Pervez Musharraf and India Pakistan Rapproachment

#79 so..when being shown the mirror, pandit-hate gets abusive. ha! ha!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: # 80

the 'Treaty of Hudaibiya'.

Indeed, that was the message that the entire nation of Pakistan could easily understand. Mush thought that it was the essence of his position- and part of the Islamic warfare tactics of strategic compromise that takes inspiration from Mohammad.
Infact, most Pakistanis are brought up on this concept of veiwing compromises with India on the basis of 'Treaty of Hudaibiya' since ages. Even Shimla Agreement was one such treaty that Pakistanis think becomes non binding when they are strong.
I feel that unless and until PAkistani state gets out of its Islamic view finder and views India diplomatically as a modern day neighboring nation state it would remain struck up in the rut it is now!!

In response to the now famous US line "you are either with us or against us" and facing the threat of Pakistan being bombed out, the great "statesman" in uniform started shitting bricks and overnight decided to dump the Talibs and present his backside to the Mricans, the only condition for his total capitulation being that India be left out of any operations to be carried out in Afganistan.

Ref Mullah32 #4

[trouble with indians like you is that you are obsessed with the slap in the face you received in 1947.]

The fcuker who got a slap in the face was Jinnah-bhai whose dream of a Great Pakistan was dashed b the partition of Punjab and Bengal.

The next fcuker who got a slap in the face was Bhutto whose ambition to become Prime Minister was thwarted by Mujibur Rahman winning a majority of the seats in Pakistans parliamentary election.

The next fcuker who got a slap in the face was Nawaz Sharif who was told to get out of Kargil or else.

The next in line to get a slap in the face was Jarnail-sahib Pervez Musharraf who was told to get behind the US or be prepared to be bombed back to the Stone Age.

The only thing wrong with that last one was, it has been Stone Age for a long time in the Land of the Pure, what with The Book to End All Books being the Constitution.

[60 years later you are defining your entire existence on chowk as "slamming islam". you people are pathetic.]

You are the pathetic people who are defining your country as "Not India" But all of a sudden, you found out that the Green Passport might get you into Islamic jannat but not into most civilized countries without a body cavity search.

By the way, congratulations on parsing my name correctly after so many months.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

HP # 24

``Kargil had nothing to do with India. It was as usual a Pak army ploy to bring down a political government that had just sacked the army COAS for interfering in the political affairs.''

Here you are incorrect. Army guys are not so far-sighted to plan a clever sophisticated revenge like this on a COAS firing.

India & Kashmir are two subjects in which they are regulary brain-washed. And cutting the lines of supply to Siachin was a juicy plan which has exited in the Army since long. I have myself heard Mushharaf give an excited presentation on the subject in 85.

NHK

Dear Dost

With respect, I do not buy that Musharaf contributed towards peace between India-Pakistan.

He came with the typical goofy Fauji mindset of India-Enemy & Kashmir-Honour. And bleeding India through low intensity conflict (Jihadis).

He thought that he was clever enough to go into history by signing a quicky Peace deal with India - Agra. He screwed up that event by refusing to add `reducing the X-border' Jihadis - something which was a well known fact. And progress on all outstanding issues simultaneously.

Only when he was himslf was attacked, some sane realization dawned on him. He PROBABLY came on Jihadis but never eliminated these so called `Strategic Assets'.

By this time, after having wasted a few years, he agreed to `resolve all issues including Kasmir simultaneously' - something he could have acceeded during the Agra.

Then during the Peace process, he was finicky over trivial issues of Trade & People-to-people contact just on the stupid premise of Quid-pro-Quo. If trade was good for us, that was a good enough reason. If India also gains in the process, so be it.

Meanwhile, he was throwing up all kinds of solutions on Kasmir on his own without even discussing the subject in the Parliament. And voluntarily, giving up the basic stance on Kashmir.

After 8 years, he has reached where the Politicians - Bhutto & Nawaz had already reached. He wasted 8 years.

The Polticians believed & belive NORMAL relations with India in all areas without giving up the basic stance on Kashmir. Kashmir solution will take time & probably will automatically evaporate in an envisaged closer Economic/Political relationship within SAARC.

NHK

sadna#59:

", would we ever have had an article from you saying 'Modi must be given credit for not having any riots after 2002'."

I may not write an article but would agree with the statement as a matter of fact.

Re: # 91

Sadna:

", would we ever have had an article from you saying 'Modi must be given credit for not having any riots after 2002'."


Don't you think you are making a case for electing gundaas?

arjun_5#67:

What's wrong with resolving a problem that has been a festering wound for both countries? I think that Musharraf's proposal's came as close to accepting status quo as any Pakistani leader is ever going to accept. Yes, under current conditions, it seems difficult to imagine how Pakistan can change the status quo, but geopolitical forces of equilibrium can change at a future date. Why not put an end to uncertainty? You are right, there probably cannot be a full restoration of normal friendly relations on a permanent basis unless the Kashmir issue is resolved. But one can use the current momentum to at least make sure that both countries get a stake in peaceful resolutions of their problems.

#66:

"India also has an external reason for ending hostility with Pakistan. India’s dreams of becoming a world power have never been closer to becoming reality than now. But to do so, India has to be acceptable as a leader in its own backyard. For that to happen, it needs to be perceived as a Big Brother and not] as a Big Bully. It needs to be a force for stability and progress in the neighbourhood. Pakistan is passing through a difficult phase. It can help it maintain stability and prosperity by strengthening Musharraf’s hands against forces of instability, a stable Pakistan is good for a stable India."

[dost-mittar:http://www.chowk.com/articles/10398

BREAKING NEWS

This is to inform all the chowkis that 1008 Shri Shri Laddu Gopal Maharaj ji would not be available for the next two months on the Chowk.
In case Pakistani Momeens would like to celebrate his unforeseen voluntary absence as victory and a retribution of the angry moon god , they may do it by distributing laddus made of Boondi.

allahu.

tahmed32:

I tend to agree with you that the Indian leaders' statements after their explosion of the nuclear bomb were irresponsible and provocative in nature.