4 ms·

An excellent two sentence summary of the Kashmir conflicts: "Pakistan and India almost immediately went to war over Kashmir, a Muslim-majority state whose Hind

by amalag 10y ago

An excellent two sentence summary of the Kashmir conflicts: "Pakistan and India almost immediately went to war over Kashmir, a Muslim-majority state whose Hindu ruler elected to join India in exchange for assistance putting down a local revolt. The incident escalated to a full-scale confrontation which simmers to this day." A very nice article, one thing that can be added is that Indira Gandhi was in favor of entering the war far earlier but was dissuaded by army staff who waited for the monsoons. The monsoons would make China's entry into the war impossible. So it was not just chance that China did not enter. From Wikipedia: "Towards the end of April 1971, Indira Gandhi, who was Prime Minister of India at that time, asked Manekshaw if he was ready to go to war with Pakistan. Manekshaw refused, saying that his single armoured division and two infantry divisions were deployed elsewhere, that only 13 of his 189 tanks were fit to fight, and that they would be competing for rail carriage with the grain harvest at that point of time. He also pointed out that the Himalayan passes would soon open up, with the forthcoming monsoon in East Pakistan, which would result in heavy flooding. When Indira Gandhi asked the cabinet to leave the room and the chief to stay, he offered to resign. She declined to accept it, but sought his advice. He then said he could guarantee victory if she would allow him to prepare for the conflict on his terms, and set a date for it. These were acceded to by the Prime Minister."

kartD 10y ago
Sam Manekshaw (India's Chief of army staff at the time) is quite an interesting person. If anyone's interested, take a look at his wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Manekshaw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Manekshaw Here are some of his choice quotes: On the military knowledge of politicians: "I wonder whether those of our political masters who have been put in charge of the defence of the country can distinguish a mortar from a motor; a gun from a howitzer; a guerrilla from a gorilla, although a great many resemble the latter." A 'Yes man' is a dangerous man. He is a menace. He will go very far. He can become a minister, a secretary or a Field Marshall but he can never become a leader nor, ever be respected. He will be used by his superiors, disliked by his colleagues and despised by his subordinates. So discard the 'Yes man'.
chimeracoder 10y ago
> An excellent two sentence summary of the Kashmir conflicts I really don't think that's a great summary of the conflict. It's the common narrative that's put forth, particularly in the US, because it makes sense through the lens of US foreign policy, but it doesn't really explain the full background and proper historical or political context. I'm not going to provide an alternative, though, because I don't think the background of the conflict can be summarized in two sentences, any more than World War I can. Sure, you can say "the war happened because Franz Ferdinand got shot. This set off a chain of events which escalated into a global war" and you wouldn't be wrong. But that's the sort of explanation that really only makes sense of you already know the answer, which is the most dangerous kind.
- amalag 10y ago
  Yes that two sentence summary does not even mention that Pakistan was invading, instead it says "local revolt" and it does not mention that India went to the UN instead of settling matters with their military strength which would have avoided embedding Pakistan into the matter.
legolas2412 10y ago
Horrible summary actually. 1) "Local revolt"? Nopes, Pakistan invaded 2) Let's skip over multiple details like (India inviting UN/Pakistan not following UN guidelines/Increasing Islamization of the Kashmir valley/Ethnic cleansing of kashmiri hindus/Pakistan occupied Kashmir having less autonomy or democratic power than Indian Kashmir/Pakistan sponsoring of terrorism/Kashmir being fought over by three nuclear powers making it improbable to exist as an independent country)

by amalag 10y ago

kartD 10y ago

Sam Manekshaw (India's Chief of army staff at the time) is quite an interesting person. If anyone's interested, take a look at his wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Manekshaw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Manekshaw Here are some of his choice quotes: On the military knowledge of politicians: "I wonder whether those of our political masters who have been put in charge of the defence of the country can distinguish a mortar from a motor; a gun from a howitzer; a guerrilla from a gorilla, although a great many resemble the latter." A 'Yes man' is a dangerous man. He is a menace. He will go very far. He can become a minister, a secretary or a Field Marshall but he can never become a leader nor, ever be respected. He will be used by his superiors, disliked by his colleagues and despised by his subordinates. So discard the 'Yes man'.

chimeracoder 10y ago

> An excellent two sentence summary of the Kashmir conflicts I really don't think that's a great summary of the conflict. It's the common narrative that's put forth, particularly in the US, because it makes sense through the lens of US foreign policy, but it doesn't really explain the full background and proper historical or political context. I'm not going to provide an alternative, though, because I don't think the background of the conflict can be summarized in two sentences, any more than World War I can. Sure, you can say "the war happened because Franz Ferdinand got shot. This set off a chain of events which escalated into a global war" and you wouldn't be wrong. But that's the sort of explanation that really only makes sense of you already know the answer, which is the most dangerous kind.

amalag 10y ago
Yes that two sentence summary does not even mention that Pakistan was invading, instead it says "local revolt" and it does not mention that India went to the UN instead of settling matters with their military strength which would have avoided embedding Pakistan into the matter.

legolas2412 10y ago

Horrible summary actually. 1) "Local revolt"? Nopes, Pakistan invaded 2) Let's skip over multiple details like (India inviting UN/Pakistan not following UN guidelines/Increasing Islamization of the Kashmir valley/Ethnic cleansing of kashmiri hindus/Pakistan occupied Kashmir having less autonomy or democratic power than Indian Kashmir/Pakistan sponsoring of terrorism/Kashmir being fought over by three nuclear powers making it improbable to exist as an independent country)