Armistice negotiations with Pakistan?

Or is it carried out when Amritsar is occupied by the Pakistani army, or more precisely encircled, that is, the Pakistani army has already invaded the territory of India and occupied the territory of India?

Obviously, the Indian authorities will certainly not take it into account.

Why?

Not to mention what the outcome can be discussed, as long as the Indian authorities relent, I am afraid that they will be overthrown by the angry people in a few days.

You know, before that, India missed too many opportunities to negotiate.

What does it mean to negotiate with Pakistan at the most unfavorable time?

Also, can't the Indian army fight?

Let's not forget, not so long ago, India received assistance from the United States and Japan, raised several troops, and the Prime Minister made a high-profile claim that India had the full support of two of the world's most powerful countries and would not be long before it achieved total victory.

Obviously, sitting down and negotiating at this time is an absolute disaster.

At the very least, all officials, including the Prime Minister of India, will be doomed, and may even be court-martial by the next government after the war.

Why?

It was these guys who pushed India into the quagmire of war.

The problem is aggravated when the outcome of the negotiations, or the possible outcome, is taken into account.

What's the problem?

What can India gain by negotiating without Amritsar?

Although India has received assistance and the Indian Army still has some combat effectiveness, in essence, the initiative in the war is still in the hands of the Pakistani army.

In addition, the Indian Army has been reduced to a security force with a primary responsibility for internal security.

Defeat the Pakistani army?

Apparently dreaming.

Having lost the ability to turn the tide of the war, what India can hope for after sitting at the negotiating table is Pakistan's mercy.

Of course, it would be more appropriate to expect Pakistan to have no territorial ambitions.

In this way, India will inevitably lose Kashmir.

Of course, India has already lost Kashmir.

In order to return to Amritsar, or to allow the Pakistani army to withdraw, India will have to make concessions at the negotiating table, and the only concession will be to recognize Pakistan's de facto control of Kashmir and no longer demand that Pakistani troops withdraw to the positions they were in before the conflict broke out.

Will this result be acceptable to the Indian authorities?

Obviously, the same unacceptable.

In addition, it is the best possible result.

To put it simply, it is to acquiesce to Pakistan's control of the whole of Kashmir in exchange for Pakistan's mercy.

So, what about the bad results?

What if Pakistan refuses to withdraw its troops?

Of course, this is only a small probability event.

However, no one can deny that Pakistan will make a fuss about Amritsar, that is, at the same time as withdrawing troops, India will recognize Amritsar's independent status, simply put, let Amritsar gain autonomous status and become a buffer zone east of Lahore.

If it really comes to this point, the Indian authorities will be even more unacceptable.

Why?

What's the difference between this and having a peacekeeping force in Amritsar?

Even if there were, it was worse.

As long as the Indian authorities make such concessions, it is tantamount to de jure recognition of Amritsar's autonomy and opens the door to other states.

Not to mention that India is already suffering from internal and external troubles, even if there is no war, its internal contradictions will be difficult to reconcile.

Obviously, as long as this opening is opened, the situation will be out of control.

Perhaps, in a few years, several states will become independent, and even civil wars will break out.

It can be seen that this possibility alone determines that the Indian authorities will absolutely not agree to hold armistice negotiations with Pakistan at this time.

If you want to talk, you must first get the Amritsar affair done.

To put it bluntly, Pakistan cannot be allowed to use Amritsar.

The question is, how?

In the UN Security Council, the United States directly vetoed Pakistan's request.

No way, the United States has a veto.

Of course, the United States also had good reasons for its veto.

Pakistan already controls Amritsar de facto and India is a sovereign state at war with Pakistan, so there is no justification for sending a peacekeeping force to a warring city under the relevant statutes of the UN Security Council.

It's just that the matter isn't over yet.

Subsequently, at the initiative of Japan, the Security Council adopted a resolution on the provision of humanitarian assistance to Amritsar.

Because it was humanitarian aid and highlighted the fact that millions of people were starving, no country, including Huaxia, had reason to veto the proposal.

Then comes the problem.

That is, who is responsible for managing and distributing aid?

Of course, delivering aid is a small matter.

After the adoption of the resolution, the United States proposed that the relevant agencies of the United Nations should come forward and use their membership funds to procure aid.

The total value of the first batch of aid is as high as $4 billion, as proposed by the United States.

The main thing, of course, is food.

Why did the United States make such a proposal?

Quite simply, you have to buy food from the United States.

Although international food prices have more than doubled, sales have not only not increased, but have fallen considerably, mainly because many poor countries have reduced their food imports.

As a result, millions of farmers in the United States are threatened with bankruptcy.

The United Nations has spent $4 billion on food to help these farmers at least weather the difficult times they face.

Naturally, the food has to go through Pakistan.

Although Japan offered to ship from India, it was eventually rejected by India.

Why?

India's transportation situation is already terrible, and if the forces are mobilized to deliver humanitarian relief supplies, how can war supplies be delivered?

Fortunately, Pakistan agreed.

Of course, Pakistan has also made a request that the United Nations convoy carrying supplies in Pakistan must strictly follow the orders of the Pakistani authorities, and that the Pakistani military arrange a escort force, and that the Pakistani authorities will not be held responsible for any unexpected situation caused by the refusal to carry out the order.

Now, the United States and Japan have stopped working.

Why?

Having gone to Pakistan, who can guarantee that the Pakistani authorities will deliver on their promises?

If something happens in Pakistan, the Pakistani authorities can simply excuse the convoy for not obeying orders.

Pulled back and forth, and finally handed it over to Huaxia.

That is, Huaxia will provide the convoy to deliver humanitarian supplies to Amritsar, while the United States and Japan will only be responsible for sending the supplies to the Gwadar port.

It is obviously much safer for Huaxia to undertake the transportation work, at least Pakistan does not dare to do anything to Huaxia.

Of course, the United States and Japan will send supervisors to oversee the delivery of supplies.