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

[bababho]

Consistently stupid

Terrorise the local population and then when they rise up you blame all your problems on external factors. I mean its clear to everyone that Pakistan is in the moral right on the Kashmir issue, and the only one actually willing to push through on peace.

Basic reasoning
- Same army/ BSF / CRPF is in Punjab , Rajasthan, Himachahal, locals do not feel terrorised, so army do not has problem, locals are misguided or getting reaction of their deeds

Sher me muh me haath daaloge to puppi to nahi milegi

 

[K_Bin_W]

LOL. How can ICJ free him when he has been CHARGED by the pakistani state for a crime ?

It can only ask for a Free, fair and open trial to PROVE those charges and free if if the prosecution is unable to prove those charges.

Nobody is falling for your pathetic tricks.

Pretty much everybody can see through your attempts.

And this is the SECOND time me explaining the same thing.

LOL, ICJ is good enough for India to go and rant and rave and ask for his release and got rejected but not good enough for an appeal ..... Yeah we see through your BS loud and clear. Mark my words India will never provide legal AID and he will rot behind bars per the original verdict.

 

[Krptonite]

Your posts are always appreciated friend.

Thank you for saying that.

I hold a naive viewpoint, albeit optimistic. History dictates that if centuries old rivals like England and France can settle their differences and emerge as global powerhouses by economic cooperation, why can't we?

The immediate benefit that would have a direct impact on the poorest of this subcontinent would be enhanced food security. Our geographical proximity means resources that can be gained for lower prices and the difference be used for self betterment elsewhere. A must for resource starved nations of this subcontinent.

The EU started because they realised coal and steel could be shared within themselves at a much cheaper rate and the difference could be used to develop themselves. We could start similarly, slowly and small at first, in sectors like pharmaceutical, IT, Agriculture, energy where if trade was to be simply left alone to the laws of demand and supply between both markets it would have a direct impact on the betterment and development of both sides.

 

[Flash_Ninja]

LOL the entire BJP media cell has been mobilised here

What exactly is the relevance of this post ? What exactly is US locus standing to sit on judgement on India ? Its laughable and the fact that you would consider it relevant is pathetic.




We DON"T expect pakistan to stop terrorism as an instrument of its state policy.

Which is why you are in FATF grey list and your economy and currency matches that of Afghanistan.

And since we do not arm or train BLA/TTP, we are not in FATF list.



After merger of P0K and gilbit baltistan to India, Any pakistani who do not wish to live in India is free to migrate to pakistan or kill himself as you claim.

That was the basis of the 1947 resolution after all.

India is only for Indians, not pakistanis.

Again our stand on this is pretty clear and consistent. Why this confusion ?



It is pakistan which is clamoring for talks on kashmir.

I merely pointed out the TERMS for those talks.

The ball is in your court.

None of your argument is valid for any point I made. Its stupid to say they have freedom of choice/expression/opinion in a region with high human rights abuses and a complete ban on any politics which is even remotely pro-separatist or pro-Pakistan.

Implementation of the UN resolution is still waiting for India to proceed. Pakistan's consistent position has been to allow the peoples to decide via binding referendum.

The changing terms of India has no effect on the end result. Even during Musharaffs time when he constantly offered cross border joint investigations into militant groups as well as an assurance of ending border smuggling, there was a complete refusal on the Indian side. India will continously shift the goalposts in order to waste time because they have no sincerity in negotiating for peace.

What moral right?

The right of the people to decide their own future.

You list 3 good reasons , then how's the position 'consistently stupid'?? Do you not believe your reasons ?


Yes.

He made it seem as though India was interested in peace negotiations, so I listed some points as to why India instead shifts the goalposts and refuses bilateral or mediated negotiations showing that they are not interested in peace.

Basic reasoning
- Same army/ BSF / CRPF is in Punjab , Rajasthan, Himachahal, locals do not feel terrorised, so army do not has problem, locals are misguided or getting reaction of their deeds

Sher me muh me haath daaloge to puppi to nahi milegi

There are literally a couple hundred active militant groups across India.

Terrorism in India | Terrorist Groups in India | SATP

Terrorism in India. Know all about Terrorist Groups in India on South Asian Terrorist Portal. SATP is the largest website on Terrorism and low inrensity welfare in South Asia.

www.satp.org

But if Kashmiris who's women are fetishised by hindu extremist incels, and who are humiliated and degraded in national media, speak up for themeselves they are accused of being misguided by Pakistan.

 

[waz]

Thank you for saying that.

I hold a naive viewpoint, albeit optimistic. History dictates that if centuries old rivals like England and France can settle their differences and emerge as global powerhouses by economic cooperation, why can't we?

The immediate benefit that would have a direct impact on the poorest of this subcontinent would be enhanced food security. Our geographical proximity means resources that can be gained for lower prices and the difference be used for self betterment elsewhere. A must for resource starved nations of this subcontinent.

The EU started because they realised coal and steel could be shared within themselves at a much cheaper rate and the difference could be used to develop themselves. We could start similarly, slowly and small at first, in sectors like pharmaceutical, IT, Agriculture, energy where if trade was to be simply left alone to the laws of demand and supply between both markets it would have a direct impact on the betterment and development of both sides.

The thing is with England and France territorial ambitions had been settled by the advent of the industrial revolution and England came to help France during the first World War. I can't see those conditions happening with the Pak/Indo scenario.
I truly agree with you on everything else and your economic reasoning is sound with the market mechanism best allocating resources.
But how can this happen with the present horror show running India.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Consistently stupid

Terrorise the local population and then when they rise up you blame all your problems on external factors. I mean its clear to everyone that Pakistan is in the moral right on the Kashmir issue, and the only one actually willing to push through on peace.

Indians can never negotiate on Kashmir because it would a) be political suicide for whichever party does so b) shatter their dream of Indian hegemony (i.e. Akand Bharat) c) destroy their only unifying factor as a country in making Pakistanis their enemy.

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.

 

[Faqirze]

I'm all for improving relationships but so far it seems difficult

You'd have to be beyond deluded to think there is any chance of improved relations between the two countries.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

That amounts to owning businesses in India?

Now that wise analysts have pointed this out, it is easy to see that Mahindra and Mahindra is a bunch of traitors. Wasn't it originally Mahindra and Mohammed, and changed only because the Mohammed in question went to Pakistan to be the Finance Minister, and to be the first of many enemies of Pakistan's failing efforts at achieving democracy?

Same can be said about Indian kangroo courts. You are most welcome to challenge the verdict in ICJ....

Which one are you referring to? Just using the phrase doesn't make such a thing jump into existence.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

The thing is with England and France territorial ambitions had been settled by the advent of the industrial revolution and England came to help France during the first World War. I can't see those conditions happening with the Pak/Indo scenario.
I truly agree with you on everything else and your economic reasoning is sound with the market mechanism best allocating resources.
But how can this happen with the present horror show running India.

When all said and done, it is obvious that there will NEVER EVER be peace or normalisation of relations between Pakistsn and india. All this talk of "peace", "trade" or "back channel talks" are just delay tactics and breathing space while both sides rearm themselves and consolidate their positions before the loc heats up again. NOTHING more. As far as Pakistan is concerned, the ONLY thing that india means to us is that if they ever try to attack or invade us, how to obliterate and permanently eradicate them. That's it. NOTHING more.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Emotions are bound to get high whenever mention of trade pops up, both sides of the fence have reason not to.

Sorry, Pakistani emotions get high. Please look at the posts. Indians are happy selling at the wanted price to intermediaries in the Middle East, mostly Pakistanis, who then add their own margins and import into Pakistan.

Why should Indian businessmen bother?

ICJ did not overturn the verdict an excerpt from the ICJ website.

With regard to India’s contention that it was entitled to restitutio in integrum, its request for the Court to annul the decision of the military court and restrain Pakistan from giving effect to the sentence or conviction, and its further request for the Court to direct Pakistan to take steps to annul the decision of the military court, release Mr. Jadhav and facilitate his safe passage to India, the Court found that the submissions made by India could not be upheld. The Court also found, however, that Pakistan was under an obligation to provide, by means of its own choosing, effective review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of Mr. Jadhav, so as to ensure that full weight was given to the effect of the violation of the rights set forth in Article 36 of the Vienna Convention.

You do realise the difference between 'could not be upheld' and 'rejected'. There is no international mechanism for the ICJ to force Pakistan to respect its verdict, so it confined itself to saying merely that the court couldn't do much; it was up to Pakistan to do what it ought to.

What it ought to is clearly and unmistakably spelt out in the excerpt that you have yourself cited - "effective review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of Mr. Jadhav, so as to ensure that full weight was given to the effect of the violation of the rights set forth in Article 36 of the Vienna Convention." What else do you need? How much longer will you fool yourself that you won a famous legal victory, and not a slap in the face?

India challenged Pak verdict and asked for the release of Jadhav but ICJ rejects Indias submission... Why? if he is innocent like you say and have evidence then ICJ just find him innocent and should have ordered his release but that never happened and it never will.

Again, for the umpteenth time, READ what you have yourself reproduced. If you cannot swallow it, ask a legal expert. It said it could not order Jadhav's release, as in was unable to enforce any such judgement, and left it to Pakistan to conduct a trial again.

Sad to see someone quoting evidence, and then strenuously denying it.

Pakistan has nothing to offer to India on trade whereas India can flood the Pakistan market with it's products.

....which is already being done, but in commodities, not branded goods, and the beneficiaries are the intermediaries and Indian exporters.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Sorry, Pakistani emotions get high. Please look at the posts. Indians are happy selling at the wanted price to intermediaries in the Middle East, mostly Pakistanis, who then add their own margins and import into Pakistan.

Why should Indian businessmen bother?

You do realise the difference between 'could not be upheld' and 'rejected'. There is no international mechanism for the ICJ to force Pakistan to respect its verdict, so it confined itself to saying merely that the court couldn't do much; it was up to Pakistan to do what it ought to.

What it ought to is clearly and unmistakably spelt out in the excerpt that you have yourself cited - "effective review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of Mr. Jadhav, so as to ensure that full weight was given to the effect of the violation of the rights set forth in Article 36 of the Vienna Convention." What else do you need? How much longer will you fool yourself that you won a famous legal victory, and not a slap in the face?


Again, for the umpteenth time, READ what you have yourself reproduced. If you cannot swallow it, ask a legal expert. It said it could not order Jadhav's release, as in was unable to enforce any such judgement, and left it to Pakistan to conduct a trial again.

Sad to see someone quoting evidence, and then strenuously denying it.

Selling what and what get's sold to Pakistan from india? No indian FAKE NEWS please:

Pro-Indian 'fake websites targeted decision makers in Europe'

Fake sites and groups lobbying for India influenced decision makers in Europe, researchers say.

www.bbc.co.uk

EU NGO report uncovers Indian disinformation campaign

EU DisinfoLab’s report a ‘deep dive into a 15-year operation targeting the EU and UN to serve Indian interests’.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[Faqirze]

India challenged Pak verdict and asked for the release of Jadhav but ICJ rejects Indias submission... Why? if he is innocent like you say and have evidence then ICJ just find him innocent and should have ordered his release but that never happened and it never will.

The ICJ doesn't have much power if at all over other countries and their sovereignty, their official verdict is as useless as a piece of paper. See it as the equivalent of the UN, also I can actually give the benefit of the doubt to Indians on this one as there is no hard evidence of Jadhav sponsoring terrorism besides a (forced) confession. But Pakistan will probably hold onto him as a bargaining chip and to present him to the masses as "evidence" of (imaginary) "Indian state sponsored terrorism"

 

[Joe Shearer]

That is now what people like Showbaz want. Bajwa and Showbaz don't care about Kashmir.

Nobody does any more, in Pakistan, except internet warriors dwelling far from Pakistan. Or Kashmir.

Are you retarded, senile or just Indian???

How the Fûck are you asking a minority to get it's right through "votes" ???? stupidest sentence I've ever read .....

Perhaps all three, if those criteria are the ones you choose to apply. The population we are talking about is an absolute majority within Kashmir.

Perhaps you need to search for stupid sentences some more.

 

[Faqirze]

That is now what people like Showbaz want. Bajwa and Showbaz don't care about Kashmir.

Like anyone ever cared about Kashmir to begin with

 

[K_Bin_W]

Sorry, Pakistani emotions get high. Please look at the posts. Indians are happy selling at the wanted price to intermediaries in the Middle East, mostly Pakistanis, who then add their own margins and import into Pakistan.

Why should Indian businessmen bother?

You do realise the difference between 'could not be upheld' and 'rejected'. There is no international mechanism for the ICJ to force Pakistan to respect its verdict, so it confined itself to saying merely that the court couldn't do much; it was up to Pakistan to do what it ought to.

What it ought to is clearly and unmistakably spelt out in the excerpt that you have yourself cited - "effective review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of Mr. Jadhav, so as to ensure that full weight was given to the effect of the violation of the rights set forth in Article 36 of the Vienna Convention." What else do you need? How much longer will you fool yourself that you won a famous legal victory, and not a slap in the face?

But the ICJ verdict does not challenge the verdict, you do understand that they rejected Indian plea out right the guilty verdict still stands it only asked Pak to reconsider, Since India went to ICJ the ball is in the Indian court to appoint legal counsel which it has not despite repeated request by Pak.
If India could not prove his innocence he is guilty as charged and nothing can change that.

Oh BTW you have a much better chance now with PMLn they will hand him over to you on a platter once they are gone you have zero chance.