do pakistani mates think that india should get a permanent seat in UNSC

[gslv mk3]

my answer is NO. Because before going for a permanent seat in UNSC india have to decrease her poverty and injustice against minorities (all minorities)

usual rants

 

[MilSpec]

No because India needs to resolve Kashmir. We can't get Kashmir intervention if India has a right to veto resolutions against it.

But shimla agreement made it into a bilateral issue, there will be no mediation accepted by India anyways. Pakistan had the opportunity for referendum from 1947 to 1965, but did not act on it, instead you chose fight India.

 

[gslv mk3]

There goes India chest thumping again! How on earth could they ever imagine they could even be remotely considered for a permanent seat at UNSC? Probably India is short of mirrors.

As if some cares about BD's opinion..lol!

 

[MilSpec]

I personally think India should not be the part of UNSC, if India is included in expansion plan (germany, India, japan, brazil etc), UNSC will become a diluted useless organisation just like the UN, hence India shouldn't worry too much about it.

There goes India chest thumping again! How on earth could they ever imagine they could even be remotely considered for a permanent seat at UNSC? Probably India is short of mirrors.

The contention is based on successful democratic elections since 1947, well balanced foreign policy, one of the largest military force in the world.

 

[Awesome]

But shimla agreement made it into a bilateral issue, there will be no mediation accepted by India anyways. Pakistan had the opportunity for referendum from 1947 to 1965, but did not act on it, instead you chose fight India.

You asked why, I gave you a straight forward answer to it...

Shimla in no point says the referendum has been tabled... Or multilateralism is banned. It just says to pursue bilateral dialogue, which we do. The word bilateral is mentioned only once in passing, adherance to the UN charter is mentioned twice.