India on alert as Bangladesh-Pakistan defence ties deepen

[Blain2]

I really get bamboozled by these high-horse statements. From which lofty pedestal does a Pakistani dare to take a moral high ground on Kashmiris? I typically avoid commenting on internal matters, but I can’t help being amused by this self-righteous posturing—especially when the state of Pakistan and its 250 million people have been under quasi-dictatorial control since inception. You have a fractured society, where the most popular leader has been jailed for years, and 250 million citizens are ruled by an army strongman who should have retired long ago.


So, what exactly are you offering the Kashmiris—freedom? economic opportunity? religious tolerance? respect? What, really?


India may be a mess in many ways, but for the Kashmiris, we are still a better option than Pakistan.

High-horse? That is original with you coming with your high and mighty pronouncements and lecturing about what India will do and what Pakistan must accept.
Let's be clear. Pakistan is NOT offering anything to Kashmir. But Pakistan won't let India dictate to Kashmiris who they are and how they should be identified and Kashmiris expect Pakistan to do that on their behalf. If the current Indian stance does not reek of a colonial mindset, I am not sure what does.

Kashmiris don't want to be ruled by you or Pakistan. They have seen what they get with you and they certainly don't like it. Simply put, If THEY decide to join Pakistan, that would be up to them. Who are you to tell them they cannot join Pakistan or become independent?

Last, the state of affairs in Pakistan is not a constant. What, however, is a constant is that Kashmiris want no part of India ruling over them. Perhaps Pakistan's internal politics are a mess but one should not be casting stones at others while living in their own glass-house.

 

[Terracotta Warrior]

High-horse? That is original with you coming with your high and mighty pronouncements and lecturing about what India will do and what Pakistan must accept.
Let's be clear. Pakistan is NOT offering anything to Kashmir. But Pakistan won't let India dictate to Kashmirs who they are and how they should be identified and Kashmiris expect Pakistan to do that on their behalf. If the current Indian stance does not reek of a colonial mindset, I am not sure what does.

Kashmiris don't want to be ruled by you or Pakistan. They have seen what they get with you and they certainly don't like it. Simply put, If THEY decide to join Pakistan, that would be up to them. Who are you to tell them they cannot join Pakistan or become independent?

Coming from a Pakistani, talk of “colonial mindset” is laughable. You openly admit Pakistan has nothing to offer Kashmir, yet you still claim the right to speak for them—that’s hypocrisy at its finest.

You’re taking a position on behalf of others without the ability to tilt the outcome in your favor—that’s where pragmatism dies.

Even for argument’s sake, let’s assume all of Kashmir wanted independence or to join Pakistan. So what? In what world would any sane person expect India to cede its territory and people? And if not, are you in any position to make India do it?

You know the answers. And knowing them, yet still climbing the moral high ground—that’s hypocrisy in its purest form.

 

[Blain2]

Coming from a Pakistani, talk of “colonial mindset” is laughable. You openly admit Pakistan has nothing to offer Kashmir, yet you still claim the right to speak for them—that’s hypocrisy at its finest.

You’re taking a position on behalf of others without the ability to tilt the outcome in your favor—that’s where pragmatism dies.

Even for argument’s sake, let’s assume all of Kashmir wanted independence or to join Pakistan. So what? In what world would any sane person expect India to cede its territory and people? And if not, are you in any position to make India do it?

You know the answers. And knowing them, yet still climbing the moral high ground—that’s hypocrisy in its purest form.

The entire world speaks for the oppressed people in disputed lands. Does that make the world hypocritical? Let's not clown about please. I can cut the above argument 50 different ways but it is of little use and it certainly won't convince.

Let's stick to the facts: Kashmir is NOT a part of India. The basic premise of your argument is flawed to start with. It is an internationally recognized "disputed" state of Kashmir.

So let's not bother with the usual Indian talk-track. We have heard it plenty of times over. Please carry on carrying on.

 

[mythbuster]

BD and Pakistan have all the right and reasons in the world to have closer ties. If it were not for India playing the spoiler, this alignment would have come a long time ago.
India's policy of "divide and retain influence" has run aground.
Who will explain to that donkey Modi and his army of sheeple that talking peace and normalizing with Pakistan is a net gain for the region and India.
All these Indian insecurities will fall by the wayside if his extremist, Hindu fundamentalist mindset gets a reset. I know this is an impossibility but worth calling out that Pakistan has always been willing to negotiate. Modi's dead-end policy of "talks and terror cannot go together" (while criminally and hypocritically funding terrorism against Pakistan) has no takers around the globe any longer.

Some countries , when they start growing and put on some muscles , become revisionists ..they want undo past injustices , some real some perceived , not understanding that history has been equal opportunity abuser....some mighty ones today have been victims of other in the past ....if you go on revisionists path than everyone one will be at war with everyone else.

 

[mythbuster]

I really get bamboozled by these high-horse statements. From which lofty pedestal does a Pakistani dare to take a moral high ground on Kashmiris? I typically avoid commenting on internal matters, but I can’t help being amused by this self-righteous posturing—especially when the state of Pakistan and its 250 million people have been under quasi-dictatorial control since inception. You have a fractured society, where the most popular leader has been jailed for years, and 250 million citizens are ruled by an army strongman who should have retired long ago.


So, what exactly are you offering the Kashmiris—freedom? economic opportunity? religious tolerance? respect? What, really?


India may be a mess in many ways, but for the Kashmiris, we are still a better option than Pakistan.

Hey my friend , probably , you forgot to enter one famous word ' dignity ' ....bring this word with a Q mark.... let's see how it fares.

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

From which lofty pedestal does a Pakistani dare to take a moral high ground on Kashmiris?

Fine
Then let the Kashmiris take the ‘moral high ground’ per the UNSC Resolutions that call for a referendum.

Of course this is the point where Indians magically lose all their ‘higher moral ground’ statements and start coming up with a litany of whiny excuses to justify not allowing the Kashmiris to exercise their choice.

At the end of the day, you’re just like the Israelis - a hate-mongering occupation force subjugating the indigenous population and perpetrating atrocities to hold on to territory in violation of international law.

 

[John Smith]

So, what exactly are you offering the Kashmiris—freedom? economic opportunity? religious tolerance? respect? What, really?

Toilets.

The defence of Bangladesh rests solely on maintaining a friendly relationship with India

Yes and we saw how that worked out the past 16 years

 

[Waz]

Good relations between brothers to counter Hindtuva terror. Works well. Inshallah may they deepen.

 

[Pakistani Dragon]

... BNP is likely to be the next govt and they used to be friendly with Pakistan in the past under Khaleda Zia's leadership. However, lately there has been an intrusion of pro India leaders in BNP's top hierarchy. So it needs to be seen if the relationship with Pakistan continues to improve or not after the election.

All depends if they can deliver on their promises and quickly. If not, they'll have to appease India, go a little old fashioned nationalistic and verbally attack Pakistan.

That's all fine as long as Bangladesh doesn't cut off trade and relations with Pakistan once again on India's say so. That'll be going back to square one.

 

[Terracotta Warrior]

Fine
Then let the Kashmiris take the ‘moral high ground’ per the UNSC Resolutions that call for a referendum.

Of course this is the point where Indians magically lose all their ‘higher moral ground’ statements and start coming up with a litany of whiny excuses to justify not allowing the Kashmiris to exercise their choice.

At the end of the day, you’re just like the Israelis - a hate-mongering occupation force subjugating the indigenous population and perpetrating atrocities to hold on to territory in violation of international law.

All those UN resolutions are long dead and buried—contributed to by both countries, but more so by Pakistan.


Kashmir is not just Srinagar and the areas south of it, but the entire territory of the former princely state of J&K, including Pakistan Azaad Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan, the Kashmir Valley, Jammu, Ladakh, and Aksai Chin. By ceding the Shaksgam Valley to China and permanently altering the demographics of the Muzaffarabad region, Pakistan itself voided the UN resolution. The final nail in the coffin came with the Shimla Agreement of 1972.


As per the UN resolution of 1948, the plebiscite was supposed to follow a clear sequence of steps:

1. Immediate ceasefire and end of fighting across Jammu & Kashmir, supervised by UN military observers (later UNMOGIP) – partially achieved.
2. Withdrawal of non-Kashmiri combatants from Pakistan’s side – never done; instead, Pakistan Azaad Kashmir was demographically altered into a Punjabi heartland.
3. Progressive reduction of Indian forces – to happen only after condition 2 was achieved.
4. Demilitarisation plan and reporting, with administrative control managed by Indian forces – to follow steps 1 through 3.

The reality is that Pakistan never fulfilled its part of the mandate, making the rest of the resolution unworkable.


On top of this, Pakistan ceded the Shaksgam Valley to China, integrated Gilgit-Baltistan into its own administrative structure, altered demographics, and later signed the Shimla Agreement. All of this effectively buried the UN resolution, the last straw Pakistan still tries to cling to.


And what stopped Pakistan from meeting its own part of the mandate? Oh, you were waiting for your “mortal enemy” to go out of its way and act first before you even lifted a finger?


When hypocrisy meets ignorance, it turns into a deadly cocktail.

 

[Terracotta Warrior]

Hey my friend , probably , you forgot to enter one famous word ' dignity ' ....bring this word with a Q mark.... let's see how it fares.

is it on offer to 250 million pakistanis to start with ? how do you offer something you don't have ?

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

All those UN resolutions are long dead and buried—contributed to by both countries, but more so by Pakistan.


Kashmir is not just Srinagar and the areas south of it, but the entire territory of the former princely state of J&K, including Pakistan Azaad Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan, the Kashmir Valley, Jammu, Ladakh, and Aksai Chin. By ceding the Shaksgam Valley to China and permanently altering the demographics of the Muzaffarabad region, Pakistan itself voided the UN resolution. The final nail in the coffin came with the Shimla Agreement of 1972.


As per the UN resolution of 1948, the plebiscite was supposed to follow a clear sequence of steps:

1. Immediate ceasefire and end of fighting across Jammu & Kashmir, supervised by UN military observers (later UNMOGIP) – partially achieved.
2. Withdrawal of non-Kashmiri combatants from Pakistan’s side – never done; instead, Pakistan Azaad Kashmir was demographically altered into a Punjabi heartland.
3. Progressive reduction of Indian forces – to happen only after condition 2 was achieved.
4. Demilitarisation plan and reporting, with administrative control managed by Indian forces – to follow steps 1 through 3.

The reality is that Pakistan never fulfilled its part of the mandate, making the rest of the resolution unworkable.


On top of this, Pakistan ceded the Shaksgam Valley to China, integrated Gilgit-Baltistan into its own administrative structure, altered demographics, and later signed the Shimla Agreement. All of this effectively buried the UN resolution, the last straw Pakistan still tries to cling to.


And what stopped Pakistan from meeting its own part of the mandate? Oh, you were waiting for your “mortal enemy” to go out of its way and act first before you even lifted a finger?


When hypocrisy meets ignorance, it turns into a deadly cocktail.

Like I said, queue the whiny excuses
Nothing in international law or the UN Charter makes the UNSC Resolutions ‘dead and buried’. Leave the UN if you don’t want to respect the charter and international law.

With respect to the conditions laid out in the UNSC Resolutions, they have been discussed multiple times. The condition for withdrawal was based on tripartite negotiations between Pakistan, India and a UN rapporteur to establish the numbers and timelines of withdrawal, and those failed because India refused to accept multiple proposals made by Pakistan and the UN that did not involve a unilateral withdrawal by Pakistan.

 

[hydrabadi_arab]

All those UN resolutions are long dead and buried—contributed to by both countries, but more so by Pakistan.


Kashmir is not just Srinagar and the areas south of it, but the entire territory of the former princely state of J&K, including Pakistan Azaad Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan, the Kashmir Valley, Jammu, Ladakh, and Aksai Chin. By ceding the Shaksgam Valley to China and permanently altering the demographics of the Muzaffarabad region, Pakistan itself voided the UN resolution. The final nail in the coffin came with the Shimla Agreement of 1972.


As per the UN resolution of 1948, the plebiscite was supposed to follow a clear sequence of steps:

1. Immediate ceasefire and end of fighting across Jammu & Kashmir, supervised by UN military observers (later UNMOGIP) – partially achieved.
2. Withdrawal of non-Kashmiri combatants from Pakistan’s side – never done; instead, Pakistan Azaad Kashmir was demographically altered into a Punjabi heartland.
3. Progressive reduction of Indian forces – to happen only after condition 2 was achieved.
4. Demilitarisation plan and reporting, with administrative control managed by Indian forces – to follow steps 1 through 3.

The reality is that Pakistan never fulfilled its part of the mandate, making the rest of the resolution unworkable.


On top of this, Pakistan ceded the Shaksgam Valley to China, integrated Gilgit-Baltistan into its own administrative structure, altered demographics, and later signed the Shimla Agreement. All of this effectively buried the UN resolution, the last straw Pakistan still tries to cling to.


And what stopped Pakistan from meeting its own part of the mandate? Oh, you were waiting for your “mortal enemy” to go out of its way and act first before you even lifted a finger?


When hypocrisy meets ignorance, it turns into a deadly cocktail.

UN resolutions are not dead because India say so. India also say IWT is dead but try diverting our water if you have balls.

 

[Feroze]

The In/diots should be worried.

Pakistan and Bangladesh used to be one country.

There are many Bangladeshis who do not like India.

 

[Feroze]

Like I said, queue the whiny excuses
Nothing in international law or the UN Charter makes the UNSC Resolutions ‘dead and buried’. Leave the UN if you don’t want to respect the charter and international law.

With respect to the conditions laid out in the UNSC Resolutions, they have been discussed multiple times. The condition for withdrawal was based on tripartite negotiations between Pakistan, India and a UN rapporteur to establish the numbers and timelines of withdrawal, and those failed because India refused to accept multiple proposals made by Pakistan and the UN that did not involve a unilateral withdrawal by Pakistan.

You are correct. United Nations Resolutions and the partition plan according to Louis Mountbatten of Burma says to hold a Plebiscite in Kashmir to determine the destiny of the land.

Also there is no expiry date on the United Nations Resolutions on the Kashmir Dispute.