PDA

View Full Version : Indian Border Security Force (BSF) - No militants entering India from Pakistan to launch attacks.



Yossarian
27th November 2014, 22:39
The force is acquiring unmanned aerial vehicles and other surveillance equipment to bolster its border defence. The move comes even though BSF maintains that there is no infiltration from Pakistan on the borders it guards. "In the past three years we have found no evidence of infiltration on international border with Pakistan," Pathak said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/BSF-plans-laser-walls-to-stop-infiltration-from-Pakistan/articleshow/45289681.cmsSo, according to the Indan forces themselves, ie those who are tasked with guarding the border with Pakistan, there are no infiltrators coming over from the Pakistan side, meaning that blaming Pakistan based militants for the insurgency in Kashmir is a pack of lies.

Either that or the BSF is lying to cover up their own shortcomings.

So which is it? BSF lying or no infiltrators coming over from the Pakistan side (ie the Indian govt, lying)?

AlCapone
27th November 2014, 22:57
Pakistan doesn't really need to send in mercenaries to liberate the Kashmiris, there's a lot of anti-Indian sentiment over there, enough to never let India integrate them.

the Great Khan
27th November 2014, 23:10
if that's the case why is Indian firing artillery shells at us across the border? this is all geopolitics.

cricketjoshila
27th November 2014, 23:20
There is a difference between the international border guarded by BSF and LOC guarded by the Army.The infiltration is along the LOC.

Yossarian
28th November 2014, 00:45
There is a difference between the international border guarded by BSF and LOC guarded by the Army.The infiltration is along the LOC.So the Indians accept that the LOC is not a 'border' but simply a temporary dividing line, and thus the part of Kashmir that's under India's control is not an integral part of India ? ie It's 'outside' India's borders, which is why, as you say, it's not the Border Security Force's responsibility?

Saeed
28th November 2014, 01:31
There is a difference between the international border guarded by BSF and LOC guarded by the Army.The infiltration is along the LOC.

Why is army guarding the LOC when it should be the responsibility of BSF? Does this prove the incompetence of army or they are intentionally put there to allow terrorists in?

Laparwah
28th November 2014, 01:51
It is an indigenous movement within the valley that Bharat needs to accept. With our army already busy in many parts of the country it makes little sense in Pak wanting a war though this not to be seen as us being afraid of them. We know that both armies are armed to teeth so in any confrontation there will be suffering on both sides. Don't tell me Pak is to blame for Indian Muslim's joining the ISIS in Syria.

cricketjoshila
28th November 2014, 04:09
So the Indians accept that the LOC is not a 'border' but simply a temporary dividing line, and thus the part of Kashmir that's under India's control is not an integral part of India ? ie It's 'outside' India's borders, which is why, as you say, it's not the Border Security Force's responsibility?

The Army is used since Pakistan violated the ceasefire in 1965 and since then the LOC is considered to be on active state of war and hence the more competent and better equooed force the Army is used rather than the Paramilitary BSF.

And India claims the entire Kashmir as its integral part including all of POK.So no question of


Why is army guarding the LOC when it should be the responsibility of BSF? Does this prove the incompetence of army or they are intentionally put there to allow terrorists in?

The Army has always guarded the LOC because its considered to be in active state of war.And the BSF guards the IB which is in the plains so its not easy for terrorists to infilterate as the line of sight is clear and patrolling easier.The LOC has more difficult terrain and line of sight and patrolling is tougher hence terrorists have bigger chance of hoodwinking the guards and entering.

cricketjoshila
28th November 2014, 04:10
The Army is used since Pakistan violated the ceasefire in 1965 and since then the LOC is considered to be on active state of war and hence the more competent and better equooed force the Army is used rather than the Paramilitary BSF.

And India claims the entire Kashmir as its integral part including all of POK.So no question of



The Army has always guarded the LOC because its considered to be in active state of war.And the BSF guards the IB which is in the plains so its not easy for terrorists to infilterate as the line of sight is clear and patrolling easier.The LOC has more difficult terrain and line of sight and patrolling is tougher hence terrorists have bigger chance of hoodwinking the guards and entering.

The date would be 1948 and Pakistan violated the Standstill agreement and not ceasefire.

Cpt. Rishwat
28th November 2014, 04:26
And India claims the entire Kashmir as its integral part including all of POK.




Then why build a fence to seal India off from it's own territory? Especially as your own agencies are reporting that there is no evidence of infiltration from Pakistan border.

cricketjoshila
28th November 2014, 04:32
Then why build a fence to seal India off from it's own territory? Especially as your own agencies are reporting that there is no evidence of infiltration from Pakistan border.

1.There is no infiltration along the IB and not the LOC.Next time please read other posts in the thread before selectively quoting a single line.I have already mentioned what is the difference between the LOC and the International border.

2.The fence is build so that no unwanted elements can cross over.

Bewal Express
28th November 2014, 04:38
if that's the case why is Indian firing artillery shells at us across the border? this is all geopolitics.

They are scared that we might actually wipe their TTP friends on the western border, so this is an attempt to put pressure on us on the eastern border so that the TTP can survive.

Cpt. Rishwat
28th November 2014, 04:48
1.There is no infiltration along the IB and not the LOC.Next time please read other posts in the thread before selectively quoting a single line.I have already mentioned what is the difference between the LOC and the International border.

2.The fence is build so that no unwanted elements can cross over.

You are the one who said India claims all of Kashmir including Pakistan side, so as a supposedly superior military force, why not take what belongs to you instead of hiding behind a fence which gives the opposite impression that you are more afraid of the territory that you claim as your own?

cricketjoshila
28th November 2014, 04:54
You are the one who said India claims all of Kashmir including Pakistan side, so as a supposedly superior military force, why not take what belongs to you instead of hiding behind a fence which gives the opposite impression that you are more afraid of the territory that you claim as your own?
Because there is an agreement that India upholds.Why do you think no one gave a damn when Pakistan was shouting about Kashmir recently in every forum.Because Pakistan has violated every agreement on Kashmir.The stabdstill agreement,The ceasefire agreement ,The Shimla agreement and the Lahore declaration.Breaking any of these agreement will cause loss of credibility in the international community.India has defended Kashmir every time Pakistan has attacked so there is no fear.

The fence is to stop terrorists from Pakistan from entering and killing innocent civilians.

Cpt. Rishwat
28th November 2014, 05:05
Because there is an agreement that India upholds.Why do you think no one gave a damn when Pakistan was shouting about Kashmir recently in every forum.Because Pakistan has violated every agreement on Kashmir.The stabdstill agreement,The ceasefire agreement ,The Shimla agreement and the Lahore declaration.Breaking any of these agreement will cause loss of credibility in the international community.India has defended Kashmir every time Pakistan has attacked so there is no fear.

The fence is to stop terrorists from Pakistan from entering and killing innocent civilians.

I thought India did not give a damn about outside world and answered to no one for it's "internal matters". Now since you claim all of Kashmir is integral part of India (your words) why are you worried about what anyone else thinks? Come in and take what belongs to you, why do you need to wait for approval from anyone else?

cricketjoshila
28th November 2014, 05:09
I thought India did not give a damn about outside world and answered to no one for it's "internal matters". Now since you claim all of Kashmir is integral part of India (your words) why are you worried about what anyone else thinks? Come in and take what belongs to you, why do you need to wait for approval from anyone else?
The ceasefire agreement which set up the LOC was UN mediated and India has through the other agreements always reiterated that it will never take the route of war to take the other parts of Kashmir and keep peace and will find a solution by peaceful means.As i said its all about credibility of doing what you say and maintaining the sanctity of international agreements.

Yossarian
28th November 2014, 05:13
Because there is an agreement that India upholds.Why do you think no one gave a damn when Pakistan was shouting about Kashmir recently in every forum.Because Pakistan has violated every agreement on Kashmir.The stabdstill agreement,The ceasefire agreement ,The Shimla agreement and the Lahore declaration.Breaking any of these agreement will cause loss of credibility in the international community.India has defended Kashmir every time Pakistan has attacked so there is no fear.

The fence is to stop terrorists from Pakistan from entering and killing innocent civilians.So basically India has agreed that all of Kashmir is not Indian territory?

OK, lets get down to brass tacks.

Where does the border lie from the Indians point of view?

ie

1. All of Kashmir is Indian - therefore the 'border' between India & Pakistan is where Pakistani territory ends and Azad Kashmir begins?
> If so, then Pakistan is occupying Indian territory?

or
2. The LOC is the Pakistani / Indian border.
> In which case the BSF's statement that "BSF maintains that there is no infiltration from Pakistan on the borders it guards. "In the past three years we have found no evidence of infiltration on international border with Pakistan," " is either correct and the Indian govt is lying, or the BSF is lying.

or
3. The border is where India ends and Kashmir begins?
> In which case India are an occupying power.

A simple 1, 2, or 3 will do.

Cpt. Rishwat
28th November 2014, 05:14
The ceasefire agreement which set up the LOC was UN mediated and India has through the other agreements always reiterated that it will never take the route of war to take the other parts of Kashmir and keep peace and will find a solution by peaceful means.As i said its all about credibility of doing what you say and maintaining the sanctity of international agreements.

So you agree to outside forces deciding India's internal matters. I have no problem with that but why the big pretence otherwise?

loves_cricket
28th November 2014, 05:27
Making smart worded statements on internet forum have no values.
Simple fact is that both sides will remain locked with each other forever.
Pakistan wants Kashmir, India will not give an inch.
And on this forum war will go on and on and on................

Indiafan
28th November 2014, 16:40
So you agree to outside forces deciding India's internal matters. I have no problem with that but why the big pretence otherwise?

No, that is the exact opposite of what he is saying. India is honoring an agreement it made. However, there will be no inteference from outside or no one can force it to change it's stand on Kashmir

Cpt. Rishwat
28th November 2014, 17:22
No, that is the exact opposite of what he is saying. India is honoring an agreement it made. However, there will be no inteference from outside or no one can force it to change it's stand on Kashmir

Same difference, just a play on words. He is claiming India considers all of Kashmir as integral part of India, yet it has made an agreement brokered by outsiders to leave a large chunk in Pakistan. Why agree to give away an integral part of your country if you consider your claim legitimate?

AlCapone
28th November 2014, 17:22
Because there is an agreement that India upholds.Why do you think no one gave a damn when Pakistan was shouting about Kashmir recently in every forum.Because Pakistan has violated every agreement on Kashmir.The stabdstill agreement,The ceasefire agreement ,The Shimla agreement and the Lahore declaration.Breaking any of these agreement will cause loss of credibility in the international community.India has defended Kashmir

India violated the agreement first by invading Siachen.