Page 4 | To ask someone to explain the India / Pakistan situation please?

MadeleineAllbright · 07/05/2025 15:19

Kind of funny how this thread has shifted - started out with well-meaning if rather clueless British people trying to understand the situation, to Indian and Pakistani posters trotting out their respective propaganda lines and tearing strips off each other.

BeJollyNewt · 07/05/2025 15:27

MadeleineAllbright · 07/05/2025 15:19

Kind of funny how this thread has shifted - started out with well-meaning if rather clueless British people trying to understand the situation, to Indian and Pakistani posters trotting out their respective propaganda lines and tearing strips off each other.

Yeah, I want to confirm that it is not going to escalate like other conflicts currently happening. It was unfortunate terror attack and Indians should question about border security. Already some Indian channels telling people Sindhu river water flow into pakistan has been stopped , but it is not. Though they want to build dams on the river in coming years and pakistan warned to to build any. Both countries want water and kashmere is only the solution .

LookingForRecommendation · 07/05/2025 18:30

Lentilweaver · 07/05/2025 01:05

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).

I mean, the US State Department, Brookings ( an independent institutution), the UK, among others, have all agreed that Pakistan is funding terrorists, but apparently no one knows for sure.🙄

It’s unbelievable isn’t it? How much more bloody proof do they want? For fucks sake Osama Bin Laden was found there! But nope always ‘allegedly..’

Because Pakistan is using the usual Islamist country tactic - delegate attacks to a terrorist cell so they can deny knowledge and then cry foul when the attacked party retaliates. Story as old as time

JHound · 07/05/2025 18:33

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.

Thank you for this.

Those colonial lines on a map (we see the same throughout Africa and the Middle East) to group people not previously grouped seem to have caused no end of problems.

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.

JHound · 07/05/2025 18:35

LookingForRecommendation · 07/05/2025 18:30

It’s unbelievable isn’t it? How much more bloody proof do they want? For fucks sake Osama Bin Laden was found there! But nope always ‘allegedly..’

Because Pakistan is using the usual Islamist country tactic - delegate attacks to a terrorist cell so they can deny knowledge and then cry foul when the attacked party retaliates. Story as old as time

Show quote history

How do you know that? Where is your evidence of this?

JHound · 07/05/2025 18:36

MadeleineAllbright · 07/05/2025 15:19

Kind of funny how this thread has shifted - started out with well-meaning if rather clueless British people trying to understand the situation, to Indian and Pakistani posters trotting out their respective propaganda lines and tearing strips off each other.

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

BeJollyNewt · 07/05/2025 19:07

Perhaps no pakistan people involved in this today :)

TinkerTailorSoldier · 07/05/2025 19:23

MadeleineAllbright · 07/05/2025 15:19

Kind of funny how this thread has shifted - started out with well-meaning if rather clueless British people trying to understand the situation, to Indian and Pakistani posters trotting out their respective propaganda lines and tearing strips off each other.

I don't have the time for nonsense, but im not going to sit back and let anti-Hindu lies be perpetuated as "fact".

TinkerTailorSoldier · 07/05/2025 19:25

JHound · 07/05/2025 18:36

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

Show quote history

Perhaps if the British hadn't created so many conflicts all over the world- Africa, Gaza, iraq, India-Pakistan, the world would have been a more peaceful place.
Did Blair find those WMDs yet?

TinkerTailorSoldier · 07/05/2025 19:25

LookingForRecommendation · 07/05/2025 18:30

It’s unbelievable isn’t it? How much more bloody proof do they want? For fucks sake Osama Bin Laden was found there! But nope always ‘allegedly..’

Because Pakistan is using the usual Islamist country tactic - delegate attacks to a terrorist cell so they can deny knowledge and then cry foul when the attacked party retaliates. Story as old as time

Show quote history

Exactly!

CuttedPearPie · 07/05/2025 19:26

TinkerTailorSoldier · 07/05/2025 19:25

Perhaps if the British hadn't created so many conflicts all over the world- Africa, Gaza, iraq, India-Pakistan, the world would have been a more peaceful place.
Did Blair find those WMDs yet?

Show quote history

I mean "the British" created conflict in Ireland but both the Republic and Northern Ireland are pretty good places to live right now

TinkerTailorSoldier · 07/05/2025 19:32

CuttedPearPie · 07/05/2025 19:26

I mean "the British" created conflict in Ireland but both the Republic and Northern Ireland are pretty good places to live right now

Show quote history

Well, if you couldn't clean up your own house.... people, glass houses and all that

BeJollyNewt · 07/05/2025 19:32

TinkerTailorSoldier · 07/05/2025 19:23

I don't have the time for nonsense, but im not going to sit back and let anti-Hindu lies be perpetuated as "fact".

Show quote history

Please define what is Hindiu and anti-Hindu . I bet you don't know. we are all humans dear and there nothing you must be to be called as Hindu. anyone can just declare them as hindu. I am born as hindu, and noone has a right to call me names my dear fellow Indian hindu friend.

TempestTost · 07/05/2025 19:33

JHound · 07/05/2025 18:33

Thank you for this.

Those colonial lines on a map (we see the same throughout Africa and the Middle East) to group people not previously grouped seem to have caused no end of problems.

Show quote history

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.

CuttedPearPie · 07/05/2025 19:35

TinkerTailorSoldier · 07/05/2025 19:32

Well, if you couldn't clean up your own house.... people, glass houses and all that

Show quote history

What does that even mean? Are you saying Northern Ireland is like Pakistan? 🤣🤣🤣

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.

BeJollyNewt · 07/05/2025 20:04

@TinkerTailorSoldier if anyone do username search this name appear around 10 times , is it family or only yourself ? 🤣🤣🤣

ArtTheClown · 07/05/2025 20:12

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.

They put a stop to suttee aa well (burning widows alive on their husbands funeral pyres).

Lalgarh · 07/05/2025 21:37

Yalda Hakim on Sky news is rather patiently and eloquently asking the Pakistani high commissioner why the Pakistan government have repeatedly been requested to co-operate with the investigations into

the 2001 attack on the Indian parliament

the 2008 Mumbai attacks that killed 160+ people

the 2019 pilwama attacks

And a whole stack of other incidents

But they somehow never get round to cooperating and find ways to find the painstakingly compiled evidence submitted to them invalid because it was submitted on the wrong type of form and there was a comma missing.

This time last year Pakistan was lobbing missiles at Iran and they vice versa to take out mutual enemies who had training camps for separatist movements, so it's not like they're not new to the airstrike-in-foreign-training-camps thing.

www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/experts-react-whats-really-going-on-with-pakistan-and-iran-exchanging-attacks/

Someone up thread said it was only jihadists not the actual PK army. This is where it gets murky.

Jamat Ud Dawah are the spiritual arm of what has increasingly become a melding of military with overtly Islamist aims, who see the Pakistani army as carrying out the work of God in consolidating a sphere of influence that includes Afghanistan. It's one heck of a coincidence that the day the Taliban returned to Afghanistan on Pakistani independence day, is it not? And that the next day on twitter, when the Hashtag #IStandWithTaliban was lead tag, the geotags just happened to be clustered round Rawalpindi, the HQ of the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies.

https://www.hudson.org/security-alliances/jamaat-ud-dawa-pakistan-armys-narratives

Jamaat-ud-Dawa and the Pakistan Army's Narratives

Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LeT), more commonly known as Jamaat ud Dawa (JuD) in Pakistan, is well known for its military assistance to the Pakistan Army by conducting terrorist attacks in India and Afghanistan.1 What is less commonly understood is the organiza...

https://www.hudson.org/security-alliances/jamaat-ud-dawa-pakistan-armys-narratives

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!

Show quote history

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.

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?

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

Show quote history

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.

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.

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.