Where do India and Pakistan go from here?

[Indus Pakistan]

There are still many pages in said ledger left to be filled, please keep in mind.

Ever done accounts? What matters is the account in hand? Not yesterdays of what might come. Tangibles sunshine, tangibles and hard facts ...

 

[niaz]

Even though some of the points that are made are very good and valid, from my point of view, it can not be one way.

We have equivalents of Masood Azhar and Hafiz sitting in the highest posts of Indian govt.
We have yet to see any culprits of Samjhota express terrorist attack, which was squarely blamed on Pakistan, to be punished.

And then there is the Kashmir issue.

India being the larger country must show her seriousness about combating terrorism by not sponsoring it in the first place. And I can assure you, other countries like Pakistan who want nothing but the economic recovery would not have any reason for revenge etc.

India must cool down the situation in Kashmir and must stop engineering things close to elections. Most of which are making Pakistan a boogey man.

Govt under IK is damn serious about economy and not interested in d!ck measuring with india, but if they keep walking that road, we have our own hawks here as well...

International opinion, even though important, keeps changing and mostly favor the winners. This is the bitter reality.

Honorable Coffee_cup,

Admittedly Indian religious militants can be far worse. Compared to the Shiv Sena leader Bal Thakery, Massaud Azhar is a pussy cat.

The main purpose of my post was to ask the question as to why no major world power, including our Muslim brother countries, condemned the Indian blatant disregard of sovereignty by carrying out a bombing raid at Balakot. Also, can you explain why UAE, our friend since the time of Sheikh Zaid, chose to invite Sushma Swaraj in the OIC meeting forcing Pak FM to remain absent in protest? Sushma Swaraj delivered an indictment against Pakistan with all of the attendees listening to her rant without protest!

India does not need to do anything simply because the international community is already siding with India.

We need to change the international opinion in our favor or at least into a ‘Neutral’. Therefore Pakistan must take action against the terror outfits asap. Jaish-e Mohammed is already a banned outfit, why & how Massaud Azhar is running free?

Remember, in politics, no one cares about the actual truth. What matters is the perception. At this point in time, most of the word considers Pakistan as a hotbed of terrorism & militancy and India at the receiving end of Pakistan sponsored terrorism in Kashmir!

Since the red line has already been crossed; another terrorist act inside India; despite GOP being completely innocent; is sure to result in a similar strike at the place of India’s choosing. Pakistan would have then to retaliate because lack of it would be even worse. This is bound to invite another attack from the Indian side starting a vicious circle.

Let us face the ground reality. Pakistan is not strong enough to win Kashmir by force. India is not giving it away in charity. The only way is to make the Indian occupation so painful that India agrees to a referendum. But this must be a purely Kashmiri affair without any outside involvement.

Currently, the whole world is keeping tight-lipped over Indian atrocities in IOK. This is because India has managed to convince the international community that the problem is sponsored by Pak based terrorist groups. It will help Kashmiri cause when the world realizes that theirs is purely homegrown movement. Pakistan can also plead Kashmir's case better if there is no connection between Pakistan & Kashmir insurrection.

I thought that I had the same arguments in my previous post, but my English is not great for which I am sorry.

If we wait for the Indian positive response before taking action against JuD & JeM; this state of affairs will continue. If you & rest of compatriots are happy with it, so be it and to hell with the consequences

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Luckily for everyone, the media do not set the policies for either country. The governments do, and the people follow. Thank God!

The media is manipulating the public opinion of India in partnership with the Hindu radical government. Fascism is an ideology which sees any peace as weakness and mobilizes all resources against a common enemy to unite a nation. As India is prone to disunity and fracture, they have decided that this is the only way to prevent such a thing. India is following a fascist and suicidal doctrine.

The end result of fascist regimes is more war with its neighboring countries. This means more troubles for others in South Asia, not just Pakistan.

These regimes however function solely on hate politics. The solution is the suck the poison out of Indians by being merciful and engaging in good PR as Imran Khan has done. He has scored a major victory over the Hindu fascists.

Make no mistake though, war is coming in a few years. This giant inflated ego of India will be popped as it makes their behavior emotional, erratic, and lacking consistency similar to a mob of locusts.

Let India hold to her word for atleast 2-3 years to show she is serious and will hold her elections based on performance and not on boogy-man Pakistan.

Pakistan will definitely reciprocate. Remember, IK and Bajwa are very serious abt persuing peace. But it should not be taken as a sign of weakness.

Let Kashmir cool down for few years, both sides can do this. India being the occupying force and having blood on their hand has to show her seriousness abt that.

Kashmir is going to get worse, they have decided on a policy of confrontation with and oppression of Kashmiri Muslims. It is going to carry out Israel-like policies to change demographics in Kashmir through state terrorism.

 

[Foxtrot Delta]

Until kashmir border is resolved between india and pakistan. They will keep sending proxies into pakistan and we will keep sending our proxies into india. In hopes we manage to disintegrate india and they hope to distintegrate pakistan.


India has much more faultlines than pakistan has.. So chances of india breaking into another 2 countries is very high especislly since they are opressing indian and sikh population now. Under BJP RSS

They will try to stir trouble in balochistan and fata with help from afghans.

Afghans hate us and they think they can dive and take pakhtoon regions. Of pakistanwith help of india.

But i think afghans might end up loosing their pakhtoon region to pakistan instead. Because they have no control over their territory.

Its iran im closely watching. Cuz if iran really is a threat then saudi and other arabs needs to helped by pakistan against iran.

I would advise to stay away from israel .Friendship or enemity both with israel are dangerous and a loss for pakistan. As far away from israel we are the better for us and perhaps better for israel as well.

 

[GumNaam]

Pakistan rules the region. india goes the way of Libya and Syria.

come aaaaaaaaaan modi...win the next election!!!

 

[Mugwop]

Here

 

[VCheng]

But don't media tells what people want to hear? Isnt this their biggest sales pitch and tool to gain audience. To them its business after all.

Media can try, but that is about all. The people are not as gullible as one might think.

the more things change , the more they stay the same.

I only see things escalating further every now & then. You seemed to have missed the fact that Manmohan singh was the last PM of older generation who carried the emotional baggage of pre-partition India. These oldies were mature enough to understand the long term consequences of making bad decisions. Coming govts will run policies as quarterly financial report of profit & loss.

There might be a boil or two periodically, but overall the stalemate is likely to remain for the foreseeable future.

Ever done accounts? What matters is the account in hand? Not yesterdays of what might come. Tangibles sunshine, tangibles and hard facts ...

Right Sparkles, but this is international geopolitics, not accounting. The ledger is proverbial, not literal.

 

[VCheng]

@Joe Shearer @Nilgiri @Vibrio


https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/02/28/india-and-pakistan-should-stop-playing-with-fire

Modi’s dangerous moment
India and Pakistan should stop playing with fire

With an election looming, Narendra Modi is under pressure to act tough

Print edition | Leaders
Feb 28th 2019

The armies of India and Pakistan often exchange fire across the front line in the disputed state of Kashmir. When tensions rise, one side will subject the other to a blistering artillery barrage. On occasion, the two have sent soldiers on forays into one another’s territory. But since the feuding neighbours tested nuclear weapons in the late 1990s, neither had dared send fighter jets across the frontier—until this week. After a terrorist group based in Pakistan launched an attack in the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir that killed 40 soldiers, India responded by bombing what it said was a terrorist training camp in the Pakistani state of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Pakistan retaliated by sending jets of its own to bomb Indian targets. In the ensuing air battle, both sides claim to have shot down the other’s aircraft, and Pakistan captured an Indian pilot.

A miscalculation now could spell calamity. The fighting is already the fiercest between the two countries since India battled to expel Pakistani intruders from high in the Himalayas in 1999. The initial Indian air raid struck not Pakistan’s bit of Kashmir, but well within Pakistan proper and just 100km from the capital, Islamabad. That, in effect, constituted a change in the rules of engagement between the two. India and Pakistan are so often at odds that there is a tendency to shrug off their spats, but not since their most recent, full-blown war in 1971 has the risk of escalation been so high.

The intention of Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister, in ordering the original air strike was simple. Pakistan has long backed terrorists who mount grisly attacks in India, most notably in Mumbai in 2008, when jihadists who arrived by boat from Pakistan killed some 165 people. Although Pakistan’s army promised then to shut down such extremist groups, it has not. By responding more forcefully than usual to the latest outrage, Mr Modi understandably wanted to signal that he was not willing to allow Pakistan to keep sponsoring terrorism.

In the long run, stability depends on Pakistan ending its indefensible support for terrorism. Its prime minister, Imran Khan, is urging dialogue and, in a promising gesture, was due to release India’s pilot—presumably with the approval of the army chief, who calls the shots on matters of security.

But in the short run Mr Modi shares the responsibility to stop a disastrous escalation. Because he faces an election in April, he faces the hardest and most consequential calculations. They could come to define his premiership.

Mr Modi has always presented himself as a bold and resolute military leader, who does not shrink from confronting Pakistan’s provocations. He has taken to repeating a catchphrase from the film “Uri”, which portrays a commando raid he ordered against Pakistan in 2016 in response to a previous terrorist attack as a moment of chin-jutting grit. The all-too-plausible fear is that his own tendency to swagger, along with domestic political pressures, will spur him further down the spiral towards war.

The ambiguity of Mr Modi’s beliefs only deepens the danger. He campaigned at the election in 2014 as a moderniser, who would bring jobs and prosperity to India. But, his critics charge, all his talk of development and reform is simply the figleaf for a lifelong commitment to a divisive Hindu-nationalist agenda.

Over the past five years Mr Modi has lived up neither to the hype nor to the dire warnings. The economy has grown strongly under his leadership, by around 7% a year. He has brought about reforms his predecessors had promised but never delivered, such as a nationwide goods-and-services tax(GST).

But unemployment has actually risen during Mr Modi’s tenure, according to leaked data that his government has been accused of trying to suppress. The GST was needlessly complex and costly to administer. Other pressing reforms have fallen by the wayside. India’s banks are still largely in state hands, still prone to lend to the well-connected. And as the election has drawn closer, Mr Modi has resorted to politically expedient policies that are likely to harm the economy. His government hounded the boss of the central bank out of office for keeping interest rates high, appointing a replacement who promptly cut them. And it has unveiled draft rules that would protect domestic e-commerce firms from competition from retailers such as Amazon.

By the same token, Mr Modi has not sparked the outright communal conflagration his critics, The Economist included, fretted about before he became prime minister. But his government has often displayed hostility to India’s Muslim minority and sympathy for those who see Hinduism—the religion of 80% of Indians—as under threat from internal and external foes. He has appointed a bigoted Hindu prelate, Yogi Adityanath, as chief minister of India’s most populous state, Uttar Pradesh. A member of his cabinet presented garlands of flowers to a group of Hindu men who had been convicted of lynching a Muslim for selling beef (cows are sacred to Hindus). And Mr Modi himself has suspended the elected government of Jammu & Kashmir, India’s only Muslim-majority state, and used force to suppress protests there against the central government, leading to horrific civilian casualties.

As reprehensible as all this is, the Hindu zealots who staff Mr Modi’s electoral machine complain that he has not done enough to advance the Hindu cause. And public dissatisfaction with his economic reforms has helped boost Congress, the main opposition party, making the election more competitive than had been expected. The temptation to fire up voters using heated brinkmanship with Pakistan will be huge.

Mr Modi has made a career of playing with fire. He first rose to prominence as chief minister of Gujarat when the state was racked by anti-Muslim pogroms in 2002. Although there is no evidence he orchestrated the violence, he has shown no compunction about capitalising on the popularity it won him in Hindu-nationalist circles. With a difficult election ahead, he may think he can pull off the same trick again by playing the tough guy with Pakistan, but without actually getting into a fight. However, the price of miscalculation does not bear thinking about. Western governments are pushing for a diplomatic settlement at the UN. If Mr Modi really is a patriot, he will now step back.

 

[Joe Shearer]

You tagged three Indians who are on opposite sides of a political fence. I agree with the Economist; as usual, it has stated the less-than-palatable truth. Leaving anything reasonable to be done by Modi leaves an unpleasant aftertaste in the mouth; my two compatriots, who are otherwise owners of my very sincere respect, will disagree, and all but give me the lie with regard to Modi's performance;both as being a contrast to other politicians and their tenures, and in terms of actual achievement on his own.

I am interested to see what they will say to you. If they say at all. They may or may not respond; sometimes they remind me of the slogan of the old nobles, the Urquharts of Scotland:

"They say;
What say they?
Let them say."

@Joe Shearer @Nilgiri @Vibrio


https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/02/28/india-and-pakistan-should-stop-playing-with-fire

Modi’s dangerous moment
India and Pakistan should stop playing with fire

With an election looming, Narendra Modi is under pressure to act tough

Print edition | Leaders
Feb 28th 2019

The armies of India and Pakistan often exchange fire across the front line in the disputed state of Kashmir. When tensions rise, one side will subject the other to a blistering artillery barrage. On occasion, the two have sent soldiers on forays into one another’s territory. But since the feuding neighbours tested nuclear weapons in the late 1990s, neither had dared send fighter jets across the frontier—until this week. After a terrorist group based in Pakistan launched an attack in the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir that killed 40 soldiers, India responded by bombing what it said was a terrorist training camp in the Pakistani state of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Pakistan retaliated by sending jets of its own to bomb Indian targets. In the ensuing air battle, both sides claim to have shot down the other’s aircraft, and Pakistan captured an Indian pilot.

A miscalculation now could spell calamity. The fighting is already the fiercest between the two countries since India battled to expel Pakistani intruders from high in the Himalayas in 1999. The initial Indian air raid struck not Pakistan’s bit of Kashmir, but well within Pakistan proper and just 100km from the capital, Islamabad. That, in effect, constituted a change in the rules of engagement between the two. India and Pakistan are so often at odds that there is a tendency to shrug off their spats, but not since their most recent, full-blown war in 1971 has the risk of escalation been so high.

The intention of Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister, in ordering the original air strike was simple. Pakistan has long backed terrorists who mount grisly attacks in India, most notably in Mumbai in 2008, when jihadists who arrived by boat from Pakistan killed some 165 people. Although Pakistan’s army promised then to shut down such extremist groups, it has not. By responding more forcefully than usual to the latest outrage, Mr Modi understandably wanted to signal that he was not willing to allow Pakistan to keep sponsoring terrorism.

In the long run, stability depends on Pakistan ending its indefensible support for terrorism. Its prime minister, Imran Khan, is urging dialogue and, in a promising gesture, was due to release India’s pilot—presumably with the approval of the army chief, who calls the shots on matters of security.

But in the short run Mr Modi shares the responsibility to stop a disastrous escalation. Because he faces an election in April, he faces the hardest and most consequential calculations. They could come to define his premiership.

Mr Modi has always presented himself as a bold and resolute military leader, who does not shrink from confronting Pakistan’s provocations. He has taken to repeating a catchphrase from the film “Uri”, which portrays a commando raid he ordered against Pakistan in 2016 in response to a previous terrorist attack as a moment of chin-jutting grit. The all-too-plausible fear is that his own tendency to swagger, along with domestic political pressures, will spur him further down the spiral towards war.

The ambiguity of Mr Modi’s beliefs only deepens the danger. He campaigned at the election in 2014 as a moderniser, who would bring jobs and prosperity to India. But, his critics charge, all his talk of development and reform is simply the figleaf for a lifelong commitment to a divisive Hindu-nationalist agenda.

Over the past five years Mr Modi has lived up neither to the hype nor to the dire warnings. The economy has grown strongly under his leadership, by around 7% a year. He has brought about reforms his predecessors had promised but never delivered, such as a nationwide goods-and-services tax(GST).

But unemployment has actually risen during Mr Modi’s tenure, according to leaked data that his government has been accused of trying to suppress. The GST was needlessly complex and costly to administer. Other pressing reforms have fallen by the wayside. India’s banks are still largely in state hands, still prone to lend to the well-connected. And as the election has drawn closer, Mr Modi has resorted to politically expedient policies that are likely to harm the economy. His government hounded the boss of the central bank out of office for keeping interest rates high, appointing a replacement who promptly cut them. And it has unveiled draft rules that would protect domestic e-commerce firms from competition from retailers such as Amazon.

By the same token, Mr Modi has not sparked the outright communal conflagration his critics, The Economist included, fretted about before he became prime minister. But his government has often displayed hostility to India’s Muslim minority and sympathy for those who see Hinduism—the religion of 80% of Indians—as under threat from internal and external foes. He has appointed a bigoted Hindu prelate, Yogi Adityanath, as chief minister of India’s most populous state, Uttar Pradesh. A member of his cabinet presented garlands of flowers to a group of Hindu men who had been convicted of lynching a Muslim for selling beef (cows are sacred to Hindus). And Mr Modi himself has suspended the elected government of Jammu & Kashmir, India’s only Muslim-majority state, and used force to suppress protests there against the central government, leading to horrific civilian casualties.

As reprehensible as all this is, the Hindu zealots who staff Mr Modi’s electoral machine complain that he has not done enough to advance the Hindu cause. And public dissatisfaction with his economic reforms has helped boost Congress, the main opposition party, making the election more competitive than had been expected. The temptation to fire up voters using heated brinkmanship with Pakistan will be huge.

Mr Modi has made a career of playing with fire. He first rose to prominence as chief minister of Gujarat when the state was racked by anti-Muslim pogroms in 2002. Although there is no evidence he orchestrated the violence, he has shown no compunction about capitalising on the popularity it won him in Hindu-nationalist circles. With a difficult election ahead, he may think he can pull off the same trick again by playing the tough guy with Pakistan, but without actually getting into a fight. However, the price of miscalculation does not bear thinking about. Western governments are pushing for a diplomatic settlement at the UN. If Mr Modi really is a patriot, he will now step back.

 

[cloud4000]

Relations between India and Pakistan will always be temperamental, up and down, hot and cold. Pulwama and Balakot is just the latest chapter in this never-ending saga. Things will just repeat.

 

[VCheng]

As I said before @AgNoStiC MuSliM the claim of hundreds of deaths in the attack was rubbish anyway. The real message is something else as I have said elsewhere too.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

As I said before @AgNoStiC MuSliM the claim of hundreds of deaths in the attack was rubbish anyway. The real message is something else as I have said elsewhere too.

The real message has been drowned out but the stupidity displayed by Modi in perpetuating these lies, and negated by the Pakistani retaliation.

 

[VCheng]

The real message has been drowned out but the stupidity displayed by Modi in perpetuating these lies, and negated by the Pakistani retaliation.

Did you read this?

@Joe Shearer @Nilgiri @Vibrio


https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/02/28/india-and-pakistan-should-stop-playing-with-fire

Modi’s dangerous moment
India and Pakistan should stop playing with fire

With an election looming, Narendra Modi is under pressure to act tough

Print edition | Leaders
Feb 28th 2019

The armies of India and Pakistan often exchange fire across the front line in the disputed state of Kashmir. When tensions rise, one side will subject the other to a blistering artillery barrage. On occasion, the two have sent soldiers on forays into one another’s territory. But since the feuding neighbours tested nuclear weapons in the late 1990s, neither had dared send fighter jets across the frontier—until this week. After a terrorist group based in Pakistan launched an attack in the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir that killed 40 soldiers, India responded by bombing what it said was a terrorist training camp in the Pakistani state of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Pakistan retaliated by sending jets of its own to bomb Indian targets. In the ensuing air battle, both sides claim to have shot down the other’s aircraft, and Pakistan captured an Indian pilot.

A miscalculation now could spell calamity. The fighting is already the fiercest between the two countries since India battled to expel Pakistani intruders from high in the Himalayas in 1999. The initial Indian air raid struck not Pakistan’s bit of Kashmir, but well within Pakistan proper and just 100km from the capital, Islamabad. That, in effect, constituted a change in the rules of engagement between the two. India and Pakistan are so often at odds that there is a tendency to shrug off their spats, but not since their most recent, full-blown war in 1971 has the risk of escalation been so high.

The intention of Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister, in ordering the original air strike was simple. Pakistan has long backed terrorists who mount grisly attacks in India, most notably in Mumbai in 2008, when jihadists who arrived by boat from Pakistan killed some 165 people. Although Pakistan’s army promised then to shut down such extremist groups, it has not. By responding more forcefully than usual to the latest outrage, Mr Modi understandably wanted to signal that he was not willing to allow Pakistan to keep sponsoring terrorism.

In the long run, stability depends on Pakistan ending its indefensible support for terrorism. Its prime minister, Imran Khan, is urging dialogue and, in a promising gesture, was due to release India’s pilot—presumably with the approval of the army chief, who calls the shots on matters of security.

But in the short run Mr Modi shares the responsibility to stop a disastrous escalation. Because he faces an election in April, he faces the hardest and most consequential calculations. They could come to define his premiership.

Mr Modi has always presented himself as a bold and resolute military leader, who does not shrink from confronting Pakistan’s provocations. He has taken to repeating a catchphrase from the film “Uri”, which portrays a commando raid he ordered against Pakistan in 2016 in response to a previous terrorist attack as a moment of chin-jutting grit. The all-too-plausible fear is that his own tendency to swagger, along with domestic political pressures, will spur him further down the spiral towards war.

The ambiguity of Mr Modi’s beliefs only deepens the danger. He campaigned at the election in 2014 as a moderniser, who would bring jobs and prosperity to India. But, his critics charge, all his talk of development and reform is simply the figleaf for a lifelong commitment to a divisive Hindu-nationalist agenda.

Over the past five years Mr Modi has lived up neither to the hype nor to the dire warnings. The economy has grown strongly under his leadership, by around 7% a year. He has brought about reforms his predecessors had promised but never delivered, such as a nationwide goods-and-services tax(GST).

But unemployment has actually risen during Mr Modi’s tenure, according to leaked data that his government has been accused of trying to suppress. The GST was needlessly complex and costly to administer. Other pressing reforms have fallen by the wayside. India’s banks are still largely in state hands, still prone to lend to the well-connected. And as the election has drawn closer, Mr Modi has resorted to politically expedient policies that are likely to harm the economy. His government hounded the boss of the central bank out of office for keeping interest rates high, appointing a replacement who promptly cut them. And it has unveiled draft rules that would protect domestic e-commerce firms from competition from retailers such as Amazon.

By the same token, Mr Modi has not sparked the outright communal conflagration his critics, The Economist included, fretted about before he became prime minister. But his government has often displayed hostility to India’s Muslim minority and sympathy for those who see Hinduism—the religion of 80% of Indians—as under threat from internal and external foes. He has appointed a bigoted Hindu prelate, Yogi Adityanath, as chief minister of India’s most populous state, Uttar Pradesh. A member of his cabinet presented garlands of flowers to a group of Hindu men who had been convicted of lynching a Muslim for selling beef (cows are sacred to Hindus). And Mr Modi himself has suspended the elected government of Jammu & Kashmir, India’s only Muslim-majority state, and used force to suppress protests there against the central government, leading to horrific civilian casualties.

As reprehensible as all this is, the Hindu zealots who staff Mr Modi’s electoral machine complain that he has not done enough to advance the Hindu cause. And public dissatisfaction with his economic reforms has helped boost Congress, the main opposition party, making the election more competitive than had been expected. The temptation to fire up voters using heated brinkmanship with Pakistan will be huge.

Mr Modi has made a career of playing with fire. He first rose to prominence as chief minister of Gujarat when the state was racked by anti-Muslim pogroms in 2002. Although there is no evidence he orchestrated the violence, he has shown no compunction about capitalising on the popularity it won him in Hindu-nationalist circles. With a difficult election ahead, he may think he can pull off the same trick again by playing the tough guy with Pakistan, but without actually getting into a fight. However, the price of miscalculation does not bear thinking about. Western governments are pushing for a diplomatic settlement at the UN. If Mr Modi really is a patriot, he will now step back.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Did you read this?

I did now, and there are a lot of false presumptions there. For one, the Pulwama attacks were domestic, both in terms of the resources used and the motivation for the bomber. Pakistan cannot control Kashmiris who react against the occupation after being abused, tortured and humiliated and seeing their friends and family treated the same way and being killed.

Second, the rules of engagement have changed on the Pakistani side as well. Pakistan is going to retaliate and do you think another IAF intrusion is going to just be ‘warned and escorted back across the LoC’? No, it’s weapons free anytime the Indians violate Pakistani airspace again and they’ll be paid back in the same coin. And the response has changed not just from the Pakistani side, but also from the international community. The world knows now that Pakistan will not take such violations lying down - Modi almost started a war with his ‘changed RoE’s’, and the international community does not want to see that, which means that there will be a lot more pressure on Modi as well to not engage in the kind of irresponsible actions he did.

Pakistan will continue to do what little it can in terms of freezing assets and detaining leadership of certain organizations, but that will not stop another Pulwama from occurring. Stopping another Pulwama is in Indian hands, in terms of India (especially the BJP) changing its tactics in IoK.

 

[VCheng]

I did now, and there are a lot of false presumptions there. For one, the Pulwama attacks were domestic, both in terms of the resources used and the motivation for the bomber. Pakistan cannot control Kashmiris who react against the occupation after being abused, tortured and humiliated and seeing their friends and family treated the same way and being killed.

Second, the rules of engagement have changed on the Pakistani side as well. Pakistan is going to retaliate and do you think another IAF intrusion is going to just be ‘warned and escorted back across the LoC’? No, it’s weapons free anytime the Indians violate Pakistani airspace again and they’ll be paid back in the same coin. And the response has changed not just from the Pakistani side, but also from the international community. The world knows now that Pakistan will not take such violations lying down - Modi almost started a war with his ‘changed RoE’s’, and the international community does not want to see that, which means that there will be a lot more pressure on Modi as well to not engage in the kind of irresponsible actions he did.

Pakistan will continue to do what little it can in terms of freezing assets and detaining leadership of certain organizations, but that will not stop another Pulwama from occurring. Stopping another Pulwama is in Indian hands, in terms of India (especially the BJP) changing its tactics in IoK.

If Modi could resist the temptation to hijack his own military for his political campaign (and there is no evidence that he might), the pressure would have been on Pakistan to change its policies. His miscalculation lost India the first surprise advantage clearly, but it is not over yet.