. We will be definitely comming forward for a better relation with Pakistan.
                [This message has been edited by Bijay (edited June 24, 2002).]



                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Bijay:
                  Let Indian Hindu and Indian Muslim and Indian Kashmiri people live peacefully together and don't try to destroy the communal harmony between them.
                  I'm extremely sorry. Since, when ISI/Pakistan started giving their Moral and Diplomatic support to RSS/VHP/Shiv Shena?



                  In regard to KASHMIR, it's not the part of India. It is a dispute region.

                  TAKE YOUR BEST SHOT AT ME



                  [This message has been edited by Pakistani Tiger (edited June 24, 2002).]

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Nagarjuna:
                    Oh we absolutely do!!! It is Pakistan that doesn't seem to respect International norms much.
                    Oh really as India always respect International norms by not allowing U.N observers in the IOK. What's stopping you that?

                    Something has to be worked out for Kashmir, that is for sure.
                    ...not until India shows her ugly head

                    TAKE YOUR BEST SHOT AT ME

                    Comment


                      #11
                      http://www.dawn.com/2002/06/24/top1.htm

                      LoC not acceptable as border: Musharraf

                      WASHINGTON, June 23: President Gen Pervez Musharraf has said Islamabad will not accept the Line of Control dividing Kashmir between Pakistan and India as the international border.

                      In an interview with the Washington Post which appeared in Sunday's issue, the president said accepting the LoC as a border or granting some sort of autonomy to Kashmir would not solve the problem. "If the Line of Control were the border, what have we fought two wars for?" he asked.

                      President Musharraf also said that Pakistan might boost its military capabilities, citing increases by India in defence spending. "If they tilt the conventional balance, we shall have to restore it."

                      President Musharraf said the United States was the only country which could persuade India to start a dialogue as "bilateralism has not worked."

                      To a question, President Musharraf said that after October elections he would retain the authority to dismiss the government if it was found that power was abused.

                      The following are the excerpts of the interview:

                      Q: Did you tell US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage that you would stop cross-border terrorism and shut down the training camps that exist in Azad Kashmir and in Pakistan itself?

                      A: First of all, I don't call it cross-border terrorism. There is a freedom struggle going on in Kashmir. What I said is that there is no movement across the Line of Control. There was no talk of anything else. I have made clear that a response is required from the Indian side....

                      Q: US and Indian officials say that the number of terrorist infiltrations from Pakistan into Occupied Kashmir has decreased.

                      A: I have told President Bush nothing is happening across the Line of Control. This is the assurance I've given. I'm not going to give you an assurance that for years nothing will happen. We must address the root-cause, the cause of Kashmir. If you want a guarantee of peace, there are three ways: 1) denuclearize South Asia; 2) ensure a conventional deterrence so that war never takes place in the sub-continent; 3) find a solution to the Kashmir problem.

                      Q: So you are going to build up your conventional defences?

                      A: We should. Our army is deterrence enough at the moment. But the Indians are increasing their defence budget, having contracted for billions of dollars of purchases from Russia and the West. If they tilt the conventional balance, we shall have to restore it.

                      Q: How close did you come to a war with India recently?

                      A: It was very close. India and Pakistan both had moved their forces to the border. Therefore, the capability of adventurism was there. As far as Pakistan was concerned, we said we would not initiate a war, but if attacked, we will defend offensively.

                      Q: Do you think that some kind of autonomy is a solution for Kashmir or accepting the Line of Control as a border?

                      A: That is just not possible. If the Line of Control were the border, what have we fought two wars for?

                      Q: Is this moment a turning point for Pakistani-Indian relations or just a pause between crises?

                      A: This is certainly a turning point for the good. I have an assurance. I have been told by President Bush and Deputy Secretary Armitage that, yes, they (Indian officials) need to move forward on the initiation of a dialogue on Kashmir.

                      Q: Can Vajpayee be your partner?

                      A: He had become a partner in Agra (at their summit last July in India). He invited me and I gave him credit for it. The recognition of Kashmir as the core issue was very much in the communique that was drafted by me, Vajpayee, Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh and my foreign minister, Abdul Sattar.

                      Q: Vajpayee says that Agra broke down because you wouldn't recognize the terrorists as terrorists.

                      A: We had four sessions. We may have discussed cross-border terrorism for 10 minutes because I said, "Prime Minister, you don't expect me to accept that what is happening in Kashmir is terrorism because the Pakistani nation will not accept that." We never spoke of it again. In the proposed communique... what was bold on the part of Prime Minister Vajpayee was that he accepted Kashmir as the main issue that needs to be resolved.

                      Q: It is said that you made a 180-degree turn after Sept 11, when you joined the West and dropped the Taliban. Now it is said that you may do the same in regard to the Jihadis who have operated in Kashmir with Pakistani backing.

                      A: Yes, on Afghanistan, we changed our policy. Before Sept 11, we had no choice but to go along with the Taliban. They occupied 90 per cent of Afghanistan. Then, the Taliban got involved in the terrorist act on Sept 11. We saw the environment and thought we should join the coalition. If you call it 180 degrees, okay. But Kashmir is our national interest. Pakistan has always given moral, political and diplomatic support to Kashmiris.

                      Q: You have another problem - the fundamentalist groups that have been out of control in your country.

                      A: There are three kinds of militancy that we are confronting. One is Afghanistan-related - Al Qaeda. We don't want a single Al Qaeda member on Pakistani territory....

                      Q: Vajpayee says you know where Osama bin Laden is and that the remnants of Al Qaeda are here.

                      A: That is how they keep maligning us. If they are hiding somewhere, we are trying to locate them. Pakistan has arrested over 300 people and handed them over. I cannot say we have freed Pakistan from Al Qaeda. But Abu Zubaida (an Al Qaeda leader now in US custody) was caught by us....

                      The second kind of militancy is Kashmir-related. The third is internal; domestic extremism, religious fanaticism, sectarian extremism. I moved against five political groups. Lashkar-i-Taiba and Jaish-i-Muhammad have been banned, their offices sealed and accounts frozen. It's not easy to tackle these people, and no government ever dared touch them... There is a lot of fallout. This cannot be accomplished by a few orders.

                      Q: Who's responsible for the attack on the US consulate in Karachi?

                      A: One possibility is Al-Qaeda. The other is that it's RAW-related. RAW does a lot of anti-Pakistan activity within Pakistan. So many bomb blasts have been taking place. Who is brewing this? Obviously they are RAW-inspired. They (the Indians) don't like us getting close to the US.

                      Q: Aren't the extreme groups a threat to you and your government?

                      A: Certainly, I get a lot of threats. But I'm not scared. I take principled stands whether it is an external or internal threat. Now, I'm facing both. Obviously, I am stepping on the toes of a lot of people.

                      Q: What is your opinion about the upcoming elections in Kashmir? It is said that Pakistani-backed groups have killed moderates like the Kashmiri leader Abdul Ghani Lone, who was assassinated recently.

                      A: You believe that? Mr Lone was addressing about 1,000 people. Obviously, there were (Indian) military men all around.

                      Q: You are saying that Indians did this?

                      A: Obviously. I am 100 per cent sure. He had given a statement that he was opposed to elections. Pakistan is against elections; Kashmir is a disputed territory; not a part of India.

                      Q: In this region, would you like to see the US try to bring about a settlement?

                      A: The US is the only country which can persuade India to initiate a dialogue and move toward a solution of Kashmir. Bilateralism hasn't worked.

                      Q: Do you believe that Pakistan's nuclear option prevented war recently?

                      A: No, I think it was (our) conventional deterrence.

                      Q: It used to be said that ISI was a rogue entity; now it's said to be under your control.

                      A: ISI does whatever the government wants. The problem arises whenever there is a rift between the government and the army, which happened under the previous (Nawaz Sharif's) government.... I can remove anybody from ISI so I am responsible for whatever ISI does or does not do.

                      Q: Do you have any thoughts about returning this country to a more democratic system?

                      A: We will have elections in October, though we have the most democratic system now, a functional democracy. But Pakistan has never had democracy with elected governments. I am a dictator all right, because I am not elected. But I think my functioning is most democratic.

                      Q: Even after October, you will still be the most powerful man in the country.

                      A: No, not after October. My power is as the chief executive of Pakistan, not as the president of Pakistan. Power is the power to govern, to take decisions about governing the country - on economic strategy, on education, on the distribution of the budget. Now, I make those decisions. After October, that authority will remain with the president. I am going to shed power to the prime minister. I am a believer that two people cannot share power. I will be left as the president and chief of army staff. I will retain the authority to dismiss (the government). Our experience during the past 10 years was that the government itself was looting and plundering and misgoverning. That needs to be checked.

                      Q: But you have the advantage of the loyalty of the army.

                      A: Everyone thinks being a military man means I'm an abuser of power. But I want to bring real democracy to Pakistan. We have to have elections and get a prime minister. This prime minister must perform. If he doesn't, I will guide him to a right course. I became maybe a little emotional and sentimental about many of the things you asked about but these are the realities. You can't judge actions taken here in the context of the US. You have to be in my shoes to understand the difficulties. This is a complicated place. We have four mind-sets to satisfy; First, what do Pakistanis think of various issues? Second, what does the US think? Third, what do the Kashmiris think? Fourth, what do the Indians think? I have to take the country forward in spite of the militancy to the west, to the east and in the centre. I have to do this balancing act and it is not an easy job.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        ZAAVIA

                        Comment


                          #13
                          No, not after October. My power is as the chief executive of Pakistan, not as the president of Pakistan. Power is the power to govern, to take decisions about governing the country - on economic strategy, on education, on the distribution of the budget. Now, I make those decisions. After October, that authority will remain with the president. I am going to shed power to the prime minister. I am a believer that two people cannot share power. I will be left as the president and chief of army staff. I will retain the authority to dismiss (the government). Our experience during the past 10 years was that the government itself was looting and plundering and misgoverning. That needs to be checked.
                          Hope, he'll stand by his words.

                          TAKE YOUR BEST SHOT AT ME

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Nagarjuna:
                            Oh we absolutely do!!! It is Pakistan that doesn't seem to respect International norms much.

                            Something has to be worked out for Kashmir, that is for sure.
                            I care to differ, Pakistan policy is in line with the entire worlds... Supporting freedom movemnts is not alien to India either.. They supported the Bengalis and the Tamils..
                            India obviously does not repect us, if they did, they would understand the importance of Kashmir.. Until Indians relaize this, then we can only be enemies..

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Bijay:
                              Let Indian Hindu and Indian Muslim and Indian Kashmiri people live peacefully together and don't try to destroy the communal harmony between them. We will be definitely comming forward for a better relation with Pakistan.

                              [This message has been edited by Bijay (edited June 24, 2002).]
                              They can live in peace, but not under Indian rule... We never said Hindus and Muslims couldnt live in peace, we simply say they should have the right to live without the oppresive Indian regime constantly brathing down their necks. The communal harmony isn;t even relevant. Where talking about people living free... India does not allow them to do so, therefore we MUST support their struggle for freedom.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X