Pakistan, India have a lot to gain from mutually beneficial trade: Shehbaz Sharif

[Joe Shearer]

So what if Kashmir is settled more or less with the status quo - maybe with some leverage on IWT and other economic guarantees? Maybe Siachen to be demilitarized?

The current conventional and nuclear arsenal and delivery capabilities along with response time mean that all things being equal and leadership incompetence or indecision negated India despite a large number of qualitative updates still has no victory against Pakistan.
So what will the population of Pakistan eventually after smacking their politicians and elite start thinking when they realize they have it pretty secure and yet have a disproportionate and misaligned security apparatus still out there?

Someone will ask why (34.0156858, 71.5606371) is necessary as a residence and why should a taxpayer pay for it

These steps are necessary for things to improve. Some of the events that may take place may be ugly, and repellent. At the end of the day, whatever encourages the common man to look up and look around and ask questions of those who have assumed responsibilities is good.

If the kind of questioning of the institutions that has started, and that has shown fairly crude and unwholesome expression on PDF, continues, then Pakistan, for the first time, will have questioned the institutions that have bottled up popular aspirations, some as simple as roti, kapda aur makaan. They will start asking why more is not spent on those essentials, and less on shiny toys for the boys.

With a lot of luck, such a questioning attitude might rub off next door.

 

[Chat SAMOSA]

Reading thru this thread has been very entertaining. Pakistani participants seem to have invented a heightened level of expression where pragmatism cannot be admitted so these brilliant alchemists have, using a thin layer whine and heavy layer of cynicism, catalyzed it into bravado. May be they eat less spicy in Pakistan these days.

 

[MultaniGuy]

You didn't understand what I'm trying to say.... We like it or not no government on both sides will compromise further..... You have your share of kashmir and we have ours..... Compromising further will be sucidal for any government.....

But how long we can keep crying, keep compromising our development, keep loosing our men and children and how long we keep spending on arms..... Meaningless.... Let's be happy with whatever we got and make current boundary as international one and move towards the betterment of our people.....

What would be the incentive for Pakistan to accept such an arrangement.

We have every right to claim all of the Kashmir because of the Muslim majority argument.

Had Kashmir been a regular province of the British Raj, it would have automatically gone to Pakistan.

Even Untied Nations said Kashmir is a territorial dispute.

 

[MultaniGuy]

@Topic.

I am totally against doing any trade with India.

Kashmir needs to be resolved first. Or India deliberately avoids the Kashmir dispute.

Until then we will not do any talks.

 

[Flash_Ninja]

They can. Through the ballot.

Ok which pro-Independence or pro-Pakistan parties contest the elections? please tell me

I find it baffling.

For 75 years, Pakistan has talked of 'negotiating' on Kashmir.
For 75 years, it has turned out that to Pakistan, negotiating means giving up Kashmir to Pakistan.
Logical and consistent.

The baffling part comes with wondering what India will gain out of the abject surrender that Pakistan so hopefully looks to achieve.

There is nobody clamouring to join India on the Pakistan side, so the logical outcome of a referendum would be a net gain of territory for Pakistan.

However that would come with the benefit of legitimising any territory in Kashmir which does not wish to join Pakistan, and permanantly gaining peace with your neighbour. Posters like yourself only further prove my points as to why India will never accept peace, as even a "professional" level poster like yourself fails to understand the concept of compromise.

...unless you actually believe that the current situation is better lol

 

[MultaniGuy]

These steps are necessary for things to improve. Some of the events that may take place may be ugly, and repellent. At the end of the day, whatever encourages the common man to look up and look around and ask questions of those who have assumed responsibilities is good.

If the kind of questioning of the institutions that has started, and that has shown fairly crude and unwholesome expression on PDF, continues, then Pakistan, for the first time, will have questioned the institutions that have bottled up popular aspirations, some as simple as roti, kapda aur makaan. They will start asking why more is not spent on those essentials, and less on shiny toys for the boys.

With a lot of luck, such a questioning attitude might rub off next door.

Hold a plebiscite in Kashmir to determine the destiny of the territorial dispute.

 

[kazaki]

Sajjan Jindal, has business ties with Sharif’s family as his company in business dealings with the Ittefaq Group of Industries, a Pakistani integrated steel producer with major operations in Punjab, which was founded by industrialist Muhammad Sharif, father of Nawaz Sharif.

Any proof ? Only gossip by PTI supporters .

 

[SinanPasha]

The local population is free to "rise up" and vote against the current government. They are free to "rise up" and gather public support for their being "terrorised".

Where is those Guns, Bombs, Cocain, and Bullets coming from ? They don't grow on Trees and they are EXPENSIVE. Who is funding it ? Who is supply it ? Who is training the people to use guns ?

So Indian stand is pretty clear.


Secondly, ANY India govt. that successfully Negotiates on Kashmir will WIN the next 10 elections.
Indians are waiting for P0K and Gilgit baltistan to be merged back into India. That is what Indian kashmir negotiation will be all about.


But to have successful negotiations on kashmir, there can be zero terror.

The local population is free to "rise up" and vote against the current government. They are free to "rise up" and gather public support for their being "terrorised".

Where is those Guns, Bombs, Cocain, and Bullets coming from ? They don't grow on Trees and they are EXPENSIVE. Who is funding it ? Who is supply it ? Who is training the people to use guns ?

So Indian stand is pretty clear.


Secondly, ANY India govt. that successfully Negotiates on Kashmir will WIN the next 10 elections.
Indians are waiting for P0K and Gilgit baltistan to be merged back into India. That is what Indian kashmir negotiation will be all about.


But to have successful negotiations on kashmir, there can be zero terror.

Stick with the ground reality. You and I both know that not a single person in Azad Kashmir or Gilgit-Baltistan wants to be, or even thinks of wanting to be a part of India. Even the Kashmiris living in Indian occupied Jammu and Kashmir want nothing to do with India's tyrannical rule. Hindu radicals ruling india are asking for the impossible, of laying claim to Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan.

"Indians are waiting for P0K and Gilgit baltistan to be merged back into India. That is what Indian kashmir negotiation will be all about."

Then Indians can continue to wait forever, because this will never happen. Only way forward is to hold a referendum on Kashmir as stated under the UN security council resolution 47 to hold a plebiscite on Kashmir, something that India will not do because they know that if a plebiscite is held, then Kashmiris will either gain their independence from India or join their Azad Kashmiri brethren in Pakistan.

 

[MilSpec]

Yes nothing cut all ties.

100% agree.

 

[MultaniGuy]

United Nations statement is based on India's unilateral move to the UN. Just to remind you, Pakistan didn't become a party to the resolution, it still stands as a unilateral non-binding resolution from which India can withdraw anytime it likes, but most importantly India-Pakistan has had subsequent agreements overriding that resolution anyway.


Assuming that you have actually read the resolution, when are you guys handing over Azad Kashmir to India, coz that's the prerequisite mentioned in the resolution!

Indians always come with this argument that the UN resolution is not binding.
We have answered this argument.

Nehru agreed to hold a plebiscite but then rescinded. When you agree it becomes binding.
Even Australian Lawyer Sir Owen Dixon blamed India for not holding a Plebiscite to determine the destiny of the land.

When you Indians agreed with the Plebiscite like Nehru it becomes binding.

United Nations statement is based on India's unilateral move to the UN. Just to remind you, Pakistan didn't become a party to the resolution, it still stands as a unilateral non-binding resolution from which India can withdraw anytime it likes, but most importantly India-Pakistan has had subsequent agreements overriding that resolution anyway.


Assuming that you have actually read the resolution, when are you guys handing over Azad Kashmir to India, coz that's the prerequisite mentioned in the resolution!

Or Indians come with the argument that the Shimla agreement makes the Kashmir dispute a bilateral dispute.

However if we cannot resolve the Kashmir dispute bilaterally, then we can work outside the parameters of the Shimla agreement.

 

[MultaniGuy]

"When you agree it becomes binding" lol what kind of argument is that?! Kindly refer me to any UN Article/Section/Charter to support your claim?! Because the UN clearly has binding and non-binding resolutions and the category is not defined by agreeing or disagreeing with it. You also claim that we can work outside the parameters of the Shimla agreement if it doesn't resolve issues, again any agreement to establish the claim? Most importantly I would be the happiest if that resolution was to be binding, there is a reason Pakistan backed off from the resolution and never officially tried to push it in the UN, reading that resolution will help you understand why.

And what is this "even *insert random white dudes names* said this"?!! LOL That too an Australian, whose supreme leader officially sits in UK!

Stop talking nonsense.

1) Nehru promised to hold a plebiscite to determine the destiny of the land of Kashmir. He later betrayed his promise. When you promise it becomes binding.
2) Shimla agreement becomes irrelevant if we cannot resolve the matter bilaterally, which has failed. Why should we work within the parameters of Shimla agreement, when Republic of India keeps reneging on its commitment to resolve the Kashmir dispute in a fair manner.

Plebiscite is the only fair way to resolve the Kashmir dispute.

"When you agree it becomes binding" lol what kind of argument is that?! Kindly refer me to any UN Article/Section/Charter to support your claim?! Because the UN clearly has binding and non-binding resolutions and the category is not defined by agreeing or disagreeing with it. You also claim that we can work outside the parameters of the Shimla agreement if it doesn't resolve issues, again any agreement to establish the claim? Most importantly I would be the happiest if that resolution was to be binding, there is a reason Pakistan backed off from the resolution and never officially tried to push it in the UN, reading that resolution will help you understand why.

And what is this "even *insert random white dudes names* said this"?!! LOL That too an Australian, whose supreme leader officially sits in UK!

We can agree to disagree then, because you are talking illogical nonsense.

If we cannot resolve our dispute within the parameters of Shimla agreement, then the Shimla agreement becomes irrelevant.

 

[Chat SAMOSA]

It's the Pakistani PM suggesting trade resumption wit India. If you don't like that just don't elect him to represent you !

 

[El Sidd]

It's the Pakistani PM suggesting trade resumption wit India. If you don't like that just don't elect him to represent you !

No Pakistani PM is going to suggest trade with Islamophobic India and Indians.

 

[Chat SAMOSA]

No Pakistani PM is going to suggest trade with Islamophobic India and Indians.

He hasn't got your msg.

 

[Chat SAMOSA]

His party doesn't represent the majority in the parliament.

But he is your PM within your system. Your parliament voted and made him PM.