Kashmir
- Thread starter 2cents
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
Pakistan side of the LOC (Mirpur) but tbh, it's nearer Jhelum in Punjab than the properly ethnic Kashmiri areas like Muzaffarabad, and predominantly my cultural background is more Punjabi than Kashmiri. Though in saying that, on my mum's side I recently found out that I do have some actual Kashmiri heritage going back some generations.
I swear Indians and Pakistanis on social media are the most immature lot of I've seen. They live in fecking 15th century actually bragging about wars they've "won". Why are all of you teenagers?!
TBH the idea of India and Pakistan breaking up has been around for ages but it's not actually happening. Not in the near future anyway. Baluchistan is no where near to being "on its way" to seceding from the nation. Same for the Sindhis and Pashtuns - although there are some differences they are very much a part of the national government.
Same with India. Always talk about these different cultures separating but they're all involved in one government now.
To be honest, the whole idea of "India" as a nation was very unnatural but now that it's there it's gonna be there.
I hope you're right, but like I said earlier it's only been 70 odd years.
On this issue all political parties too including left (though with caveat statements) are in agreement with government, so no wonder media are overall supporting. I was talking in general otherwise. On this issue though it was about response to continuous support from Pak for terrorists activities, which was needed and what country overall felt after Uri attacks.
I have explained in a post afterwards my thinking on why it has been made public.
China with its business relations is not going to decisively choose side. Russia need not declare public support on everything. I was talking about diplomatic support Pak will have, and maybe more than diplomatic, if war like situation arises. Russia is not going to abandon whatever ties they have with Pak completely for India because situation is not like that and India will still be their preferred side but again the point was, "if Pak wants to escalate issue to world stage or if they want to get into war, do they have firm, favouring allies on its side?"
Well Pakistan has already broken up once so there's precedent for that
Could you also explain why is the idea of India as a nation "unnatural"?
This is just a stupid post.
The Pakistan that broke up was already broken up - literally. There was absolutely no sense in having a nation like that. Also India to me has always been a region like Europe. The different across India are very different and if history was slightly different could have been countries on their own. With time it might feel less unnatural but as of now it does feel a bit like it.
I don't think it will break up though. Nor will Pakistan. Papers and TV like to blow these things out of proportion. There are definitely differences but they're not that serious right now.
Get on twitter and read some of the comments by Indian and Pakistani celebrities. These are grown ass men and women bragging about wars. I have not seen two major countries act with such immaturity anywhere else.
Almost all the areas of India (and Pakistan) have a shared cultural history if not political history. Even with politics, 2 empires (Mauryan (Ashoka) and Mughal (Akbar)) ruled over most of India before the British came in and made it official.
Yes, there is tons of diversity but given the large spread of the country that isn't unexpected. I don't fully disagree with your comparison to Europe but IMO it's midway between being like Western Europe and, like say, Italy, which had a very tightly shared cultural history but a very fractured politics.
There was obviously an ancient idea of a "nation" in the subcontinent; India/Bharat/Hindustan didn't just refer to the region.
That's a good post. Indian media creates a war hysteria every single time. On the contrary, Pakistani media plays down an incident in which there is proven involvement of RAW.
That is not true as I was not the only one as I have pointed out again and again. One remark was my mistake but it was in response of the endless sarcastic remarks and "happy" posts from the other side.
Yes and while we're at that - just out of interest how many people commenting in this thread are actually not from India? Seems like the place gives only one side of the view every time.
Last edited:
But even with what you've quoted it is quite evident India has been seen more of a region than a nation. There is shared history no doubt. I just wish both countries would mature. Solving Kashmir is not in anyone's interest unfortunately. There's no reason to see a prosperous India and Pakistan for the rest of the world -- too many rivals.
I'm not arguing against people being idiots on social media. My comment was about branding every Indian and Pakistani a teenager and saying they're all immature. Every country, city, etc has its fair share of feckwits, just how the world is. It's ridiculous to paint an entire nation with the same brush just because you come across a handful of idiots on the Internet especially given social media seems to act as a bat signal for utter bellends.
That is true. Both countries have tremendous resources and peace can do economic wonders to both and the region as a whole.
But I was talking specifically about those on social media. Anyway, generalization or not I've said what I've observed. The nations have some tension and both sides act like tough kids in high school.
Hate to be a conspiracy theorists but there really is no conspiracy here. It's all about profit and loss. The world has nothing to gain from Pakistan and India seeing peace or Kashmir being resolved. I don't get it though. The next time Pakistan or India has a new leader, why don't they make it their #1 agenda to solve Kashmir somehow? Just hold talk. Put pressure on UN and world media or something. Solve the damn issue so people can move on!
Thinking about the mutual benefits from trade, tourism and anti-terrorism in the region with a strong relationship between the nations depresses me given it seems unlikely to happen.
Have you heard America's presidential candidate speak? He sounds like a baby babbling away incoherently. He's openly racist, sexist and lacking in basic etiquette yet somehow has enough support to have a chance of becoming their president.
So yeah, shock horror, there's stupid people everywhere and emotional immature incoherent arguments on platforms that promote them (Twitter) from every country.
You really think international issues like this are that easy? Talking doesn't solve anything. The global media can't stop terrorism or cross border violence or secure free and fair elections. The UN probably could help, but its main members have their own agendas to look after. Besides, Kashmir is actually not the only point of dispute between India and Pakistan.
And the world labels America as stupid/dumb for that reason. Look it's a poor generalization because some of the smartest people in the world are Americans but saying America has a ton of dumb people is not surprising. Could you imagine someone like Trump getting the support he does in a place like say Greece or Netherlands? Let's put it this way, it's not exactly shocking that Trump has support in southern parts of America.
In a similar fashion, not all but a lot Indians and Pakistanis are immature when it comes to animosity between the nations. I go back to the celebrity comments. On both sides we have otherwise well respected celebrities threatening each other and bragging about military power.
So your post seemingly feeling outraged has little meaning or relevancy when sweeping generalizations tend to be full of hot air.
While I do see where you're coming from, a corollary to this would be saying why does the west have a problem with Russia or saying that since the west has a problem with the likes of ISIS, they should sit down together and solve everything. International relations are not that simple.
Besides, talks between India and Pakistan isn't such a revolutionary idea; there has been a ceasefire in place since 2004 and hundreds of attempts at talks over the last 70 years. In the last 10 years alone, we've had diplomacy for 3 years (which apparently saw great progress on Kashmir) followed by 26/11, diplomacy followed by more attacks, followed by an attack in January which was followed by talks and now another terrorist attack. While there is a constituency which wants peace, It's not easy to keep preaching peace despite repeated provocations while the west finds it logical to invade countries and justify said invasions in the name of platitudes like "freedom and democracy".
Let's not forget we're dealing with a state which has aided and abetted terrorists for years, which hosted bin Laden, which teaches children how the Indians are evil on the basis of religion and whose ex-Prime Minister once said that they would pursue the atomic bomb even if it meant eating grass. The present Defence Minister came out and threatened use of nuclear weapons.
That does not mean there aren't crazies in India or that we have nothing to answer for but it isn't that simple. Talks can only happen if action is taken against terrorism. For some time it did seem like Nawaz Sharif was serious about peace but it obviously isn't the case anymore.
He said there was a lot of twats on social media, that's not a sweeping generalisation, is it?
It is when you get outraged enough by morons on Twitter to try and paint people of certain countries is worse light saying "I've never seen such immature/stupid people from two major countries etc". Combine stupidity of people with emotional subjects and it's only to be expected.
It is this mindset (on both sides) that is unfortunately propelling this animosity. Both countries have been cnuts to each other in every way possible. If you're just going to look at how one of them has been a cnut to the other, you will never find a solution.
Also, comparing it to ISIS makes no sense. India and Pakistan have plenty in common and can exist peacefully in theory.
I swear you have the need to argue or oppose any point anyone makes. If you can't see the immaturity of these posts I can't help you.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd have thought the Pakistan/Kashmir issue doesn't really concern the vast majority of the Indian population. It's a country of over 1.2 bn people and is geographically huge. I don't imagine Indians in the south/east (regions outside of the northwest of India basically) really would want to vote in a leader that would put such a huge emphasis on an issue that probably doesn't concern them.
Both countries? So we're equating India with a state which is the subject of a bill on state sponsors of terrorism in the US Congress. No, you'll find a solution when one of the parties acts against terrorist elements in said country's territory.
Why? ISIS is religious fundamentalism, the same logic jihadis targeting India use. Why is one form of fundamentalism to be tolerated while the other acted against? The west keeps preaching restraint when they've laid nations to waste for less.
Yes, India and Pakistan can co-exist peacefully, but for that action needs to be taken against terrorism. As long as Pakistan continues to support terrorism in India, no Indian Prime Minister can support the process of uninterruptible dialogue some (even in India) seek.
Politicians on either side of border are more interested in their own benefits. Same with the politicians in Kashmir who milk money from Indian govt and also keep the mobs brainwashed to believe in them.
Besides solving it means reaching compromises. Neither sides are interested in compromises.
Clearly you're not worth arguing with. You're still in the blame game mindset. There can never be a solution in that mindset. If you want a resolution, both countries are equally at conflict. Believe me anyone from Pakistan can come up with an equally compelling argument to why they are right. I personally don't want to get into the specifics.
You're just buying your own nations propoganda. Unfortunately this not rare in many Indians and Pakistanis.
Pretty much this.
You make it sound like every international dispute has both sides equally at fault. If you have a genuine interest in understanding why the situation has not yet been resolved, you really do need to get into the specifics.
The caf is full of contrarians. Nothing new. Sometimes it feels you are at a debate club.
No, I'm in the mindset of asking for accountability. I'm not even saying that India has always been on the right, just that the bare minimum of action against terrorism needs to happen for people to move forward; how you've changed that into propaganda and blame game I do not know.
This conversation has once again exposed the double standard of people in the west on this issue: when it's a western country suffering from terrorism, bombs will rain down on ancient lands and leaders will espouse testosterone filled calls of shock and awe. Nuremberg-esque rallies will be held. When it's any other country, asking for accountability is propaganda.
By the way, I find it admirable that you object to characterisation of Pakisan as a state sponsor of terrorism when quite a few Pakistanis themselves accept it.
I didn't want it to come to this but guess I can't help it: Pakistan is involved in destabilizing India and the same time there is evidence of terrorists in Pakistan receiving funding/training from India. How can you blame one country them? Both are involved in helping terrorists destabilizing the other and both have come up with valid reasons to do so in their minds.
On top of that, Indian atrocities in the Kashmir Valley has been no secret. Civilians, women and children being killed - why doesn't India respect basic human rights before pointing fingers at others? Let me guess: because Pakistan does the same against the national balouch separatists. So Pakistan, why do you do it? Oh because India funds them and they are using them as a tool to weaken our structure from within. India why do you do that? Because Pakistan does it us by sending in terrorists through Kashmir.
It goes on and on. It's been a conflict of decades. If you think there is a "good" side to this then your head is buried deep in propaganda.
(BTW, As far as I know Pakistan recently concluded one of the biggest anti-terrorist operation in its nation which resulted in the loss of a lot of soldiers for them. Not to say there isn't probably some harboring going on but the whole "bare minimum" argument is a bit trite)
I'm originally from the southern part of India so I'll take this. It probably doesn't bother people in the south as much (geographical proximity,etc) but it still is an issue; especially Pakistan because of the national security angle. Probably not as much so as to influence elections in a huge way but still...
It doesn't directly affect even many of us in the north, to be honest. Apart from the Mumbai attack most people have no direct exposure to Pakistan related terrorism. However, high profile issues like this always attract attention even from those with nothing at stake. I think for the oldest generation that witnessed the partition and some of the horrors related to that, or for families with soldiering traditions it's still a huge issue, but for the majority of the younger generation the priority is economic development. You are right, I can't see it being the foremost issue in an election unless something happened at just that time.
Finally. What I was arguing throughout this thread has been this very fact.
Both countries are equally guilty of the same - Pakistanis admit that we have harbored terrorists in the past. We nurtured them at the behest of CIA to drive out the Soviets. We were paid to do so. That strategy seemed fine at that moment and nobody knew what they were getting into. These people were called mujahideen or freedom fighters at that moment. Somehow Pakistan takes all of the blame for what was entirely the strategy of U.S.
I have tried to reason and argue that both sides are equally guilty of everything. India has continuously sponsored terrorism in Pakistan. It is naive and incredible delusion to think that ISI was always orchestrating terrorism in India while RAW (with more budget and resources) was sitting idle not planning anything of their own.
Factions of TTP are controlled by R.A.W via Afghanistan. Pakistan has been the biggest victim of terrorism and a year and half ago - lost over a hundred children to these animals. Indian Prime Minister is a terrorist for his role in Muslim massacre in Gujrat. He is an intolerant Indian who hates Pakistan.
There have been threats everyday from the Indian side that they will destroy Pakistan. India is giving asylum to a terrorist of Pakistan (Baramdagh Bugti). Modi who has no business in Pakistan has openly admitted to stirring shit up in Balochistan. They admitted to supporting Mukhti Bani and the creation of Bangladesh. Over 10 terrorists arrested of Karachi (MQM) this year have given their testimony (on videos) of being trained by RAW. An Indian spy was recently caught in Balochistan and has basically admitted to everything. Pakistan has suffered 10x more terrorism attacks than India has - and many of those have been indirectly/directly sponsored by RAW.
India has been equally guilty of doing what Pakistan has been doing and to this day I have not met one Indian friend who admits to this. Therefore, it is completely useless to argue.
Pakistanis (general public) are comparatively much more tolerant, admit their wrong doings and want peace. The situation is the complete opposite in India - they blame Pakistan for any and everything and they have a superiority complex whereby they feel they can easily do "surgical strikes" in Pakistan.
I presume you're talking about Balochistan? Is the Indian government interested in making things difficult? Probably. But claiming that India funds extremist activity to the extent that ISI/Pakistani Army does is overestimating the capacities of Indian state. Besides, we're hearing about this since 2008. Why is there no pressure from other countries if there was evidence? Even if we assume nobody is interested it is illogical that China wouldn't use it.
Regarding Kashmir and the violations there, yes that is horrible and we have much to answer for. I do not deny that. One hopes that these issues will be addressed now that the violence has decreased. The Supreme Court of India has been petitioned on the matter and I hope that things change. I also blame the media in that the only time the rest of India hears about Kashmir is when there's any sort of violence.
And credit to Pakistan for taking action against one set of terrorists. However, it is still a fact that people like Hafeez Sayeed and Massod Azhar are patronized by the state. So it's a case of acting against those that hurt Pakistan and supporting those who target India. Otherwise neither Pathankot nor Uri would have occurred.
See, if terrorist attacks don't happen, It's harder for governments to pass off the violence in Kashmir as the handiwork of terrorists (there is probably some truth to it, especially on account of the jihadist tone since 1989, attacks on minorities in Kashmir,etc ) which makes it easier for talks to occur.
You are right. It's not to the extent of ISI/Pakistani Army - it's more than that.
India has far more resources and money than Pakistan and here is how your current national security advisor, Ajit Doval explains the simple math.
“So if they (the terrorists) have a budget of 1200 Crores and we match it with 1800 Crores, they are all on our side.” 4:30 onwards
Again, my point is to help people realize that there are two sides of the coin. But again, I'm not keeping my hopes up.
Again, there was a major terrorist operation against those that "hurt Pakistan" yet we see bomb blasts in Pakistan on a monthly if not weekly basis. They could easily blame India (just as you blame Pakistan for URI).
You are right. If terrorist attacks didn't happen it would be easier. You are also right Pakistan probably harbors the terrorists of their own interest against India but you must agree that India funds the one that damage Pakistan. Both countries are using the weapons they have to damage the other. You can't just "pick" which one is worse.
I love the nastiness of this thread.
Most of the terrorist attacks happening in Pakistan are the handiwork of the Taliban. To claim that India funds the Taliban is illogical. Especially when buildings built with Indian assistance (not to mention the Indian consulate) have been attacked by the Taliban. It's not me that blames Pakistan for Uri; the international community does so.
Like I said, I'm not picking and choosing. There is evidence for one, not the other.