Pakistan refuses to sign three multilateral pacts at SAARC summit: officials

[dil_dil]

Elections were held in Kashmir later on many times and Kashmiris went to vote. If they didn't wanna stay with India, why vote?

Every kashmiri is against removal of article 370 which will make IoK part of India. Elections are just to elect next CM of IoK nothing more. Do not spin it like Indians.

 

[Norwegian]

Be consistent for once, no need to defend your childhood hero blindly. I remember when potians and IK himself used to bash Nawaz when Pakistan was trying normalize relations with India.

LOL. We were against normalization of relations with Indian businessmen which Sharif had personal dealings for his own family fortune. IK is a big admirer of Modi and his pro-trade policies.

 

[Not Sure]

When was this impartial plebiscite to determine the choice of the Kashmiris held?

The concept of the plebiscite stands on the ground of morality, right? So if it were proved, irrespective of the UN stamp, that Kashmiris have chosen to be with India, than anything else, would Pakistan call it quits?

See, if the Kashmiris were of the mind that they want to be part of Pakistan, they would have never come out to vote in "Indian elections, where they would have to sit in the Indian Parliament", and average the turn out at 70%. That voice of the people is much louder and clearer than anywhere in Pakistan.

 

[Norwegian]

Every kashmiri is against removal of article 370 which will make IoK part of India. Elections are just to elect next CM of IoK nothing more. Do not spin it like Indians.

Nobody can force Kashmiris to vote, not even Indian Army. They are voting since they believe in Indian democracy, unlike rigged democracy of Pakistan!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pakistan asked to take time to first complete its "internal process", specifically the motor vehicle pact. Also, avoided signing the agreement on the bilateral people to people connectivity program, which was as enthusiastically supported by India as it was by Sri Lanka.

My previous post was in context with road based trade. You cannot sign it with Bangladesh and Sri Lanka without first signing it with India.

As I have argued, ship based transport is widely considered to be the most efficient form of transport, so I don't see how the argument that transit through India is the only way to make trade with Bangladesh feasible is legitimate.

But even on people to people connectivity, Pakistan could have easily been coaxed by Sri Lanka were it even a bit interested.

Why would Sri Lanka be interested with trade with Pakistan under the framework of SAARC if it doesn't see enhanced trade with Pakistan in a bilateral framework as being in her interests?

It reminds of a Pakistani (ex-Ambassador) on a talk show who mentioned how at a UN convention in 1974 the Pakistani representatives were zealously protecting their educational system against any introduction of studies on philosophy. We see the result today in the masses that can be swayed so easily. Pakistan's firm stand against open trade will only help the rich get richer and the poor get increasingly dependent. That cement tycoon, whatever his name is, will have no difficulty selling his cement to India whether Pakistan signs the agreement or not. But the ones on ground, who could benefit from competitive rates and highly diverse opportunities if the country were more open to trade, will have to do with whatever is left-over by the rich.

India is not the only country in the world that Pakistan can trade with, so I don't see the validity of your argument that the lack of trade with India will cause an noncompetitive market in Pakistan

 

[dil_dil]

Nobody can force Kashmiris to vote, not even Indian Army. They are voting since they believe in Indian democracy, unlike rigged democracy of Pakistan!

If they believed in Indian democracy then they will happily remove article 370. But fact is they want central gov budget and special status to continue. Even most pro India kashmiri leaders refuse to back down on article 370 lol

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Elections were held in Kashmir later on many times and Kashmiris went to vote. If they didn't wanna stay with India, why vote?

Voting in an election points to a desire to improve ones day 2 day lives, it does not indicate a desire to remain with that country. And if the Indians are so sure that the Kashmiris wish to remain with India, why are they refusing to consider holding a plebiscite there?

 

[Norwegian]

If they believed in Indian democracy then they will happily remove article 370. But fact is they want central gov budget and special status to continue. Even most pro India kashmiri leaders refuse to back down on article 370 lol

THat's because they are still for independence of Kashmir; Kashmiri nationalism!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The concept of the plebiscite stands on the ground of morality, right? So if it were proved, irrespective of the UN stamp, that Kashmiris have chosen to be with India, than anything else, would Pakistan call it quits?

See, if the Kashmiris were of the mind that they want to be part of Pakistan, they would have never come out to vote in "Indian elections, where they would have to sit in the Indian Parliament", and average the turn out at 70%. That voice of the people is much louder and clearer than anywhere in Pakistan.

Please see my previous response to Norwegian on this point.

 

[Norwegian]

Voting in an election points to a desire to improve ones day 2 day lives, it does not indicate a desire to remain with that country. And if the Indians are so sure that the Kashmiris wish to remain with India, why are they refusing to consider holding a plebiscite there?

Because Pakistan is still occupying parts of Kashmir.

 

[Not Sure]

Yeah, our ambassadors HAD to protect our Aristocrats in the name Aristotle!

Yes, but mostly, the hands that pull the strings of these UN representatives and diplomats rest on military desks in Rawalpindi.

And as far as I know (you can correct me if I am wrong here), quite often retired military officers end up becoming diplomats to key countries. Pakistan is becoming not what Pakistan should be, rather what the Pakistani Army wants it to be.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Because Pakistan is still occupying parts of Kashmir.

The entire territory of J&K is considered disputed by the international community, and under that status either both India and Pakistan are occupying territory, or neither is.

Also, the UNSC resolutions call for engagement between India and Pakistan to determine the how and when of demilitirization prior to a plebiscite being held, negotiations that India is currently refusing to engage in, so it is India that is violating the UNSC resolutions, not Pakistan.

 

[Norwegian]

The entire territory of J&K is considered disputed by the international community, and under that status either both India and Pakistan are occupying territory, or neither is.

Also, the UNSC resolutions call for engagement between India and Pakistan to determine the how and when of demilitirization prior to a plebiscite being held, negotiations that India is currently refusing to engage in, so it is India that is violating the UNSC resolutions, not Pakistan.

India never ran away from negotiations. Its Pakistan pressuring world powers to force India negotiate on Pakistani terms which is IMPOSSIBLE!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

etired military officers end up becoming diplomats to key countries. Pakistan is becoming not what Pakistan should be, rather what the Pakistani Army wants it to be.

Incorrect - key diplomatic postings tend to go to career foreign service officers, for example the Pakistani Ambassador to India.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

India never ran away from negotiations.

Then why is it refusing to implement the UNSC resolutions on holding a plebiscite? This resolutions ask for negotiations between India and Pakistan on demilitarization. India is running away - that much is pretty clear to all except the most obtuse.