Conflict Between India and Pakistan

[Dotini]

CNN amongst others is reporting escalating border tensions between the two nuclear armed neighbors. Pakistan is claiming it has shot down two Indian fighter jets inside its territory, and India is saying that it lost one and its pilot is missing. India has stated that it carried out incursions in Pakistan as a result of a previous terror strike which cost dozens of soldier's lives in Kashmir. The US has advised both to avoid further direct military contact.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/27/india/india-pakistan-strikes-escalation-intl/index.html

India and Pakistan have fought three wars, two of them over the disputed territory of Kashmir [Mukhtar Khan/AP]
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/02/india-pakistan-tensions-latest-updates-190227063414443.html

SOURCE: AL JAZEERA AND NEWS AGENCIES


EDIT:
A captured Indian pilot has been beaten bloody and paraded on TV. This will do wonders to soothe public emotions.

All airspace over Pakistan has been closed to civilian traffic, as has all airspace in India north of New Delhi.

 

[Castrol96]

This could be a start to a very dangerous war and I hope not.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It'll be fine, it's a bit of sabre-rattling over Kashmir, as ever.

 

[Robin]

I would hope that the gesture of releasing the pilot has calmed this right down. I don't think it was ever in any doubt that he would be, but it at least shows both sides aren't on the verge of something full blown just yet.

 

[Dotini]

IMHO, India both at the highest political level and at the street level is in no mood for further patience and compromise with regard to terrorist attacks emanating from Pakistan. Pakistan is living in denial of its role in supporting these terrorists. India has the advantage in larger numbers of better weapons, and can be expected to use that advantage, and soon. I am informed that India has begun release of strategic food stores into the population in preparation for a time in which the government becomes very busy indeed.

 

[TenEightyOne]

IMHO, India both at the highest political level and at the street level is in no mood for further patience and compromise with regard to terrorist attacks emanating from Pakistan. Pakistan is living in denial of its role in supporting these terrorists.

That's an overly simplistic view of the Kashmiri situation, imo. There are agitators on both sides in most conflicts across the Indian and Pakistani territories and Kashmir is no exception. This is unsurprising given it's turbulent history at the hands of India, Pakistan and their modern enablers. The emergence of Islamic terrorists (or Muslim terrorists whose cause is not related primarily to their religion) from these regions is nothing new - and it's perfectly logical that a greater majority of Muslim terrorists come from places that have a greater majority of Muslims. It's unsurprising if "ordinary" citizens in those areas support some of the causes of the extremists. An interesting parallel to that is the historical support for NORAID in the USA. It wasn't widespread but it had a definite effect during the many years that it took for the US government to act on it.

 

[Dotini]

That's an overly simplistic view of the Kashmiri situation, imo. There are agitators on both sides in most conflicts across the Indian and Pakistani territories and Kashmir is no exception. This is unsurprising given it's turbulent history at the hands of India, Pakistan and their modern enablers. The emergence of Islamic terrorists (or Muslim terrorists whose cause is not related primarily to their religion) from these regions is nothing new - and it's perfectly logical that a greater majority of Muslim terrorists come from places that have a greater majority of Muslims. It's unsurprising if "ordinary" citizens in those areas support some of the causes of the extremists. An interesting parallel to that is the historical support for NORAID in the USA. It wasn't widespread but it had a definite effect during the many years that it took for the US government to act on it.

For sure you are getting way too sophisticated for me when you introduce outside enablers and NORAID into the equation. For me, it comes down to macho Hindu nationalists versus simpleminded Islamic fundamentalists across a nearby contested border. There is fresh blood in the water, and there will be more. Simple as that.

 

[mustafur]

I don't think it's about religion anymore, both countries teach kids at school to hate the other from a early age, it's very much overt nationalism.

 

[TenEightyOne]

For sure you are getting way too sophisticated for me when you introduce outside enablers and NORAID into the equation.

I doubt it - you yourself have written at length on these forums about the history of "foreign" intervention in the creation of arbitrary land borders. Modern India, Pakistan and Kashmir are very good examples of exactly that kind of interference. Some of that modern intervention has forced a religious border by default through the forced movement of Muslims to one side of the border and non-Muslims to the other, but much of this is about national territory with religion very much in second place. If we were talking about the next-door neighbours (Afghanistan) then I doubt you'd have much difficulty (rightly) illustrating the legacy of the West's historic actions. Strange that you see other stani so differently.

macho Hindu nationalists versus simpleminded Islamic fundamentalists

I recognise your signature note of wry comedy but you're better than such simplistic silliness

 

[Dotini]

I doubt it - you yourself have written at length on these forums about the history of "foreign" intervention in the creation of arbitrary land borders. Modern India, Pakistan and Kashmir are very good examples of exactly that kind of interference. Some of that modern intervention has forced a religious border by default through the forced movement of Muslims to one side of the border and non-Muslims to the other, but much of this is about national territory with religion very much in second place. If we were talking about the next-door neighbours (Afghanistan) then I doubt you'd have much difficulty (rightly) illustrating the legacy of the West's historic actions. Strange that you see other stani so differently.

I recognise your signature note of wry comedy but you're better than such simplistic silliness

Are you really insisting the present conflict is designed and/or directed by outside conspirators?? Who and why? Why would these fervent nationalists let themselves be manipulated into potentially catastrophic conflict by foreigners? I honestly don't get it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Are you really insisting the present conflict is designed and/or directed by outside conspirators?

No, I'm pointing out that the events of The Partition have led to dispute since day one. When arbitrary borders are created and populations are resettled at gunpoint then that's inevitable. When I compared NORAID and the USA to Pakistan and terrorism I was making the point that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter... it's not always so black-and-white for governing humans to make the "right" call.

 

[Dotini]

No, I'm pointing out that the events of The Partition have led to dispute since day one. When arbitrary borders are created and populations are resettled at gunpoint then that's inevitable. When I compared NORAID and the USA to Pakistan and terrorism I was making the point that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter... it's not always so black-and-white for governing humans to make the "right" call.

Well, if it comes to all-out war between India and Pakistan, I don't think you, as the recovering Colonial Imperialist, need to blame yourself.

 

[Imari]

I would hope that the gesture of releasing the pilot has calmed this right down. I don't think it was ever in any doubt that he would be, but it at least shows both sides aren't on the verge of something full blown just yet.

I suspect that both of them are aware of what a full blown war would mean. It's one thing to have wars like the US vs. Iraq, where one side is heavily outmatched and the military result is a foregone conclusion. Pakistan vs. India could totally go either way, and given alliances would probably turn into another US/Russia proxy war, albeit on a fairly massive scale.

Add in that these countries are both nuclear equipped, and even the most aggressive militarist will have reservations that an open war could be ultimately devastating for their country.

 

[Dotini]

I suspect that both of them are aware of what a full blown war would mean. It's one thing to have wars like the US vs. Iraq, where one side is heavily outmatched and the military result is a foregone conclusion. Pakistan vs. India could totally go either way, and given alliances would probably turn into another US/Russia proxy war, albeit on a fairly massive scale.

Add in that these countries are both nuclear equipped, and even the most aggressive militarist will have reservations that an open war could be ultimately devastating for their country.

Don't the numbers tell us Pakistan would be dwarfed and overmatched by India? Who has hard treaty obligations to come to the aid of either country?

 

[mustafur]

Don't the numbers tell us Pakistan would be dwarfed and overmatched by India? Who has hard treaty obligations to come to the aid of either country?

But Pakistan has the surpiror Nuclear Missile delivery system so it really doesn't matter.

 

[Dotini]

But Pakistan has the surpiror Nuclear Missile delivery system so it really doesn't matter.

According to the video, neither country has operational nukes, except for tactical weapons.

 

[Imari]

Don't the numbers tell us Pakistan would be dwarfed and overmatched by India?

War isn't exactly perfectly predictable. See why the US hasn't simply attacked Russia or China, or even North Korea, despite the US having the largest single military in the world by a very large margin. There are other considerations than "I have more guns than you".

Pakistan would be unlikely to win an aggressive war given the disparity in total military size, but they have more than enough military to make a defensive war very, very winnable. Given that it's India that has been flying into Pakistan's airspace, it seems that the idea is that India is the aggressor at the moment.

Who has hard treaty obligations to come to the aid of either country?

That's the wrong question to ask. The correct question is "who would see it to their advantage to take sides in a war between India and Pakistan?" The US already provides significant military support to Pakistan. India buys from Russia, amongst other places. China might want to stick it's oar in purely because it shares a border with both countries, including the most disputed regions, apart from any opportunities it might see to project power.

Or they all might stay out of it and just work on selling arms to everyone. Or step in after everything breaks down and set up their own states with appropriately deferential people leading the governments.

It's pretty clear that the US, Russia and China are on the lookout for ways to enlarge their international power without too many overtly aggressive actions, because in the modern age appearances matter. Subterfuge, proxy wars and state building are great ways to consolidate power while being plausibly "not involved".

 

[Dotini]

At the top of the world, a kettle begins to simmer.

 

[SestoScudo]

That's an overly simplistic view of the Kashmiri situation, imo. There are agitators on both sides in most conflicts across the Indian and Pakistani territories and Kashmir is no exception. This is unsurprising given it's turbulent history at the hands of India, Pakistan and their modern enablers. The emergence of Islamic terrorists (or Muslim terrorists whose cause is not related primarily to their religion) from these regions is nothing new - and it's perfectly logical that a greater majority of Muslim terrorists come from places that have a greater majority of Muslims. It's unsurprising if "ordinary" citizens in those areas support some of the causes of the extremists. An interesting parallel to that is the historical support for NORAID in the USA. It wasn't widespread but it had a definite effect during the many years that it took for the US government to act on it.

Both Pakistan and India utilise various groups especially terrorists groups to wage a proxy war against each other.

A lot of the Islamic terrorists like the Pakistani taliban were born out of this struggle.

Pakistan bankrolled a lot of these groups especially during the cold war until Pakistan has lost control of many groups

It is even said that India utilises and supports the Pakistani taliban to wreck havoc on Pakistan with the use of RAW(India's CIA)

While Terrorists groups supported by Pakistan have also attacked India like what happened in Mumbai.

Its not a black and white issue. Both countries are engaged in a proxy war and are using various groups to hit each other.

Pakistan needs to work on its security because there are parts of Pakistan which they have lost control which of course they did not lose fully but basically created a sort of frontier.

With this Pakistan-India conflict the balance of power especially today is also being held by China. China owns some parts of Kashmir and also backs Pakistan against India.

 

[Dotini]

Perhaps the biggest reason for India's determined takeover of Kashmir is its existential need for water. And it particularly wants and needs the portion of Kashmir that is administered by Pakistan.

Read more at: https://www.deccanherald.com/opinio...is-is-here-and-it-can-wipe-us-out-750890.html