What's new

"No step by India that doesn't lead to self-determination of Kashmiris is acceptable to us" : DGISPR

Abdullah719

T20I Captain
Joined
Apr 16, 2013
Runs
44,825
"No step by India that doesn't lead to self-determination of Kashmiris is acceptable to us" : DGISPR

Maj Gen Asif Ghafoor, the director general of Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), on Wednesday told the people of Indian-occupied Kashmir that the Pakistani armed forces were standing by them and will go to any length to protect their land.

Addressing a press conference at the General Headquarters on the situation in occupied Kashmir since the Indian government revoked its special autonomy, the military's spokesperson also said a "befitting response" will be given to any false-flag operation staged by India.

"I want to give this message to Kashmiris that we stand by you and will continue to do so. It is sad that your independence struggle was presented as terrorism," he said.

"Kashmir is our jugular vein and we will go to any lengths to protect it."

Maj Gen Ghafoor began his presser by saying that he would talk about the situation in Indian-occupied Kashmir and its effect on national security.

He said Pakistan's geographical situation cannot be ignored by regional countries or world powers.

"India is a country with a huge population, a follower of Hitler is in power [there]. The world community has interests in India.

"Then there is China, an emerging world power. China has issues with India as well but their economic relations with India are stable. Afghanistan has seen nothing but war, martyrdom and loss of lives," he added.

Maj Gen Ghafoor said Pakistan has good relations with Iran but due to the situation in the Middle East, Iran is facing some problems. "But Iran has a huge role in regional peace," he added.

'We have avoided escalation'

"In India, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Nazi ideology are in power. They endanger minorities including Muslims and Dalits," he said, adding that the situation is such in India that there is no religious or social freedom there.

In occupied Kashmir, he said, the "fascist" government of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has "uprooted Nehru's step for the region".

In contrast, the armed forces have established peace in Pakistan and the country is also playing its role for regional peace.

"We have avoided escalation," he said of recent tensions with India over occupied Kashmir.

He said Prime Minister Imran Khan in his first speech after taking office had extended an offer of dialogue to India "in response to which they sent in two warplanes and received a fitting reply".

"Nuclear countries have no room for war," the military's spokesperson said.

'Kashmir is our jugular vein'

He said India has "indirectly continued to attack Pakistan", an example of which he said was Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav.

"We are playing a role in the Afghan reconciliation process. If peace is established in Afghanistan, our troops deployed at the western border will probably be removed.

"Maybe India thinks that it should take action against us that would weaken us. We want to tell India that wars are not only fought with weapons and economy but with patriotism.

"The Quaid-i-Azam's vision and our belief is that Kashmir is our jugular vein."

He recalled that there are United Nations resolutions on the conflict in Kashmir.

"Recently Modi took an immoral step and repealed Article 370 of the Indian constitution. This is no longer a conflict of ideologies."

He said Pakistan has been fighting a hybrid war for the past 20 years and considering the conflict spectrum, Pakistan's options of response revolved around economy, diplomacy, finance, intelligence, etc.

"For the first time in 50 years, the UN Security Council held a session on Kashmir. PM and the foreign minister have talked to several nations' heads and foreign ministers.

"Modi says he doesn't want mediation. If you don't want mediation, then what did you talk to [US President Donald] Trump about?" he said.

Thanking international and local media for effectively covering the oppression in Kashmir, he said the issue of Kashmir which was previously ignored by the world has now gained international attention.

"No step by Indian authorities that does not lead to the self-determination of Kashmiris is acceptable to us," Maj Gen Ghafoor said.

At the same time, he added, "Any isolated step by us that might take the attention away from Kashmir issue will be cruelty to them.

"Armies protect a nation's sovereignty. When that is threatened, warfighting becomes a compulsion instead of a choice. It is up to India and the rest of the world.

"How can you think that we can do a deal over Kashmir? we have not agreed to do that in 72 years, why would we do that now?" the ISPR chief said.

Maj Gen Ghafoor's press conference comes amidst heightened tensions between India and Pakistan following the Indian government's decision to unilaterally revoke Article 370 of its constitution, which granted special autonomy to occupied Kashmir. A communications blackout and heavy restrictions on movement imposed by the Indian authorities from the eve of this development entered their 31st day today.

Following India's decision to repeal Article 370, Pakistan downgraded diplomatic relations with New Delhi and suspended all bilateral trade. The Indian ambassador was asked to leave and train and bus services with India were also suspended.

'Army chief did not want extension'

In response to a question, Maj Gen Ghafoor said the decision to grant an extension to Army Chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa was a prerogative of the prime minister, which he had exercised.

"Army chief did not want [an extension]. After over 40 years of service, every person wants to return to normal life and rest, but he has personal rapport with many nations' heads. It was the prime minister's prerogative and he exercised it and let's hope it pays off," he added.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1503482/we-are-with-kashmiris-in-their-struggle-for-independence-dg-ispr
 
So he has completely ruled out war?
Is he saying that pakistan will not take the first step?
Diplomacy never works with India. It hasn't worked for 70 odd years how is it gonna work now?
SMH
 
So he has completely ruled out war?
Is he saying that pakistan will not take the first step?
Diplomacy never works with India. It hasn't worked for 70 odd years how is it gonna work now?
SMH

What makes you think war will work?
 
So he has completely ruled out war?
Is he saying that pakistan will not take the first step?
Diplomacy never works with India. It hasn't worked for 70 odd years how is it gonna work now?
SMH


So basically he and IK said 'we will let India keep J &K with itself forever & once in a while we will make noise for local public consumption'
 
So he has completely ruled out war?
Is he saying that pakistan will not take the first step?
Diplomacy never works with India. It hasn't worked for 70 odd years how is it gonna work now?
SMH

Then you haven’t understood his speech today. The conclusion is that the war is the only solution. Watch the whole presser yourself on YouTube.

India has shot itself this time, no way back. Kashmir is gone from them.
 
What makes you think war will work?

Coz land isn’t gained through diplomacy.
It’s gained through warfare however hard it may be.
That is the only option.
Either pak will gain Srinagar or lose Muzaffarabad
 
So basically he and IK said 'we will let India keep J &K with itself forever & once in a while we will make noise for local public consumption'

Well, no.

I saw the PC and he said that if diplomacy doesn’t work in our favour then we will have to do something which we don’t want to (war).
 
Then you haven’t understood his speech today. The conclusion is that the war is the only solution. Watch the whole presser yourself on YouTube.

India has shot itself this time, no way back. Kashmir is gone from them.

But he said he doesn’t want war.

Elaborate pls
 
Well, no.

I saw the PC and he said that if diplomacy doesn’t work in our favour then we will have to do something which we don’t want to (war).


Currently neither India with our economy nor pakistan with its economy can afford a war and in near future as well.

The only possible & feasible solution is pakistan declaring 'azad kashmir' as its province ... actually this move hurts India & BJP more than war... Opposition here will blame Modi like 'see modi provoked them and they kept AJK with them & hence we lost it for good'
 
Then you haven’t understood his speech today. The conclusion is that the war is the only solution. Watch the whole presser yourself on YouTube.

India has shot itself this time, no way back. Kashmir is gone from them.


so when r u coming sir to India and by the way take new delhi also naa along with J & K.. khoob attaar laga key aana ustaad..
 
Currently neither India with our economy nor pakistan with its economy can afford a war and in near future as well.

The only possible & feasible solution is pakistan declaring 'azad kashmir' as its province ... actually this move hurts India & BJP more than war... Opposition here will blame Modi like 'see modi provoked them and they kept AJK with them & hence we lost it for good'

Well Pakistan can’t make AJK a province because that will mean we’ll lose IOK.

Well as for the war part, they’ll have to do whatever they can with what they can afford
 
"We are waiting for the world to take measures to solve this issue.. If they fail...then war will be the final option" - DG ISPR
 
so when r u coming sir to India and by the way take new delhi also naa along with J & K.. khoob attaar laga key aana ustaad..

Lol, the last sentence doesn’t suit indians at all.

Just say bye bye to Kashmir. For how long will you oppress a people? Do you think things will just normalize once the curfew is uplifted?
 
Currently neither India with our economy nor pakistan with its economy can afford a war and in near future as well.

The only possible & feasible solution is pakistan declaring 'azad kashmir' as its province ... actually this move hurts India & BJP more than war... <b>Opposition here will blame Modi like 'see modi provoked them and they kept AJK with them & hence we lost it for good'</b>

However the question is whether the Indian voters will buy it? The Indian voters have proven themselves to be smart, and Indians don't really want AJK which would double the headache that is Kashmir. Opposition has to say what the opposition has to say, but the voters will not reward them for saying it.
 
so when r u coming sir to India and by the way take new delhi also naa along with J & K.. khoob attaar laga key aana ustaad..

Please sort out my phone once and for all..
Either fix it or replace it with a new one
 
Coz land isn’t gained through diplomacy.
It’s gained through warfare however hard it may be.
That is the only option.
<b>Either pak will gain Srinagar or lose Muzaffarabad</b>

In 1971 95,000 Pakistanis surrendered without putting up a fight.
In 1999 when attacked by the Indian Army the Pakistani Army vacated the Kargil heights which they had stealthily occupied earlier.

Since then the notable difference is that Pakistan's economy has gone bankrupt.

War is a loss for both sides as families lose their fathers, husbands and sons, and enemy soldiers dying is no compensation. So I hope Pakistani leaders would not start another war with India, but if they did I would put my money on "lose Muzaffarabad".
 
In 1971 95,000 Pakistanis surrendered without putting up a fight.
In 1999 when attacked by the Indian Army the Pakistani Army vacated the Kargil heights which they had stealthily occupied earlier.

Since then the notable difference is that Pakistan's economy has gone bankrupt.

War is a loss for both sides as families lose their fathers, husbands and sons, and enemy soldiers dying is no compensation. So I hope Pakistani leaders would not start another war with India, but if they did I would put my money on "lose Muzaffarabad".

Evidence?
 
I do not see 95,000 Pakistani in this pic.

You want to come to Muzaffarabad to provide an evidence?

If you are quibbling about the number, then here is a link to a BBC webpage that says "The Pakistani army surrendered at Dhaka and its army of more than 90,000 became Indian prisoners of war."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/south_asia/2002/india_pakistan/timeline/1971.stm

I am really surprised that a Pakistani doesn't know this important basic historical fact. I guess your ruling elite has decided that the children will not be taught true history in your schools, which is why you keep repeating the same mistakes again and again.
 
In 1971 95,000 Pakistanis surrendered without putting up a fight.
In 1999 when attacked by the Indian Army the Pakistani Army vacated the Kargil heights which they had stealthily occupied earlier.

Since then the notable difference is that Pakistan's economy has gone bankrupt.

War is a loss for both sides as families lose their fathers, husbands and sons, and enemy soldiers dying is no compensation. So I hope Pakistani leaders would not start another war with India, but if they did I would put my money on "lose Muzaffarabad".

Sometimes you have to choose something which you don’t want to.
War isn’t won by any side but it is lost by one most of the time.
In 1948, we lost many soldiers but we gained a third of kashmir.
 
If you are quibbling about the number, then here is a link to a BBC webpage that says "The Pakistani army surrendered at Dhaka and its army of more than 90,000 became Indian prisoners of war."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/south_asia/2002/india_pakistan/timeline/1971.stm

I am really surprised that a Pakistani doesn't know this important basic historical fact. I guess your ruling elite has decided that the children will not be taught true history in your schools, which is why you keep repeating the same mistakes again and again.

Since when did Indians taking BBC or any western news media seriously?
 
Sometimes you have to choose something which you don’t want to.
War isn’t won by any side but it is lost by one most of the time.
<b>In 1948, we lost many soldiers but we gained a third of kashmir.</b>

The gains to Pakistan were against the Maharaja of Kashmir Hari Singh's army. Once the Indian Army arrived in Kashmir, the Pakistanis were pushed back from Baramulla and lost territory they had occupied.
 
If you are quibbling about the number, then here is a link to a BBC webpage that says "The Pakistani army surrendered at Dhaka and its army of more than 90,000 became Indian prisoners of war."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/south_asia/2002/india_pakistan/timeline/1971.stm

I am really surprised that a Pakistani doesn't know this important basic historical fact. I guess your ruling elite has decided that the children will not be taught true history in your schools, which is why you keep repeating the same mistakes again and again.

Don’t talk about something you have very minimal knowledge about.
That 90k includes cooks, engineers etc.
The actual army consisted of only 45k.
Which was a lot smaller than the indian army and Mukti bahini combined
 
The gains to Pakistan were against the Maharaja of Kashmir Hari Singh's army. Once the Indian Army arrived in Kashmir, the Pakistanis were pushed back from Baramulla and lost territory they had occupied.

Still ended up with 1/3 of the kashmir.

If Indian army were that great then they should have taken back all of it since Maharaja decided to go with India?
 
Since when did Indians taking BBC or any western news media seriously?

If you are questioning even this basic historical fact then unfortunately you are in such an advanced state of delusion that I can't really help you. You might as well ask me to "prove that East Pakistan is no longer a part of Pakistan".
 
If you are questioning even this basic historical fact then unfortunately you are in such an advanced state of delusion that I can't really help you. You might as well ask me to "prove that East Pakistan is no longer a part of Pakistan".

45k were army personnel. Far far smaller than the indian army + mukti bahini
 
Don’t talk about something you have very minimal knowledge about.
That 90k includes cooks, engineers etc.
The actual army consisted of only 45k.
Which was a lot smaller than the indian army and Mukti bahini combined

I wrote "95,000 Pakistanis surrendered". I did not differentiate between cooks and soldiers, the error here is your lack of comprehension of the English language.
 
If you are questioning even this basic historical fact then unfortunately you are in such an advanced state of delusion that I can't really help you. You might as well ask me to "prove that East Pakistan is no longer a part of Pakistan".

1/3 of the Kashmir is no longer part of India.
:)
 
Well, no.

I saw the PC and he said that if diplomacy doesn’t work in our favour then we will have to do something which we don’t want to (war).

If he wants war, well he will get war.

Because no country has done anything or wants to do anything, even china did lip service and is quiet now.
 
Last edited:
1/3 of the Kashmir is no longer part of India.
:)

Taken from the army of Hari Singh. The moment Indian Army landed and started its OPs, pakistan army was pushed from near srinagar to a small strip of land and GB.
 
45k were army personnel. Far far smaller than the indian army + mukti bahini

A real Army with courageous soldiers does not count the number of enemy soldiers facing them and say "well, it appears they are more numerous than us, so let's surrender".

Read about the Battle of Longewala where 120 Indian soldiers stood and fought rather than retreat when faced with 2,000 Pakistani soldiers and 40 tanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Longewala

Or about how the Soviets held Pavlov's House against the Wehrmacht.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlov's_House
 
Taken from the army of Hari Singh. The moment Indian Army landed and started its OPs, pakistan army was pushed from near srinagar to a small strip of land and GB.

Yea, everyone knows that.

Pakistan still ended up with 1/3 of the kashmir despite Hari Sing wishes against the people of Kashmir to go with India.
 
A real Army with courageous soldiers does not count the number of enemy soldiers facing them and say "well, it appears they are more numerous than us, so let's surrender".

Read about the Battle of Longewala where 120 Indian soldiers stood and fought rather than retreat when faced with 2,000 Pakistani soldiers and 40 tanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Longewala

Or about how the Soviets held Pavlov's House against the Wehrmacht.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlov's_House

We’re talking About the war here not a few battles.
We had been cut off from west Pakistan. You can’t survive in a war like that.
You attacked an important pak building in Dhaka which led to the instrument of surrender being signed.
The normal soldiers had no say in it
 
Last edited:
We’re talking About the war here not a few battles.
We had been cut off from west Pakistan. You can’t survive in a war like that.
You attacked an important pak building in Dhaka which led to the instrument of surrender being signed.
The normal soldiers had no say in it

East Pakistan had more population and similar if not more GDP, why was it dependent on West pakistan for protection?
 
East Pakistan had more population and similar if not more GDP, why was it dependent on West pakistan for protection?

Is it really that hard to understand?

The majority of Army installments and military equipment was in West Pakistan.
It was very difficult to transfer it to the East during the war
 
Still ended up with 1/3 of the kashmir.

If Indian army were that great then they should have taken back all of it since Maharaja decided to go with India?

Can't say "ended up" coz it's "Azad" and is not a Pak province. See, that's the problem Pak faces. If they claim AJK, they will lose the J&K rhetoric. Everybody knows AJK is nothing compared to J&K. Pak tried to make Gilgit a province though. So it's basically a triple game that Pak can't win considering India already has the important part of Kashmir and also is stronger and will continue to be.
 
Is it really that hard to understand?

The majority of Army installments and military equipment was in West Pakistan.
It was very difficult to transfer it to the East during the war

Thats the question, why was major military installations and equipment and personnel in west.
 
Don’t talk about something you have very minimal knowledge about.
That 90k includes cooks, engineers etc.
The actual army consisted of only 45k.
Which was a lot smaller than the indian army and Mukti bahini combined

Following the surrender, the Indian Army took approximately 90,000 Pakistani servicemen and their Bengali supporters as POWs, making it the largest surrender since World War II.[127]:157[self-published source] Initial counts recorded that approximately 79,676 war prisoners were uniformed personnel, and the overwhelming majority of the war prisoners were officers - most of them were from the Army and Navy, while relatively small numbers were from the Air Force and Marines; others in larger number were serving in the paramilitary.[129]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971
 
Following the surrender, the Indian Army took approximately 90,000 Pakistani servicemen and their Bengali supporters as POWs, making it the largest surrender since World War II.[127]:157[self-published source] Initial counts recorded that approximately 79,676 war prisoners were uniformed personnel, and the overwhelming majority of the war prisoners were officers - most of them were from the Army and Navy, while relatively small numbers were from the Air Force and Marines; others in larger number were serving in the paramilitary.[129]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971

Maybe you should read it carefully.
Only 54k were from the Pak Army.
12k were civil personnel such as the governors
And a large amount were riot control and police who did not fight against the indian army.


As I've said before, don't argue with me about something you have little knowledge about
 
Maybe you should read it carefully.
Only 54k were from the Pak Army.
12k were civil personnel such as the governors
And a large amount were riot control and police who did not fight against the indian army.


As I've said before, don't argue with me about something you have little knowledge about
You mentioned earlier that only 45k were from army. I just quoted that actual figure was much higher regarding people who could have fought but decided to meekly surrender. So much for the claim of kayani " one Pakistani soldier is equal to ten Indian soldiers"! Lol
 
You mentioned earlier that only 45k were from army. I just quoted that actual figure was much higher regarding people who could have fought but decided to meekly surrender. So much for the claim of kayani " one Pakistani soldier is equal to ten Indian soldiers"! Lol

The sad thing is that you find pride in beating an enemy which was at least 2 times smaller and had less equipment.

It is VERY sad.
 
The sad thing is that you find pride in beating an enemy which was at least 2 times smaller and had less equipment.

It is VERY sad.

India didn't started the war in 1971. If a country is under the illusion that it can take down country double its size then it deserves what happened. A deer who attacks elephant can't complain if it gets trampled.
 
India didn't started the war in 1971. If a country is under the illusion that it can take down country double its size then it deserves what happened. A deer who attacks elephant can't complain if it gets trampled.

It's irrelevant who started the war coz even India was ready to start it
The indian army admits that they were going to start a war anyway due to the refugee crisis and due to lack of support of the international community on this issue
 
It's irrelevant who started the war coz even India was ready to start it
The indian army admits that they were going to start a war anyway due to the refugee crisis and due to lack of support of the international community on this issue

It might be irrelevant for you however history does care regarding who fired the first bullet. In law as well they do check who was attacking and who was defending.
 
Last edited:
Self determination is a path that will come after great sacrifice. It is not gonna be an easy thing.
 
Pakistan going to war is a near impossible with a broken economy. Not to mention, there will be sanctions from various countries if both the country does get involved in the war. In such a scenario, India has better chance of surviving than Pakistan.

All India need to do is, keep the war going. Sooner or later, however resources pak may get, it will be exhausted as other sector of the system will start to fail.

And since India already has the j&k, it will always have the upper hand.
 
Back
Top