India vs Pakistan – A conflict like no other

[desiman]

@desidog lol so much for your peace thread

hey by the way your Avatar is good.

Lol its tough for sure, but Inshallah we will achieve it one day. Thx for the comment, i love the frog

 

[jeypore]

Im not trying to advocate anything or teach anything to anyone, im just rying to understand what's going on and offer a solution to it. There is no difference between Indian's and Pakistani's if you actually look at it. All the differences are the ones that we make ourselves. I dont need anyone approval or confidence to state my opinion. You have your and I have mine. But for me I rather try to find a solution and common ground than again posting the same normal hate post and arguing day and night.

It's funny, the goodwill came back, like these Ms. Universe, but you did not explain to me the main difference between Pakistanie and Indians? Can you not explain to me in detail.

I mean we look alike and we have the same food and all that, but why is there anamosity, can you explain?

Thanks.

 

[desiman]

It's funny, the goodwill came back, like these Ms. Universe, but you did not explain to me the main difference between Pakistanie and Indians? Can you not explain to me in detail.

I mean we look alike and we have the same food and all that, but why is there anamosity, can you explain?

Thanks.

The difference that i guess your hinting towards is superficial such as religion, language or other cultural factors. But tell me something i think you live in the USA and if you see a south Asian walk by you, is it so easy to determine whether the person is Indian or pakistani. That’s my main point, there are no differences, its just what we make up in our minds to differentiate. Its the hate we have for each other that tell a person that this is an Indian so hate him or this is a Pakistan so dont trust him. The animosity is just because of some miss informed people and the Politian who benefit from us fighting. Kashmir is always a sentimental issue for everyone and politicians take advantage of that on both sides to garner votes. The average Indian or Pakistan do not hate each other, in fact On my trip to Pakistan many years ago, i received so much love. Vendors would not even take money from me when they knew i was Indian. People like Zaid Hamid or other so called experts benefit from our wars and fighting so they continue to spread rumors that misguide our youth into hating each other so much. Obviously getting to peace is tough but every journey starts with the first step and that first step is to get the hate out of our minds and hearts first, only then reforming a country is possible. I hope I answered all your questions. I still dint get your ms.universe comment.

 

[jeypore]

Kashmir is always a sentimental issue for everyone and politicians take advantage of that on both sides to garner votes. t.

Interesting that you have mention Kahmir. Do you want Kashmir to be given to Pakistan, so all the anamosity would be stopped and brotherly love would come back to the southeast region? Since that is the reason where most politicians benefit for the anamosity..

 

[notsuperstitious]

No dude!
You think before you say!

Muslims ruled India
right!

So who cares about Hindus living in village or a house...

We were the rulers...we wont take you guys out this time..
we wil give you equal rights of not less..

The Sikhs ruled pakistan, or the afghans, or the iranians or the turks or the mongols or the brits ... and they will take it back, watch your back before dreaming big, you are accustomed to being ruled, don't dream big things, stop the american UAVs in your airspace first, there's one there right as you read this.

The biggest issue with india pakistan is ego, we are not the same (in case some start trolling again), but we are closest to each other in most respects, but we still can't live happily together because its our ego. like my mother said, once a house is divided, the two separated brothers will never live peacefully.

 

[pagans]

I dont think so, we have lots of Muslims in India also, I dont think its religion.

That does not negate the fact that India and Pakistan were divided by religion. Muslims exists in India because Hindus allowed/have to allow them here.

Its just the hate that we all have been taught to have towards each other.

We have been taught to hate each other after the partition happened. Partition happened because of religious hate

Like a member mentioned on this thread, we are bound to hate each other for no reason even when we are totally alike.

Who said we are hating for no reason ? There is a reason -Religion.
I do not support this hate.

Its almost impossible to tell the difference between an Indian and Pakistani.

It is because they are one in every way except religion.This supports my contention that religion alone divided India.

Maybe its time we think about why we hate each other so much and get over our own personal ego's that stopping both of our countries from moving forward.

We hate each other because of religion. As simple as that.

 

[Iggy]

No dude!
You think before you say!

Muslims ruled India
right!

So who cares about Hindus living in village or a house...

We were the rulers...we wont take you guys out this time..
we wil give you equal rights of not less..

 

[PlanetWarrior]

Back to the topic. What exactly has RAW achieved for Indian foreign policy? Except for taking credit for starting the creation of Bangladesh, nothing else. ISI persistently credits RAW for everything that goes wrong in Asia and RAW is rewarded with tons of money by Indian parliament. No proof exists that RAW is the cause of any of those "missions" except that ISI said so. Now the same can be said of the ISI. Kargil, Kashmir, parliament bombings, Mumbai 26/11. If the CIA did not clearly point out 9/11 as being Al Quaeda's work I am certain that RAW would have credited the ISI with that mission as well. In turn the ISI is given tons of money by the Pakistani establishment. That relationship between RAW and the ISI is a true example of brotherly love and ordinary Pakistanis and Indians can learn from it. They credit each other for doing a great job. They ensure that the other is well funded. They promote each other internationally. They respect each other. They truly are "brothers in arms" in a strange kind of way.

 

[Awesome]

Guys even though I agree with fatah over "don't try to force me to respect any leaders" but we should try not to insult other countrys leaders too..even if some people insult even our Army chief mods like Taimi deleted their posts and warned them from insulting up on reporting those posts..Try not to insult other countries leaders..For them he is a great leader and Father of the nation..we should respect their feelings too

I have no issues with people criticizing Jinnah, or anyone else. However if you're going to show some sub-standard level of vocabulary this forum reserves the right to have you excused from these discussions.

Talk about issues, things said and done, no problem there. America's 1st amendment rights don't apply here, we allow freedom of speech to criticize anything relevant and to the topic of Pakistan. Colorful adjectives really aren't the same as criticism.

 

[Iggy]

I have no issues with people criticizing Jinnah, or anyone else. However if you're going to show some sub-standard level of vocabulary this forum reserves the right to have you excused from these discussions.

Talk about issues, things said and done, no problem there. America's 1st amendment rights don't apply here, we allow freedom of speech to criticize anything relevant and to the topic of Pakistan. Colorful adjectives really aren't the same as criticism.

Asim where did I insult Jinnah in my posts??? I said agree with fateh over no one can force any one to respect any leader ..but people should try not to insult other leaders?is this too hard to understand??and some one is asking me to say sorry for that..

 

[desiman]

Back to the topic. What exactly has RAW achieved for Indian foreign policy? Except for taking credit for starting the creation of Bangladesh, nothing else. ISI persistently credits RAW for everything that goes wrong in Asia and RAW is rewarded with tons of money by Indian parliament. No proof exists that RAW is the cause of any of those "missions" except that ISI said so. Now the same can be said of the ISI. Kargil, Kashmir, parliament bombings, Mumbai 26/11. If the CIA did not clearly point out 9/11 as being Al Quaeda's work I am certain that RAW would have credited the ISI with that mission as well. In turn the ISI is given tons of money by the Pakistani establishment. That relationship between RAW and the ISI is a true example of brotherly love and ordinary Pakistanis and Indians can learn from it. They credit each other for doing a great job. They ensure that the other is well funded. They promote each other internationally. They respect each other. They truly are "brothers in arms" in a strange kind of way.

What the RAW does for India is nothing short os a miracle. We only know how to criticize them when they fail but forget to thank them for the millions of times that they save the country. Keep in mind they have to take care of threats from multiple sides and different ideologies. RAW has done a pretty good job, there is nothing like full proof intelligence but they are pretty good at what they are doing. I am not sure of the ISI as i dont have much info on them but im sure they are a very capable organization also.

 

[desiman]

That does not negate the fact that India and Pakistan were divided by religion. Muslims exists in India because Hindus allowed/have to allow them here.


We have been taught to hate each other after the partition happened. Partition happened because of religious hate



Who said we are hating for no reason ? There is a reason -Religion.
I do not support this hate.


It is because they are one in every way except religion.This supports my contention that religion alone divided India.


We hate each other because of religion. As simple as that.

I really dont think its religion, i think its more about how our societies have been structured. India follows a more democratic system when Pakistan is an Islamic republic. Our countries started of on a different note and never really accepted each other. What i think is as the new and modern generation grows us and understands that hate will only lead to more pain, the situation will improve. The older generation is the one living in the past and constantly bringing up old issues but i think the so called " X generation" has the ability to change the world and its up to the older generation to lead them to better times and not misguide them also into the path of hate. And i really dont agree with your statement that Hindu’s allowed Muslims to live in India. Every Muslim who stayed back, wanted to and stayed back on their wish. India is as much a country for Muslims as for Hindu's, no one has a right to claim it just for them. Please dont give statements like these, it will only lead to more trolling.

 

[pagans]

I really dont think its religion, i think its more about how our societies have been structured. India follows a more democratic system when Pakistan is an Islamic republic.

Why is India democratic and Pakistan not ?

What i think is as the new and modern generation grows us and understands that hate will only lead to more pain, the situation will improve.

Hate of good will give you pain and hate of evil will give you pleasure. You should learn to hate evil. Hate by itself is not bad, it is bad only when you hate the good.
Two nation theory was evil,call for independence by Muslim Kashmirs are evil. Understand evil and hate it!!!!

The older generation is the one living in the past and constantly bringing up old issues but i think the so called " X generation" has the ability to change the world and its up to the older generation to lead them to better times and not misguide them also into the path of hate.

Changing generation wont solve any problem,only changing mindsets will solve problems. Younger generations of Indians and Pakistanis hate each other more than ever.

And i really dont agree with your statement that Hindu’s allowed Muslims to live in India.

It is a fact ,isn't ? Maybe the Hindus didn't have the strength to throw Muslims out. What is the percentage of Muslims in Punjab ?. Less than 1% because Hindus threw Muslim out. In other area they didn't or couldn't.

India is as much a country for Muslims as for Hindu's, no one has a right to claim it just for them.

Only those who love India and its democratic and secular setup has the right to be in India. You don't become Indians just by birth but by conviction that Indian stands for humanity and truth.

 

[desiman]

Why India and Pakistan Aren't Backing Away From the Brink


Walking India and Pakistan back from the brink of nuclear war ought to be easy, since — as the old adage goes — nobody wins a nuclear war. But the challenge facing the U.S. and other Western mediators derives from the fact that both sides appear to believe they can fight a limited war without going nuclear, and that both sides fear the consequences of backing off right now. Mediation is further complicated by the limited leverage available to Washington to restrain both sides from marching into what, the best intentions notwithstanding, could turn out to be more than just a "limited" engagement.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is due to visit the region next week, where U.S. officials hope he'll be able to make the case for restraint, backed up by the Pentagon's worst-case scenarios estimating that millions could die on both sides in an all-out war. Calls by the U.S. and other Western nations to evacuate all non-essential diplomatic personnel from India suggest that Washington believes a dangerous clash may be imminent.

Despite the ongoing artillery duels across the Kashmir frontline, the massive troop deployments and ongoing incursions onto the Indian-controlled side of Kashmir by Pakistan-backed militants, the situation has not yet escalated beyond "business-as-usual." After all, India and Pakistan have fought three of their four wars since independence over Kashmir, and have punctuated those wars with an almost constant pattern of exchanging fire over the Line of Control. In 1999, already in possession of nuclear weapons, the two armies fought a pitched battle in the Kargil region of Kashmir before pressure from Washington forced Pakistan to withdraw. In other words, they're practiced in the art of limiting their combat.

This time around, though, Pakistan is showing little inclination to act in response to Washington's demand that it stop the infiltration of separatist fighters from its side of the Line of Control. Friday Islamabad began moving troops who'd been helping U.S. forces against al-Qaeda and the Taliban along the Afghanistan border and redeploying them against Indian forces in Kashmir. The message to Washington: Get India to back off, or else Pakistan will have more important priorities than the war on terrorism.

The Bush administration's growing exasperation over Musharraf's failure to close the spigot of insurgency in Kashmir dates back to the Pakistani leader's promised crackdown on extremism last January. With India threatening to attack following a terrorist attack on its parliament, Musharraf declared a wide-ranging crackdown on Islamist extremists operating in Pakistan, and vowed that no group on Pakistani soil would be allowed to commit acts of terrorism in the name of Kashmir. Although infiltration of fighters into Kashmir stopped for a time, it soon resumed, and many of the extremists arrested in the initial crackdown have subsequently been released.

Severing the link between Pakistan's security forces and the Taliban-al Qaeda alliance was a gamble Musharraf was willing to make to ensure his regime's long-term survival, but Kashmir is a different matter. The battle for control over the mountainous territory has raged since Britain partitioned colonial India, creating the India we know today and the Islamic state of Pakistan. In Pakistan the standoff with India over Kashmir is also a central pillar of the military's claim to political power, and General Musharraf is the latest in a long line of generals that have seized power in Islamabad. Although Musharraf is politically popular, right now, being perceived to be anything but bellicose on the Kashmir issue could cost him not only in the court of public opinion, but more importantly among the military commanders on whom his power ultimately rests.

Support for insurgents in Kashmir has long been part of the Pakistani military's game plan, as a means of keeping up the pressure over the region's status without risking a direct confrontation with its militarily stronger rival. (In any developing combat situation, it also gives the Pakistanis a useful tactical presence behind Indian lines in Kashmir.) Pakistan is loath to ease the pressure in Kashmir without guarantees that its political demands over the region — for its fate to be determined in a U.N.-supervised referendum — will be addressed. Restoring peace in order to maintain the status quo, from Pakistan's point of view, simply strengthens India's grip on Kashmir, and that's something Islamabad is reluctant to countenance. But it's far from clear that Washington can cajole India into any political concessions that might help Musharraf back down from military confrontations. New Delhi believes Musharraf has no intention of acting to restrain the insurgents, and that he's getting carte blanche because of his importance to the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan.

New Delhi remains in a difficult position, however. It can't afford to escalate to a nuclear confrontation, and yet it may have reached the point where it can no longer refrain from responding to attacks from Pakistani-controlled territory. India could opt to launch air strikes or even commando raids at training camps used by the insurgents on the Pakistani-controlled side of Kashmir and in Pakistan itself. But once battle is joined, it may quickly assume a dangerous logic of escalation.

The Bush administration is hoping to keep the two sides talking and buy time to ease the crisis, constantly reminding both sides of the dangers to their own interests inherent in a confrontation. But confrontation between India and Pakistan certainly works in favor of al-Qaeda elements that are increasingly active in Pakistan, and a substantial number of the insurgents sent into Kashmir got their original training in al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. It's a relative certainty that any Western efforts to defuse the crisis will be matched by extremist attempts to exacerbate it by launching new terror strikes against India in the coming weeks.

 

[desiman]

INDIA VERSUS PAKISTAN
FROM PARTITION TO THE PRESENT

Abstract
Mutual trust is in short supply between South Asia's two major rivals, India and Pakistan. The nuclear powers are bitterly divided on a host of issues, none more (seemingly) intractable than the future of Kashmir. Yet, as Rahul Roy-Chaudhury explains, their nuclear arsenals have probably helped steer both countries away from all-out conventional war and even led to a thaw in bilateral relations. The key to better relations in the future will be how effectively India and Pakistan can co-operate to deter non-state actors from carrying out major terrorist attacks.


The Indo-Pakistani rivalry dominates the strategic landscape of South Asia, where India serves as the major hegemon and Pakistan its principal challenger. In over sixty years of independence the two countries have fought three (and a half) wars with each other, mostly over the disputed territory of Kashmir whose future status remains unresolved. Both countries possess nuclear weapons to deter each other, while expanding their conventional armed forces. Advanced military technology, including modern combat aircraft and ballistic and cruise missiles are deployed, alongside rising defence budgets.

Yet, the prospect of another major 'state versus state' war akin to what took place between India and Pakistan nearly forty years ago in December 1971 is unlikely. This is due to the probability of an all-arms conventional war escalating to nuclear use, which would result in mutual destruction. Far more likely is an increase in terror attacks by non-state actors, which could generate greater Indo-Pakistani tensions with the risk of inadvertent military escalation by both countries. Such a 'state versus non-state' encounter would take place amidst their ongoing bilateral disputes and the potential for the threat of use of force by the two nuclear weapon states.
Kashmir and Conflict


The dispute over the future of the former princely state of Kashmir, currently divided among India, Pakistan and China, is largely, though not wholly, responsible for Indo-Pakistani tensions. In the past, this has led to wars and conflicts between the two countries.

The partition of British India in August 1947 was conducted on the basis of demography and geography, whereby predominantly Muslim contiguous areas went to Pakistan and the rest to India.1 The princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, however, stood out with a Hindu ruling family governing a predominantly Muslim population in an area bordering both India and Pakistan. The only politically viable option for Kashmir was to opt for either India or Pakistan but not seek independence. India's claim over Kashmir rests on the Hindu ruler's accession to India on 26 October 1947 for fear of being overthrown by a pro-Pakistan Muslim tribal rebellion. Pakistan hotly contests this accession and claims that Kashmir is theirs on the basis of its Muslim-majority population.2

This led to the first India-Pakistan war from 26 October 1947 till the UN-mandated ceasefire on 1 January 1949, which left India with two-thirds and Pakistan the remainder of Kashmir. The Cease Fire Line (CFL) divided the Indian and Pakistan-controlled parts of Kashmir. But, following China's occupation of Aksai Chin - comprising a fifth of the princely state of Kashmir - during the 1962 Sino- Indian war, Pakistan ceded a portion of its own Kashmir-administered area to China the following year, thereby involving China in any final resolution of the Kashmir dispute.

The second Indo-Pakistani war from 1-23 September 1965 also took place over the Kashmir dispute. Pakistan's conventional attack across the CFL led to two weeks of bitter land and air warfare culminating in a military stalemate. Following the UN-mandated ceasefire on 22 September 1965, the peace agreement at Tashkent in the erstwhile Soviet Union the following year led to both sides agreeing to exchange the territories captured by either side across the CFL, thereby restoring the status quo ante.3

The third Indo-Pakistani war on 3-17 December 1971 was the first that did not take place over Kashmir; instead it had its origin in the Indian-aided secession of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). Pakistan suffered a devastating blow with the loss of its eastern part; nearly 90,000 of its troops and citizens were held as prisoners of war by India. The Pakistani delegation to the peace talks in July 1972 in the northern Indian town of Simla was disappointed by the ensuing Simla Agreement of 3 July 1972, which inter alia converted the CFL into the Line of Control (LoC), reflecting minor variations in the CFL. The 460 mile (740 km) LoC was subsequently demarcated and reproduced in detail in two sets of maps by both sides in the Suchetgarh Agreement of 11 December 1972.