Pakistan gave up its claim to the tract under a border agreement with China in 1963 with the proviso that the settlement was subject to the final solution of the Kashmir dispute.
So you wanted the chinese and pakistani to fight over a border that was defined by the british as to make sure there...
The ATP package provides for zero tariff import of 75 products from Pakistan.
Pakistan had to lobby with the WTO and its other members for gaining such facility because it is not a least developed country and its claim is a unilateral one.Pakistan's plea for the duty waiver became stronger when...
If pakistan needed to trade with india it would have been pakistan that would have given MFN status first to india and not the other way round.
Well if you want access CAR and the middle east via a land route then your going to have move on the kashmir issue.......if not? then the status quo...
Indias claims of Pakistan ceding territory in 1963 are false
NEW DELHI: Prominent lawyer AG Noorani has rebuffed the impression created by the Indian government, and widely accepted by Kashmiri leaders, that Pakistan ceded some Kashmiri territory to China in 1963.
At an Indo-Pak peace...
If thats the case why is it thats its always india asking for MFN with pakistan?
I do agree on the point that pakistan does not need india to trade and india does not need pakistan to trade.
I say link it to the kashmir issue.....each time moves towards peace in kashmir implement a part of the MFN deal.Once the people of kashmir are happy then MFN treaty is fully implemented.
Thats why the line "Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations" was put into the agreement......for people like you.
If you had not invaded siachen then your statement would have been true but the simla agreement states
(ii) In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side...
Well if it was true then the people should protest but it turns out you indians dont want an independent investigation....i wonder why?
By now it must have sunk in that everytime there is some positive movement forward between pak-ind there always seems to be some sort of incident that derails...
Apparently, the only reason it is called Gaddafi stadium is because he gave a speech at the OIC supporting our nuclear program.
( Gaddafi Stadium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )
Source...
If the above is all true then obviously the people of kashmir would vote to stay with india in a referendum that let them choose there future just like your past prime minister promised.
"We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have...
Well you could have joint pak-ind control of Kashmir.
1The govt of JK sends members to sit in both pak-ind national govts thus remaining a part of both while being a "semi independent" country.
2.Rotate the presidency of kashmir between the pak-ind presidents.
3.All three flags are flown on all...