Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To ask someone to explain the India / Pakistan situation please?

220 replies

MistressoftheDarkSide · 06/05/2025 23:50

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/may/06/pakistan-india-attacks-kashmir-live-updates

I tend to keep an eye on the news but haven't seen any mainstream reporting recently about tensions between India and Pakistan getting to the point of military conflict.

I'm going to dig around a bit to try and get a better understanding but I know there are knowledgeable types on here who might have some insight, and I think it's worrying and feel very sorry for the inevitable civilian casualties.

Kashmir crisis: Pakistan says it is retaliating to India’s ‘act of war’ – live

Pakistani PM calls India’s missile attack on Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir ‘cowardly’; defence minister says ‘We are in the process of retaliating’

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/may/06/pakistan-india-attacks-kashmir-live-updates

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
user0707106 · 09/05/2025 09:49

How China helped Pakistan shoot down Indian fighter jets

That is a photograph of a disposable aircraft fuel tank (drop tank). It is normal for aircraft to release these tanks in combat situations. It doesn’t necessarily mean the aircraft was shot down.

BiddyPopthe2nd · 09/05/2025 09:48

Must make time to read this thread properly

Mencara · 09/05/2025 09:44

The fact remains if Pakistan had not committed a terrorist attack there would have been no “escalation”.

Very disturbing the number of people in the world
who will sympathise with terrorists in this day and age. All of a sudden killing innocent people can be justified. Saw it with Oct 8 and I see it now with India/Pakistan.

This is an issue of Islamic extremism. Not dumb brown people who can’t get on. How infantilising.

Why is Ukraine/Russia not framed as such? Or US with basically any ME country?

Mencara · 09/05/2025 09:39

Afghanis are supporting India. Bit unusual no? You’d think they’d back their Muslim neighbours. Well no, they’re sick of Pakistan backing the Taliban and terrorists too.

The Hindu vs Muslim thing does not hold much muster

Mencara · 09/05/2025 09:36

I’m so sick of people framing this conflict as Muslims and Hindus unable to get on. It’s incredibly racist. “Idiot brown people too backward to be able to get on”. Give me a break!

Pakistan has REPEATEDLY funded terrorist attacks against India. India has pursued a policy of restraint and focus, choosing to prioritise economic development over getting mired in hostile rhetoric

Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, this approach was particularly evident, he consistently avoided making Pakistan a talking point.

But when your country gets ATTACKED by terrorist again what is one supposed to do? Indian civilians had their genitals checked for circumcision and told to recite the Quran before being executed in front of their female relatives. Enough is enough.

India has been fighting a war on terror for decades.

India has a right to defend itself.

TinkerTailorSoldier · 09/05/2025 09:14

There is a lot of fake news out there. This is as much a war of misinformation from pak, as guns and missiles. There has not been any air battle between aircraft- India has only used drones and missiles. Pak aircraft in Indian territory were shot down by surface to air missiles.
Some of the mainstream media in India ie Times of India, NDTV, Indian Express are held to higher journalistic standards, so are more reliable. Others in India either operate on "whoever shares more drama wins", or they just repost articles from elsewhere without verifying accuracy. The Pakistani newspapers have of course denoted the terrorists as civilians and their army has given them state funerals

JaneFondue · 08/05/2025 19:48

What a lot of obfuscation and incoherent babbling on this thread.
Anyway, here's the Guardian on Lashkar- E- Taiba- the group that has claimed responsibility for the massacre- and its links with Pakistan. It's not written by Narendra Modi.
Pakistan and the LET

Abitlosttoday · 08/05/2025 19:09

The News Agents podcast (Emily Matlis and co) did an explainer episode today or yesterday. Quite helpful. It's all about Kashmir. I got quite confused but I am tired!😂

BeJollyNewt · 08/05/2025 18:15

Lalgarh · 08/05/2025 13:58

Not sure I follow?

What about this old news :

Lashkar Terrorist Caught, Was Jammu BJP's Minority Morcha IT Cell Chief

TheCurious0range · 08/05/2025 14:18

I posted this on another thread but there was a very good episode of the briefing room on radio 4 last Thursday which gave quite a balanced history, it finished with the message that further conflict was likely, I don't think they could've predicted just how soon.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002bj77

BBC Radio 4 - The Briefing Room, Are India and Pakistan on the brink of war over Kashmir?

Tension between India and Pakistan rises following the killing of tourists in Kashmir.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002bj77

Lalgarh · 08/05/2025 13:58

Not sure I follow?

Lalgarh · 08/05/2025 13:26

How did the Gousto delivery work out, by the way@BeJollyNewt ?

BeJollyNewt · 08/05/2025 12:51

Shall we get back pakisthan and bangladesh back? may be afghanisthan as well and let british know how happy we all together can be ? whom we are questioning here ? Are you worried about innocents on both sides of the border in the current conflict?

Have you ever questioned BJP government on any conflict ? do you agree the same if normal public in pakisthan also has nothing to do with it. It is okay to blame Pak govt with proofs, but be empathetic with the children died on both sides in yesterday's attacks.

Why there was red carpet when home minister visited after terrorist attack in Kashmere? he should deny it atleast?What is happening in kashmere, why people over there should rely only on tourists ,than having good education and get into good careers ?

LoveLifeBeHappy · 08/05/2025 12:04

TempestTost · 07/05/2025 19:33

I mean - the groups that murder each other in Africa now were for the most part doing so before the "colonial lines" were drawn.I think it's pretty naive to think that drawing them differently would have changed that.

I'm not sure about Africa, but when it comes to India, the British Empire bears significant responsibility for the horrors of Partition.

While local political tensions were certainly a factor, the British played a central role in creating, fuelling, and then disastrously mishandling the transition to independence.

The borders they drew led directly to one of the largest mass migrations in human history. Sir Cyril Radcliffe—a British lawyer who had never been to India and had no real understanding of the region—was given just five weeks to divide a vast and diverse land.

The result was arbitrary lines that split communities, villages, and families.

An estimated two million people were killed, many in brutal communal riots. Women were especially vulnerable—tens of thousands were raped, abducted, or forced into marriage. Families were shattered, and countless people lost their homes, their loved ones, and their sense of belonging.

The hasty British withdrawal, combined with poor planning and a lack of accountability, divide-and-rule policies, created the perfect conditions for a humanitarian disaster.

Partition may have produced two independent nations, but it also left behind a legacy of pain, violence, and deep division that still echoes nearly 80 years later.

User46576 · 08/05/2025 11:31

LoveLifeBeHappy · 08/05/2025 11:28

That’s a very concise answer and really deserves its own thread.

While the British did introduce education and build transport networks in India, these developments were primarily designed to serve their own economic and administrative interests, not to uplift the Indian population.

Regardless of the intention of them, the effect is clear

User46576 · 08/05/2025 11:31

BeJollyNewt · 07/05/2025 12:00

It is not relegious attack, attack against Indian tourists in kashmir. There could be an istance asked for relegian as majority of Indians are hindu. few war magering hindutva Indians want to rely on these comments

It’s an Islamist terror attack. Yet another one. The Pakistani government has form for supporting these organizations

LoveLifeBeHappy · 08/05/2025 11:28

BeJollyNewt · 07/05/2025 19:36

If you are women , be grateful british ruled and brought education to non brahmins and women especially. yes Indians suffered under british ruling but also got educated, they united us as one country , they build transport network (for whatever reason) and dams.

That’s a very concise answer and really deserves its own thread.

While the British did introduce education and build transport networks in India, these developments were primarily designed to serve their own economic and administrative interests, not to uplift the Indian population.

User46576 · 08/05/2025 11:28

EasternStandard · 08/05/2025 07:22

Where are they based?

And who supports them?

User46576 · 08/05/2025 11:27

AliasGrace47 · 07/05/2025 00:36

Terror attack? I need to google that... I do know PM of India is a Hindu nationalist who has stirred up interreligious conflict badly. A terror attack will be fuel to an already volatile situation.
.

Successive governments of Pakistan have promoted various Islamist terror organizations and religious minorities have been subjected to horrendous attacks for decades in Pakistan.

LoveLifeBeHappy · 08/05/2025 11:22

MadeleineAllbright · 07/05/2025 01:02

This is a heavily simplified explanation which I’m sure people with a better understanding than me can improve upon:

  • Before British rule, there was no unified state/entity on the Indian subcontinent. It was instead home to a large number of small, self-governing states, with populations comprised of both Hindus and Muslims.
  • Under British rule, these small states (the land that today makes up Pakistan, India and Bangladesh) were unified into ‘British India.’
  • As British control weakened in the 1930s and 1940s, the Indian independence movement led by Gandhi and the Indian National Congress gathered pace. Many Muslims were concerned about the prospect of independence - because they feared that an independent India, which would have a Hindu majority, would therefore be Hindu-dominated.
  • Consequently, tensions between Hindus and Muslims increased and an organisation called the Muslim League under Jinnah began advocating for an independent Muslim state.
  • Britain, heavily weakened by WW2, just wanted a quick exit, and became convinced that partitioning British India into a Muslim state (Pakistan) and a Hindu state (India) was the best way to proceed. The partition was handled incredibly poorly, with millions of Hindus and Muslims finding themselves on the wrong side of haphazardly drawn borders with hours to go before the deadline. There was a lot of bloodshed.
  • India did far better out of the Partition, receiving the lion’s share of good agricultural land, industry (e.g. major steelworks), financial resources and the state apparatus left behind by the British Raj. For example, India got 77% of the total landmass and 82% of the population of the undivided country, leaving Pakistan feeling dwarfed by comparison and geopolitically insecure - compounded by the Kashmir issue (see next point).
  • Another key problem was the handling of the state of Kashmir, which was split between India and Pakistan though both felt they should have been allocated the entire territory. It has been a flashpoint of conflict ever since.
  • Pakistan has been wracked by instability ever since its creation (due in large part to the circumstances of the partition), with repeated military coups. This instability has contributed to the prorogation of terrorist groups which have particularly targeted India. India blames the Pakistani government for all Islamist terrorist attacks on their territory - it’s difficult to say exactly how culpable the Pakistani government actually is (Are they actively funding and training militants or just turning a blind eye? We don’t really know).
  • A few weeks ago, Islamist terrorists attacked Indian tourists in Kashmir, singling out the non-Muslim men and murdering them. As always, the Indian government has blamed the Pakistani government and clearly feels that the severity of the terrorist attack requires a militsry retaliation.

Sorry, I need to jump in as there's some incorrect information here.

Another key problem was the handling of the state of Kashmir, which was split between India and Pakistan though both felt they should have been allocated the entire territory. It has been a flashpoint of conflict ever since.

This is incorrect. The state of Kashmir was not split.

Post-Partition: August–October 1947

  • After the 1947 Partition, princely states like Kashmir were given the choice to join India, Pakistan, or remain independent.
  • Maharaja Hari Singh, ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, initially chose to stay independent, reluctant to join either country.
  • He signed a Standstill Agreement with Pakistan to maintain trade and communications while he deliberated.
  • (India requested further discussions before committing.)

Crisis and Invasion

  • In October 1947, tribal militias from Pakistan — with support from Pakistan’s military — invaded Kashmir.
  • Facing invasion and civil unrest, Hari Singh requested urgent military assistance from India.

October 26, 1947 – Accession to India

  • The Indian government, led by Prime Minister Nehru and Governor-General Lord Mountbatten, agreed to help only if Kashmir formally acceded to India.
  • On 26 October 1947, Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession, officially joining India.
  • On 27 October, Indian troops were airlifted to Srinagar, pushing back the invaders.

Legal Context

  • The Instrument of Accession gave India control over defence, foreign affairs, and communications — the same terms accepted from other princely states.
  • It was legally valid under the framework established by the British government during independence.

In Summary

Maharaja Hari Singh initially sought independence for Kashmir. However, following a Pakistani-backed invasion, he formally acceded to India on 26 October 1947 in exchange for military support — a decision that remains legally binding under international law.

sashh · 08/05/2025 11:16

TinkerTailorSoldier · 07/05/2025 14:12

That's nice. Let's play down the role Britain played in creating the problem in India/Pakistan because it doesn't suit the white saviour narrative. Less of the gaslighting please.

And nice try with the what-aboutery. French rules Pondicherry and Portugal Goa, apart from a handful of teeny-tiny places, nowhere near the scale of the British. And they certainly had nothing to do with creating Hind-Mudlim discord, northe Kashmir issue nor Partition. They were too busy building their churches and forcibly converting everyone to Christianity

So I'm blaming the 'English' and being a 'white saviour'? Make your mind up.

Why don't you explain it to the OP you obviously know the subject inside out and upside down.

EasternStandard · 08/05/2025 07:22

JHound · 07/05/2025 18:34

And it doesn’t seem there is any evidence that Pakistan has anything to do with this. Just “Islamists” which is completely different.

Where are they based?

Lentilweaver · 07/05/2025 23:08

JHound · 07/05/2025 18:36

I mean that was always going to happen wasn’t it - they seem as bad as each other!

True enough. India and Pakistan are exactly the same. Just like the UK and Iran are just as bad as each other.

After all, is there any proof that Islamic terror is funded by Iran? It could be funded by Islamists elsewhere!

And the UK is exporting homegrown terrorists to the rest of the world, like Jihadi John, but again any country can have Islamists. Nothing to see here, move along... could happen anywhere.

FFS.