The Indian defence minister, while asking Pakistan to make a "conscious" choice, said India was ready to speak to Pakistan and is willing to normalise the relationship but there are a few red lines.
"We create the environment, we fix up a dialogue at the level of Foreign Secretaries, our Foreign Secretary is to visit Pakistan (and) literally a few hours before that they invite the separatists for a dialogue to their High Commission (in New Delhi)," said Jaitley.
"So I think a new red line has to be drawn in Pakistan to reconsider this question that who they want to speak to? Do they want to speak to the Government of India or they want to speak to those who want to break India?" he said at the India Economic Summit here.
"So unless Pakistan makes the conscious choice, a dialogue with Pakistan will not be possible," he said.
India in August called off scheduled foreign secretary-level talks after Pakistan's envoy met Kashmir separatists on the eve of the dialogue.
Jaitley, who is also the finance minister, said New Delhi has given three messages to Pakistan.
"The first is that we want to talk. So we invited them. The second is we send a foreign secretary there. But they must decide whether they are ready to speak to our foreign secretary or to speak to those who want to break India. The third is that this kind of a situation in international border cannot go on."
"That's not an environment for a dialogue... India would like to normalise the relationship. But whether Pakistan wants to normalise the relationship depends on Pakistan," he added.
COMMENTS (35)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1714131462-0/WhatsApp-Image-2024-04-26-at-4-21-45-PM-(1)1714131462-0-270x192.webp)
1714024018-0/ModiLara-(1)1714024018-0-270x192.webp)
@Syed Nayyar Uddin Ahmad: LOL and the rest of the world knows the true 'worth' of Pakistanis. hint - check the acceptability of your passport in various countries and check Pakistans ranking in the failed countries index http://list25.com/25-of-the-most-failed-states-in-the-world/
@Syed Nayyar Uddin Ahmad:
Usual black mail ? eh ?
@Syed Nayyar Uddin Ahmad : "We the Pakistanis know very well the worthlessness of India, which has even failed to subdue Sri Lanka, where recently about a dozen Indians have been awarded death penalty."
Why should India want to 'subdue' Sri Lanka? You mean if India subdues Sri Lanka then it is not worthless - as per your assessment?
"pakistan-must-decide-if-it-wants-to-talk-to-india-or-hurriyat-leaders-indian-defence-minister “So I think a new red line has to be drawn in Pakistan to reconsider this question that who they want to speak to? Do they want to speak to the Government of India or they want to speak to those who want to break India?” he said at the India Economic Summit here." 'This is the clear indication from Indian leadership that India never wants to leave Kashmir and has been just fooling and deceiving the Pakistani leadership and Pakistani leadership is being easily fooled and deceived by Indian leadership.When Pakistani leadership will know the these Indian leadership's inner intentions regarding Kashmir and how long Pakistani leadership shall waste time and money on useless peace talks with Indian leadership?Please end this the peace talks' chapter because there is nothing going to achieve/gain from the peace talks with India because in the light of these above statements India has closed all the doors of Kashmir issue's resolution except considering Kashmir the India's integral part......
Mr. Arun Jaitely and the Indian government are sadly and badly mistaken. The fact is that Pakistan and Kashmir are inseparable entities.
Actually, it is for the Indian government to accept the ground reality and decide between war and peace with Pakistani and Kashmiri people.
India can't have cake and eat it too.
Moreover, the Indian government should also be careful, while addressing all issues with Pakistan, which is neither Bhutan nor Nepal.
We the Pakistanis know very well the worthlessness of India, which has even failed to subdue Sri Lanka, where recently about a dozen Indians have been awarded death penalty.
Last but not the least, we Pakistanis also know that the United States leaders have clearly told India that it can't be included in the UN Security Council, as its permanent member, until india resolves Kashmir problem with Pakistan.
So the fact is that it is in India's own long term strategic interest, to be at peace with Pakistan, which obviously can't be achieved without resolving the Kashmir dispute in accordance with the UN resolution and the aspirations of the people of Kashmir.
@Abdul:
Kashmir issue won't be solved by neither 1948 UN resolution or 1972 Simla Agreement, because both are useless.
Indian administered Kashmir is an issue between India and Kashmiri people. And Pakistan administered Kashmir is an issue between Pakistan and Kashmiri people.
This won't be changed by force. And if Pakistan doesn't want to talk - that is fine - because India is fine with Status Quo - it is Pakistan which wants to change it.
So now you people say that there are people in Kashmir who are working on interests of separatism, In past so many times Pakistan had talked to hurriyaat leaders, the kashmiri leaders have visited Pakistan, now what happened to INDIA. On one side India say it is worlds largest democracy or we say largest to not give rights to the people. Relax Indians to understand giving comments on articles can not let them to hide from the world that the are not giving rights to people of Kashmir.
@Hilarious: I would like to add.. If Pakistan is so concerned about Kashmir then
WHY did Pakistan break the Standstill agreement that Pakistan sighed with Hari Singh by attacking Kashmir in October 1947 with Pakistan Military and Kabaylis? WHY did Pakistan attack, loot, murder people from during this attack and kill hundreds of people, burn their homes and conduct inhumane atrocities on women and children, if it claims to stand for Kashmiri? WHY Pakistan has been infiltrating J&K since 1947 till date and inciting local population, that is the reason for the presence of Indian Army there.@Rex Minor: I guess you forgot to mention who is going to boycott what and who is going to put sanctions. Given the rate at which India is talking to world leaders and gaining their support from China to USA you can only dream about sanctions coming from any direction except Pakistan but whoever cared about that... Isn't even worth 2 hoots.
@Hilarious very well said- and articulated- only it is not hilarious- it is very serious and thoughtful-
@GP65 Appreciate your response. Regarding 1972 agreement, you yeself pointed out that there are no clear guidelines which take us to any bilateral conclusion-simply put, it was a useless excercise. With respect to "hint" if Sing Raja would have followed the exact terms n contions of two state solution and British would have not conspire by helping India by supplying men and arms, surely this situation would have never existed. And if we read history fairly than there are other states which should have been part of Pakistan as well "hint" and just name one Hyderabad. My point was that it's time to sit n resolve at least this Kashmir issue, one generation gone, second on its way and we even fail to understand and realize which direction it take both nations.
@Pakhtoon: Well if you have aken the decision, you have a strange way of showing it by begging all world powers to intervene and make India talk.
@Abdul:
Please read the UN resolution. You will find out who sabotaged it. (Hint: it was not India). Since it was clear that Pakistan had no intention of complying with UN resolution, India and Pakistan signed Simla agreement in 1972 which states in no uncertain terms that Kashmir problem is to be resolved bilaterally. Talking o Hurriyat is going against what Pakistan itself has signed.
@syed baqar ahsan: @Haider:
India is not ordering you. It is simply giving you a choice. If you want to talk to India it will be nder the framework of Simla agreement which your government has signed and which is bilateral. If instead you prefer to talk to Hurriyat, by all means do so, but recognize that you are ruling out talks with India.
If you try to snatch Kashmir by using your proxies, India will give you a befitting respnse. Even Pakistani generals know after trying it mltiple times that conventional war with India eill nt elp them achieve their goals.
@shahid: You are correct but not truthful. The land of Kashyap Rishi belongs to all Non Muslim Indians.All the Muslims after split of India are not Indians but Pakistani. How come they are still in India after Indians allocated land for them under the able leadership of Quaid? You guys abandoned millions of them, Take them back before any useful talk can be initiated to form up the boundary lines.
@Haider: Of course he has the right to make it a bilateral issue and has the right to tell Pakistan what India expects. He is a cabinet minister in India - and unlike Pakistan, a Cabinet minister in India, particularly one who controls both Finance and the Military is an EXTREMELY important and powerful person in the Indian Government.
So his "direct" communication should be appreciated. It is upto Pakistan what it wants to do. India has no need to "talk" about Kashmir. There is no scenario that India can imagine where it will simply say "Ok, lets leave the Kashmir valley and forget all about it".
Fact is Pakistan can't take Kashmir militarily, it has already failed to do so through proxy means (which has led to the current mess that is Pakistan) and even "internationalization" of the issue has failed despite decades of Pakistan singing the same song in the UNGA. So what is left ?
Please tell me if I am missing something.
Why does Pakistan not respond to the charge so often put to them that it is Pakistan itself that did not honour the UN resolution, which they agreed to?
Why does Pakistan and its many commentators not respond to the fact that implicit in the UN Resolution is the fact that the world considered Pakistan as the aggressor and asked it to pull back its troops before a plebiscite was held?
If Pakistan could not honour the UN Resolutions which they agreed to and asked for changes subsequently, which were not acceptable to India, why are they now bringing up the UN Resolutions, especially as Pakistan as existed in 1948 is no longer the same Pakistan now, and the new Pakistan which came up in 1971 specifically agreed to discuss Kashmir bilaterally, which rendered the UN Resolutions irrelevant? In any case, the UN Resolutions were non-binding, something Pakistan knows well as they were the ones who did not fulfil the very first condition!
If Pakistan is so concerned about all "stakeholders", why do they not speak to the J&K Government? Even if they consider Omar Abdullah and co as Indian stooges, surely they cannot deny that they hold far more legitimacy than the self-appointed leaders Hurriyat Conference, who cannot even agree among themselves as to who among them truly represents Kashmiris and had to split into factions?
When Pakistan itself has created changes on ground in PoJK (note the correct term for the area Pakistan is occupying illegally) - by ceding land to China and altering the composition of the area by pushing Punjabis into PoJK, what grounds have you got in demanding answers from India?
Kashmir has been discussed threadbare in these fora, yet I do not recall any Pakistani giving me answers to the questions above. I sincerely request some knowledgeable Pakistani to clarify your position on the issues above. I'm sure you have answers and i genuinely want to know.
Going by the sentiments in the comment section there won't be any talk between the two neighbors. Now the question is where lies the national interest s of both the countries ? The urgency of the interest will carry weight to take a decision. sometimes domestic situations prohibit to take a decision which is unfavorable in long term interest. India shall have to consider the cost benefit of not talking/maintain status quo. Break up of talks is what Pakistan army / ISI want to blow their security doctrine while Pakistani awam will be deprived of cheaper goods and services as trade between the neighbors will be adversely affected and opportunity loss for the Indian businessmen.
Soverign nations like India or Pakistan don,t tolerate secessionists like Hurriat , Balauchis POK based rebels ,Kashmir Nationalist party , Gilgit Baltistan rebels, Pak Sindhi nationalists
Pakistan killed UN resolution by not vacating its forces and nationals from POK as demanded by UN and PAK changed demography of POK by settling Punjabis in kashmir.
Mr. Jaitely statement carries double edge sword. We suggest there is no harm Pakistan rebuttle asking India a. Declare and accept Kashmir a disputed territory, NOT part of India; b. India is ready to resolve this dispute based upon UN resulutions n Indian PM Nehro pledge; c. Kashmiri's having absolute right to decide their future; If Indian government is soo sincere than accept fact as a fact. Just going around and around or hiding behind the bush's won't work nor this would be resolved. Above all war was not and will not the solution.
@unbelievable: Kashmir is not a part of India and is under occupation of Indian forces. Kashmiris are not Indians and so the issue of breaking India simply does not arise. Pakistan is free to meet with the leaders of the Hurriyat Conference when ever she wants to. An acceptance by Pakistan not to meet with Hurriyat leaders will tantamount to acceptance of the colonization of Kashmir by force of arms. Any Government in Pakistan that shows even the slightest softness on this issue is serving some interests other than those of the people of Kashmir and Pakistan.
India has shown pragmatism and wants Pakistan to follow the same for meaningful talks as the same cannot go on along with border violations and talking to separatists. Pakistan, who is suffering a lot needs to make peace with India by changing its misplaced foreign policy so that it can focus on its internal problems.
Pakistan as well as India are no one to decide about Kashmir. Kashmiris will decide about Kashmir and I am as a Pakistani will support them.
Well said minister Mr. jaitely. Talks and terrorism shall not go hand in hand.
@Muslim:
As long as the people of Pakistan understand that they are dealing with the hindu majority country who get recycled through incarnatio from the one to another generation and are unlikely to move from their original position, peace can only come to the region not through diialogue but through a bycott and sanctions.
Rex Minor
@Muslim:
So are the Bengalis and the Baluchis.
We have already made a choice and we are fully committed to it.
we only discuss with them to resolve the issue according to thier point of view as the native of that area.we are not like india to ignor them also they have the right to as accordance to UN resolution over kashmir .
..... but India will continue to bully neighbours to establish its hegemony, said the honourable minister. Peace.
Dear Mr. Jaitley, we already took the decision we are not going to talk to you anymore, so please keep calm and concentrate on your own country.
I wonder how Pakistan would react if a high ranking Indian representative visited Pakistani separatist on his way to a formal meeting with Pakistani diplomats. It's a stupid diplomatic blunder that demonstrates that Pakistan is either diplomatically inept or isn't interested in peace. I think India making it clear that this is unacceptable is spot on.
Point to be noted!!
Minister is new trying to be smart and talking in circle.Better keep realistic tone and issue since birth is amongst three not two.
Pakistan should decide what is a benefit for Kashmiries.That's all.Indian Defense Minister you are no one to give us orders and you are no one to make a bilateral issue, where two countries are stakeholders, an internal problem or so called Integral part of India
Kashmiris are our brothers...there is no two opinions around that! If indians want to talk to us, that's their choice! We will never be dictated by fascist government in India as to who we should or should not talk with!