5 ms·

India wants peace. A peaceful India threatens Pakistan's entire existence as a military state. Therefore, Pakistan keeps instigating with outrageously cruel ter

by screye 1y ago

India wants peace. A peaceful India threatens Pakistan's entire existence as a military state. Therefore, Pakistan keeps instigating with outrageously cruel terrorist attacks. There are no strategic goals here. Either side may recover some vantage points high up in the Himalayas. But that's about it.

alephnerd 1y ago
> A peaceful India threatens Pakistan's entire existence as a military state Pakistani Military leadership has attempted to negotiate normalized relations as well. The issue is someone in their lower ranks or on the political front tries to take advantage of normalization attempts to overthrow the previous leader. I documented a number of cases that happened this past decade below.
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> India wants peace Not really. There are options for a negotiated peace that involves swapping land, specifically, ceding Muslim-dominant territory to Pakistan and setting borders along rivers. That's anathema in India because there is broad-based antipathy towards Islamabad, historically, and Muslims, recently.
- alephnerd 1y ago
  > involves swapping land, specifically, ceding Muslim-dominant territory to Pakistan The sectors on the Indian side where fighting is happening right now in Jammu Division are 50-50 Muslim-Hindu/Sikh. What you are advocating would lead to Yugoslav style ethnic cleansing. > setting borders along rivers It already is that on the LoC, or mountain faces where rivers are not existent.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > What you are advocating would lead to Yugoslav style ethnic cleansing Yes. When you have a sectarian conflict, the only lasting solution is moving people around. Hateful people don’t learn to stop hating each other. Particularly not when you’re dealing with the levels of education in J&K. > It already is that on the LoC, or mountain faces where rivers are not existent And. Having a river with a sectarian cross isn’t useful. This stuff is hard and controversial. It takes work. My point is nobody is particularly interested in that work versus leaving the region in a low simmer.
    - alephnerd 1y ago
      > Yes. When you have a sectarian conflict, the only lasting solution is moving people around. Hateful people don’t learn to stop hating each other. Jammu Division is an entirely separate ethnic community (Pahari) from that in Kashmir Division (Koshur). Even during the worst of the partition and the Indo-Pak Wars, the mountain areas where active fighting was occurring never saw the same kind of religious violence you'd see in neighboring Kashmir or Punjabi speaking areas like Jammu City or Mirpur City. This would be solving a non-existent problem, as the leadership making decisions for conflicts on or around the LoC are not from these regions. And btw, the Indian and Pakistani army did attempt that when my grandmother was a child, but it didn't stick and people from one side or the other would just cross back - and this was the norm until the 1980s. --------------- There are ways to resolve the problem longer term, and that requires forcing professionalization of the Pakistani Armed Forces and cajoling India back to the negotiating table using the carrot and the stick. Similar precedent already exists with the Israel-Egypt peace accords under Sadat, and would have happened under Bajwa, Nawaz Sharif, or Musharraf if they weren't undermined.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > leadership making decisions for conflicts on or around the LoC are not from these regions The people in the region are pretty much irrelevant, one can successfuly model the conflict as a proxy war between New Delhi and Islamabad. Their interests are particular to the borders in the region, namely, access to waterm, China and the other side's Kashmir. > ways to resolve the problem longer term, and that requires forcing professionalization of the Pakistani Armed Forces and cajoling India back to the negotiating table using the carrot and the stick. Similar precedent already exists with the Israel-Egypt peace accords under Sadat This is a solution from a different era. The current borders are unstable and thus unsustainable. Between proxy forces and the militarisation of the South China Sea, we're kicking the can down the road until someone acts decisively. The game theory is that kicking the can down the road works for both sides. There isn't a pressing need for peace between India and Pakistan, just not nuclear conflict. And that's achieved with a Korean Peninsula-esque stalemate. The problem is either side gaining an advantage resolves the issue, and the later that happens the more destructive the resolution would be. (Think: Pakistan gaining top-of-the-line Sino-Russian missile defence.) And both sides know that ex ante. So we have a prisoner's dilemma without the common enemy (and common ally) that animated Tel Aviv and Cairo.
- screye 1y ago
  > ceding Muslim-dominant territory to Pakistan Why would India do that? Why would a unilateral surrender of land be considered valid terms for peace? > swapping land In a fair swap, what land would Pakistan offer in exchange? > Muslims, recently Pakistan doesn't have a stellar reputation for treatment of its Muslim minorities (Ahmediyyas, Ismailis) and non-Punjabi muslims (Balochis, Pasthuns, once-Pakistani-Bengalis). I'm inclined to consider India a safer nation for most muslim denominations. ____ Note: Pakistan's historic terror attacks have been deep in India soil (Mumbai, Delh). There is no indication that they'd maintain peace with India if they gained control over Kashmir.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Why would a unilateral surrender of land be considered valid terms for peace? Because you trade it for more than it's worth to you. America gave up the Philippines, for example. Every decolonisation effort could accurately be described as "a unilateral surrender of land." > what land would Pakistan offer in exchange? You'd probably need China to participate. Maybe Siachen or even areas of Sindh? It's a long shot. One of the elements would almost certainly be co-ordinated anti-terrorist policing. Maybe guaranteed by China. > I'm inclined to consider India a safer nation for most muslim denominations I am, too. But let's be honest, neither side is concerned with the wellbeing of anyone in Kashmir.
    - ignoramous 1y ago
      > decolonisation effort Kashmiris on the Indian side are citizens (unlike in "colonies"). AFSPA must be phased out but Kashmir isn't the only Indian state that's subject to it. > neither side is concerned with the wellbeing of anyone in Kashmir Yeah, the issue is too good to give up for (religion-based) politics and (military-industrial) businesses, on both sides of the border. Reminds of me this Bollywood movie dialogue: https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/RJAJdYw3ctw https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/RJAJdYw3ctw
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Kashmiris on the Indian side are citizens (unlike in "colonies") Since when has that prevented any government from negotiating borders? > the issue is too good to give up for (religion-based) politics and (military-industrial) businesses, on both sides of the border Yup. I’d add that the citizens of both countries legitimately despise each other. Not genocidally, for the most part, but dismissively to each others’ humanity. So it’s not like you have to go full manufactured consent to develop jingoism.
- kumarvvr 1y ago
  > There are options for a negotiated peace that involves swapping land, specifically, ceding Muslim-dominant territory to Pakistan and setting borders along rivers. Sorry, why would that be done? When Pakistan was split from India, because of the Muslims voting against their own land that they have been living in for centuries, the lines are set and done. Why should India cede more land? Pakistan is on one of the most resource rich, fertile lands in the Indian subcontinent.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > When Pakistan was split from India, because of the Muslims voting against their own land that they have been living in for centuries, the lines are set and done Lines are never "set and done for." We had a short period of global consensus around the unacceptability of taking territory by force. But between the superpowers' proxy wars, America's invasion of Iraq, China's annexation of Tibet and threats on Taiwan, and Russia's invasion of Ukraine, that precedent was always tenuous at best and, now, has certainly passed. > Why should India cede more land? Because New Delhi expects something of greater value in return. For example, one could see a China-mediated truce trading territory in J&K for settling boundaries in Andra Pradesh and/or a deployment of Chinese troops on anti-terrorist missions in Pakistan. Nobody is saying India just give land to Pakistan for feelsies. It's engaging in a negotiation where that's on the table. > Pakistan is on one of the most resource rich, fertile lands in the Indian subcontinent Geopolitics isn't fair? (Also, India is richer than Pakistan. Both in population and GDP per capital.) That said, this argument represents the pathos in India. India broadly isn't interested in peace if it comes at the cost of territory. It expresses a preference for certain things above peace.
    - pkd 1y ago
      This is a weird line of reasoning. By this logic the aggressors will always win because the other side should always concede territory for peace. Even if Kashmir is ceded to Pakistan, there is no reason why they'd be done aggressing for more territory.
      - 1y ago
- xlinux 1y ago
  [flagged]
- sbmthakur 1y ago
  Under no circumstances India is ceding any territory to a military run state that has sponsored terrorism in India. If Pakistan is serious they can start by putting PoK on the table and halt all anti Indian activities in their country. That would be a good start.
- arjun1296 1y ago
  [dead]
- boruto 1y ago
  There is no guarantee that ceding land would result in peace.
hayst4ck 1y ago
Israel and Russia also want peace. China wants peace with Taiwan. The US wants peace with Greenland and Canada. You have to be careful with that word, peace, because all wars are defensive.
- coryfklein 1y ago
  I’m sorry, but this is getting really out of hand, we can’t even use the word “peace” now?
  - matheusmoreira 1y ago
    Common street robbers want peace too. They want to rob you of your property as peacefully as possible. They very much want you to just surrender and let it happen. Violence is usually conditional. It comes with instructions on how to avoid it. Let the criminal take your things and he won't shoot you. Let us take this territory and you won't be killed. If you surrender and submit to our rule, you will have your peace. It's just that the cost is your land, your economy, your freedom, your secuity, your dignity, your pride, your self-determination The key fact about violence is nobody actually wants it. Everybody wants peace. At the same time, everybody also wants scarce resources that others are unwilling to just hand over to them. So they use the threat of violence to get what they want. Actual violence is risky and all bets are off once it escalates. Without the threat of violence though, why negotiate when you can just take? So there's a lot of nuance to "peace". India cannot claim to want peace and then suspend a treaty that provides vital water resources to Pakistan. Pakistan cannot claim to want peace and at the same time support insurgency against India. All of these things will obviously escalate the situtation until it erupts into war.
  - infecto 1y ago
    I didn’t read it that way. I read it more that saying India is a peaceful nation is probably not the full truth. As a third party I always had the impression this was one of those tit for tat forever wars. Each attack there is usually an antagonist but over the whole course it’s muddy.
- ignoramous 1y ago
rfrey 1y ago
Every country wants peace, as long as it's on their terms.

by screye 1y ago

alephnerd 1y ago

> A peaceful India threatens Pakistan's entire existence as a military state Pakistani Military leadership has attempted to negotiate normalized relations as well. The issue is someone in their lower ranks or on the political front tries to take advantage of normalization attempts to overthrow the previous leader. I documented a number of cases that happened this past decade below.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> India wants peace Not really. There are options for a negotiated peace that involves swapping land, specifically, ceding Muslim-dominant territory to Pakistan and setting borders along rivers. That's anathema in India because there is broad-based antipathy towards Islamabad, historically, and Muslims, recently.

alephnerd 1y ago
> involves swapping land, specifically, ceding Muslim-dominant territory to Pakistan The sectors on the Indian side where fighting is happening right now in Jammu Division are 50-50 Muslim-Hindu/Sikh. What you are advocating would lead to Yugoslav style ethnic cleansing. > setting borders along rivers It already is that on the LoC, or mountain faces where rivers are not existent.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > What you are advocating would lead to Yugoslav style ethnic cleansing Yes. When you have a sectarian conflict, the only lasting solution is moving people around. Hateful people don’t learn to stop hating each other. Particularly not when you’re dealing with the levels of education in J&K. > It already is that on the LoC, or mountain faces where rivers are not existent And. Having a river with a sectarian cross isn’t useful. This stuff is hard and controversial. It takes work. My point is nobody is particularly interested in that work versus leaving the region in a low simmer.
  - alephnerd 1y ago
    > Yes. When you have a sectarian conflict, the only lasting solution is moving people around. Hateful people don’t learn to stop hating each other. Jammu Division is an entirely separate ethnic community (Pahari) from that in Kashmir Division (Koshur). Even during the worst of the partition and the Indo-Pak Wars, the mountain areas where active fighting was occurring never saw the same kind of religious violence you'd see in neighboring Kashmir or Punjabi speaking areas like Jammu City or Mirpur City. This would be solving a non-existent problem, as the leadership making decisions for conflicts on or around the LoC are not from these regions. And btw, the Indian and Pakistani army did attempt that when my grandmother was a child, but it didn't stick and people from one side or the other would just cross back - and this was the norm until the 1980s. --------------- There are ways to resolve the problem longer term, and that requires forcing professionalization of the Pakistani Armed Forces and cajoling India back to the negotiating table using the carrot and the stick. Similar precedent already exists with the Israel-Egypt peace accords under Sadat, and would have happened under Bajwa, Nawaz Sharif, or Musharraf if they weren't undermined.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > leadership making decisions for conflicts on or around the LoC are not from these regions The people in the region are pretty much irrelevant, one can successfuly model the conflict as a proxy war between New Delhi and Islamabad. Their interests are particular to the borders in the region, namely, access to waterm, China and the other side's Kashmir. > ways to resolve the problem longer term, and that requires forcing professionalization of the Pakistani Armed Forces and cajoling India back to the negotiating table using the carrot and the stick. Similar precedent already exists with the Israel-Egypt peace accords under Sadat This is a solution from a different era. The current borders are unstable and thus unsustainable. Between proxy forces and the militarisation of the South China Sea, we're kicking the can down the road until someone acts decisively. The game theory is that kicking the can down the road works for both sides. There isn't a pressing need for peace between India and Pakistan, just not nuclear conflict. And that's achieved with a Korean Peninsula-esque stalemate. The problem is either side gaining an advantage resolves the issue, and the later that happens the more destructive the resolution would be. (Think: Pakistan gaining top-of-the-line Sino-Russian missile defence.) And both sides know that ex ante. So we have a prisoner's dilemma without the common enemy (and common ally) that animated Tel Aviv and Cairo.
screye 1y ago
> ceding Muslim-dominant territory to Pakistan Why would India do that? Why would a unilateral surrender of land be considered valid terms for peace? > swapping land In a fair swap, what land would Pakistan offer in exchange? > Muslims, recently Pakistan doesn't have a stellar reputation for treatment of its Muslim minorities (Ahmediyyas, Ismailis) and non-Punjabi muslims (Balochis, Pasthuns, once-Pakistani-Bengalis). I'm inclined to consider India a safer nation for most muslim denominations. ____ Note: Pakistan's historic terror attacks have been deep in India soil (Mumbai, Delh). There is no indication that they'd maintain peace with India if they gained control over Kashmir.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > Why would a unilateral surrender of land be considered valid terms for peace? Because you trade it for more than it's worth to you. America gave up the Philippines, for example. Every decolonisation effort could accurately be described as "a unilateral surrender of land." > what land would Pakistan offer in exchange? You'd probably need China to participate. Maybe Siachen or even areas of Sindh? It's a long shot. One of the elements would almost certainly be co-ordinated anti-terrorist policing. Maybe guaranteed by China. > I'm inclined to consider India a safer nation for most muslim denominations I am, too. But let's be honest, neither side is concerned with the wellbeing of anyone in Kashmir.
  - ignoramous 1y ago
    > decolonisation effort Kashmiris on the Indian side are citizens (unlike in "colonies"). AFSPA must be phased out but Kashmir isn't the only Indian state that's subject to it. > neither side is concerned with the wellbeing of anyone in Kashmir Yeah, the issue is too good to give up for (religion-based) politics and (military-industrial) businesses, on both sides of the border. Reminds of me this Bollywood movie dialogue: https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/RJAJdYw3ctw https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/RJAJdYw3ctw
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > Kashmiris on the Indian side are citizens (unlike in "colonies") Since when has that prevented any government from negotiating borders? > the issue is too good to give up for (religion-based) politics and (military-industrial) businesses, on both sides of the border Yup. I’d add that the citizens of both countries legitimately despise each other. Not genocidally, for the most part, but dismissively to each others’ humanity. So it’s not like you have to go full manufactured consent to develop jingoism.
kumarvvr 1y ago
> There are options for a negotiated peace that involves swapping land, specifically, ceding Muslim-dominant territory to Pakistan and setting borders along rivers. Sorry, why would that be done? When Pakistan was split from India, because of the Muslims voting against their own land that they have been living in for centuries, the lines are set and done. Why should India cede more land? Pakistan is on one of the most resource rich, fertile lands in the Indian subcontinent.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > When Pakistan was split from India, because of the Muslims voting against their own land that they have been living in for centuries, the lines are set and done Lines are never "set and done for." We had a short period of global consensus around the unacceptability of taking territory by force. But between the superpowers' proxy wars, America's invasion of Iraq, China's annexation of Tibet and threats on Taiwan, and Russia's invasion of Ukraine, that precedent was always tenuous at best and, now, has certainly passed. > Why should India cede more land? Because New Delhi expects something of greater value in return. For example, one could see a China-mediated truce trading territory in J&K for settling boundaries in Andra Pradesh and/or a deployment of Chinese troops on anti-terrorist missions in Pakistan. Nobody is saying India just give land to Pakistan for feelsies. It's engaging in a negotiation where that's on the table. > Pakistan is on one of the most resource rich, fertile lands in the Indian subcontinent Geopolitics isn't fair? (Also, India is richer than Pakistan. Both in population and GDP per capital.) That said, this argument represents the pathos in India. India broadly isn't interested in peace if it comes at the cost of territory. It expresses a preference for certain things above peace.
  - pkd 1y ago
    This is a weird line of reasoning. By this logic the aggressors will always win because the other side should always concede territory for peace. Even if Kashmir is ceded to Pakistan, there is no reason why they'd be done aggressing for more territory.
    - 1y ago
xlinux 1y ago
[flagged]
sbmthakur 1y ago
Under no circumstances India is ceding any territory to a military run state that has sponsored terrorism in India. If Pakistan is serious they can start by putting PoK on the table and halt all anti Indian activities in their country. That would be a good start.
arjun1296 1y ago
[dead]
boruto 1y ago
There is no guarantee that ceding land would result in peace.

hayst4ck 1y ago

Israel and Russia also want peace. China wants peace with Taiwan. The US wants peace with Greenland and Canada. You have to be careful with that word, peace, because all wars are defensive.

coryfklein 1y ago
I’m sorry, but this is getting really out of hand, we can’t even use the word “peace” now?
- matheusmoreira 1y ago
  Common street robbers want peace too. They want to rob you of your property as peacefully as possible. They very much want you to just surrender and let it happen. Violence is usually conditional. It comes with instructions on how to avoid it. Let the criminal take your things and he won't shoot you. Let us take this territory and you won't be killed. If you surrender and submit to our rule, you will have your peace. It's just that the cost is your land, your economy, your freedom, your secuity, your dignity, your pride, your self-determination The key fact about violence is nobody actually wants it. Everybody wants peace. At the same time, everybody also wants scarce resources that others are unwilling to just hand over to them. So they use the threat of violence to get what they want. Actual violence is risky and all bets are off once it escalates. Without the threat of violence though, why negotiate when you can just take? So there's a lot of nuance to "peace". India cannot claim to want peace and then suspend a treaty that provides vital water resources to Pakistan. Pakistan cannot claim to want peace and at the same time support insurgency against India. All of these things will obviously escalate the situtation until it erupts into war.
- infecto 1y ago
  I didn’t read it that way. I read it more that saying India is a peaceful nation is probably not the full truth. As a third party I always had the impression this was one of those tit for tat forever wars. Each attack there is usually an antagonist but over the whole course it’s muddy.
ignoramous 1y ago

rfrey 1y ago

Every country wants peace, as long as it's on their terms.