Origins of Kashmir Conflict

[human_murda]

Here is the gist of how the Kashmir conflict started in India:

British India consisted of regions that were directly controlled by the British as well as ~500 kingdoms that were subsidiary to the British:

Myanmar was separated from British India in 1937. When they left, the British partitioned the regions that were directly controlled by the them into a Muslim majority Pakistan and a secular India (mostly Hindu but also included non-Hindu, non-Muslim areas). The ~500 kingdoms were allowed to join India or Pakistan or remain independent. In some sense, British India was divided into ~500 countries. However, almost all of these 500 kingdoms chose to join India or Pakistan except a few:

- Gwadar (controlled by Oman, annexed by Pakistan)
- Khanate of Kalat (annexed by Pakistan)
- Hyderabad State (remnant of Mughal Empire, annexed by India)
- Junagadh (annexed by India)
- Goa (Portuguese colony, annexed by India)
- Puducherry (French colony, annexed by India)
- Jammu and Kashmir

I think there were other smaller kingdoms as well that didn't join India/Pakistan. I'm from a region which was the Kingdom of Travancore. We initially declared independence, but joined India after threats of assassination.

Declaration of independence by the kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir was the most problematic, since it's located on the border between India and Pakistan. Jammu and Kashmir (or just Kashmir) was a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multi-religious kingdom. Overall, it was Muslim majority, but had a Hindu ruler (Hari Singh). Kashmir also had a significant Buddhist population in the Ladakh region. This is what the kingdom looks like now:

When the partition of India along religious lines was announced, massacres of Hindus and Sikhs in "would be Pakistan" regions started (with the opposite happening in border regions in India). After Hindus and Sikhs were massacred in Rawalpindi, the news reached Jammu and led to the "Jammu massacres" in Jammu under the rule of the king (Hari Singh). Hearing news of this, Pakistani tribesmen invaded the kingdom, which resulted in the king, Hari Singh, acceding the kingdom to India. By the time Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India, the kingdom had already lost a significant chunk of territory. The following regions are now controlled by Pakistan:

- Azad Kashmir ("free" Kashmir) or AJK. Ethnically Pahari (similar to Punjabis)
- Gilgit Baltistan or GB. Ethnically Balti (tibetic).

These two regions are Muslim majority and want to be a part of Pakistan. However, Pakistan maintains them as semi-autonomous regions and claims that they support the Kashmiri independence movement and want to hold a plebiscite in the whole region (except the regions claimed by China). Since a lot of the other regions in Kashmir are Muslim majority, Pakistan also claims them as part of Pakistan. I think Pakistan also claims Jammu, even though it's Hindu majority.

The rest of the kingdom became the semi-autonomous Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir. Since legally the kingdom acceded to India, India also claims the rest of the kingdom that was invaded by Pakistan as a part of India. The regions controlled by India are:

- Jammu: Hindu majority. Ethnically Dogri.
- Kashmir valley: Muslim majority. Ethnically Kashmiri, speak Koshur.
- Ladakh: around 45% Muslim and 40% Buddhist. Ladakhis are tibetic.

Most Jammuites and Ladakhis want to be a part of India. Kashmiris from the valley want to be an independent country (neither India nor Pakistan). However, if they became independent, Pakistan will almost definitely invade them (or turn them into a puppet state).

There was another region that India controlled that was part of the kingdom called Aksai Chin. The North-Eastern part of Aksai Chin was bounded by the Ardagh–Johnson Line during British rule. India inherited this border with Tibet when the J&K kingdom acceded to India. The border was originally drawn when Tibet was a separate country. After China invaded Tibet and the CCP took over Xinjiang, China invaded India in 1962. China also doesn't recognize the McMahon Line which the British agreed as the border with Tibet. China invaded Tibet (and stopped recognizing agreements made by Tibet), the British left and India has inherited that border dispute. China now controls the following region which was part of the J&K kingdom:

- Aksai Chin. Almost no one lives there.

China also claims Ladakh as a part of Tibet and threatens to invade occasionally, most recently two weeks ago.

After Kashmir acceded to India, Pakistan started sending militants to Indian Kashmir to blow themselves up, which resulted in Indian Kashmir becoming increasingly militarized. This eventually led to an insurgency in the Kashmir Valley and increasing attacks on Kashmiri Hindus, who got kicked out in 1990. Recently (2019), India revoked Kashmir's autonomy, removing the separate constitution for Jammu and Kashmir guaranteed by Article 370 of India's Constitution. Kashmir and Ladakh were turned into Union Territories. Three weeks ago, India's supreme court upheld repeal of Kashmir's special status. This is a Scottish vlogger talking to a local Kashmiri Muslim who lived through most of this.

India follows the Israel's West Bank model for governing Kashmir, to some extend. India bulldozes the houses of Kashmiris suspected to be terrorists. Reports of rape and torture by the Indian military are common. Mass graves (most likely of Kashmiri Muslims) were found in Kashmir that weren't identified or investigated. Local Kashmiri Hindus are still being killed by terrorists. The Indian government is subsidizing migrations of Hindus from poor states to Kashmir (some of these migrants are killed by terrorists).

Insurgency in Kashmir is dying:

Tourism and economic activity have picked up. Here is an interview of a former Kashmiri Muslim activist (Shehla Rashid used to be a "communist" student activist at JNU, but is now slightly more favorable to the Indian government). However, it's still the most militarized region on the planet. Pakistan and China are also involved and the issue isn't easily solvable, apart from recognizing the Line of Actual Control or LAC as the international border.

Recognizing LAC is also not completely realistic. Pakistan's military controls their civilian government. Any civilian government that suggests the recognition of LAC as an international border gets "couped" by their military. Kashmiri independence also part of Pakistani nationalism and is a cause championed by Pakistan in international forums. The largest river in Pakistan (Indus/Sindhu) also flows through Indian Kashmir. China's belt and road initiative for Pakistan also goes through Pakistani Kashmir (so China is also interested in Indian/Pakistani Kashmir, apart from Aksai Chin and Ladakh).

[human_murda]

The recent conflict between India and Pakistan started as a consequence of the Islamic terrorist attack on tourists in Baisaran Valley in Pahalgam, Indian Kashmir on April 22nd. The terrorists targeted adult Hindu men: they asked their religion and shot them dead if they were Hindu. Some were stripped and checked for circumcision (Hindus don't do circumcision). Some were asked to recite the Islamic Kalimas ("La Ilaha Illa Allah") and were shot dead if they couldn't. Overall, 26 tourists were shot dead. Women and children were not killed (many were holding onto their male relatives while they were shot dead).

The gunmen have not been captured. The Indian government has claimed that two of the militants are local Indian Kashmiris (Adil Hussain Thoker and Ahsan) allegedly trained in Pakistan and two are Pakistani (Ali Bhai alias Talha and Asif Fauji). India launched an attack against Pakistan May 7th and the conflict continued until May 10th, when a ceasefire was announced.

On 12/29/2023 at 9:08 PM, human_murda said:

The largest river in Pakistan (Indus/Sindhu) also flows through Indian Kashmir.

India has suspended the Indus Water Treaty (for water flowing from Indian Kashmir to Pakistan) after the terror attack. Pakistan has claimed that the suspension of the Indus Water Treaty is an act of war. The Indian government has said that future terrorist attacks would be considered an act of war.

This is mostly in response to the the fact that India did not retaliate against the previous major terrorist attack from Pakistan: the 2008 Mumbai attacks, which killed around 170 people. It has now been proven to have been done by Pakistan, but that took a long time and India never retaliated in time. That one was more international and involved the Pakistani American citizen, David Headley, Pakistani Canadian citizen, Tahawwur Hussain Rana (who was just extradited to India from Canada a month ago). The only surviving gunman from that attack was Ajmal Kasab, who was Pakistani and trained by the Pakistani Army and ISI.

Pakistan has denied any responsibility for the attack. However, two weeks ago, Pakistan's current defense minister, Khawaja Asif claimed that Pakistan conducted terrorist attacks in India under the orders of the United States and Britain:

India has not released conclusive proof of Pakistani state involvement and that's the basis for Western media's reporting on the conflict, blaming both India and Pakistan for the conflict:

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/04/29/india-must-prove-pakistans-complicity-in-the-attack-in-kashmir

Pakistan still claims to champion "freedom" for Kashmir (because it's Muslim majority) and has invaded parts of it (AJK and GB), although the kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India in 1947. Pakistan claims that India occupied Kashmir because India is Hindu-majority and that implies it's an occupation and has funded terrorist attacks in Indian Kashmir for decades in order to trigger anti-Muslim backlash in India and anti-India backlash in the Muslim majority regions. Western media usually claim that India and Pakistan are equally responsible for the Kashmir confilct.

Many Indian Kashmiris have traditionally claimed to want independence from India (especially since the 90s, which was the peak of militancy). However, with the increase in economic growth since the 2000s, that has declined somewhat (Indian Kashmir has a higher GDP per capita and HDI than Pakistan, although it's still performing below average compared to the rest of India).

Muslims across Indian Kashmir (in Srinagar, Anantnag, Pulwama (2), Pahalgam, Baramulla, etc) have organized protests against the terror attacks. These protests are spontaneous according to J&K's chief minister, Omar Abdullah. Of course, India is still heavily fractured along religious lines.

Edited May 15 by human_murda

[human_murda]

The reason why Pakistan historically funded terrorist attacks against India is complex: Pakistan wants to prove to the world that the existence of Pakistan as an Islamic state is legitimate and necessary.

The founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, claimed that "Muslims who are opposing Pakistan will spend rest of their lives proving loyalty to India". Pakistan essentially wants to prove to the world that the creation of an Islamic state is necessary for the survival of Muslims. The idea is that a pluralistic and religiously diverse but Hindu majority country would eventually become fascist and cannot protect the rights of Muslims.

To accomplish this, Pakistan has been funding terrorist attacks in India for decades (I cannot say about the recent terrorist attack but most of the previous terrorist attacks in India have been linked to Pakistan). The goal is to create an anti-Muslim backlash in India and make Indian Muslims feel persecuted, legitimizing the idea of Pakistan as a homeland for Muslims, free from persecution.

There is some truth to this: the global hysteria around Islam led to the rise of Hindu nationalism in India, getting Modi elected in 2014 (and he has been in power since then).

However, that said, Indian Kashmir is more developed than every region of Pakistan despite repeated terror attacks and attempted invasions. Atheists and communists and gay people are routinely attacked in Pakistan. In 1971, Pakistan conducted a genocide in Bangladesh killing 300k to 3mil people, mostly Hindus and leftists, with some support from the US. A huge number of Muslim academics, journalists, doctors, etc were killed (the largest killings in post-colonial South Asia), triggering a huge wave of migration into India of both Muslims and Hindus. Pakistan has declared its own 4 million Admedi Muslim population as non-Muslim, facing persecution. The Pakistani army controls the civilian government and routinely kill Pakistani civilians who oppose them.

The point is that diversity exists regardless of whether you create a homeland for people sharing some political goals or not. And creating a country based on the assumption that everyone shares the same political goals (such as an Islamic state or Hindu state or Zionist state) creates a greater breach of rights than if you didn't create a "homeland" for persecuted people with the same alleged goals. Diversity is always going to exist. No one can guarantee that atheists or gay people won't be born in Pakistan. There would be friction among the different secs of Islam and various other problems.

This is one of the reasons India would never accept independence for Kashmir. The Kashmir independence movement is dominated by Islamists. That was what led to the ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus in 1990 (although some leftists claim that it wasn't an ethnic cleansing). It is dominated by the idea that a diverse country would be fascist and hence, you need homogeneous religious ethnostates for prosperity. Pakistan was already created as a homeland for Muslims, India doesn't need another Islamic state that probably wouldn't achieve its goals and worse, would probably trigger waves of separatism in the rest of India. It would also prove that terrorist is a legitimate method of negotiation, instead of diplomacy. Supporters of separatism claim that it isn't upto India to decide whether Kashmir would be successful after independence, but it would regardless have huge negative implications for secessionism in the rest of India. Besides, Kashmir willingly acceded to India (granted with conditions about plebiscite) and Pakistan (or the world) doesn't get to say that India occupied Kashmir just because India is Hindu majority. Kashmir acceded to India and Hindu or Muslim didn't have anything to do with it. An independent Kashmir would most likely get invaded by Pakistan, which would be a needless military loss for India when India's claims over Kashmir is completely legitimate (while Pakistan invaded Kashmir and Kashmir kicked out Kashmiri Hindus).

Some leftists have compared India to Israel and Kashmir/Pakistan to Palestine, but India is not (yet) the religious ethnostate here. Pakistan is already an Islamic republic with Islam as the state religion claiming to be the homeland for Muslims, while Kashmiri separatists want to be one. Pakistan is a nuclear state over which India exerts zero control. Pakistan has routinely launched terrorist attacks in India to which India cannot retaliate because Pakistan is a nuclear state, because Pakistan is a "major ally" of the US (just a few months ago, US funded the Pakistani military) and because the world tends to treat Pakistan as a victim if India so much as thinks of retaliating.

In a sense, Pakistan's strategy has worked. Not just in Pakistan, but there's a global shift towards wanting to create "homelands" by people who claim to be victims of fascism or "wokeness" or some other type of persecution. The wannabe ethnostates are claiming to be the victims of fascism.

[stansfield123]

On 5/16/2025 at 4:37 AM, human_murda said:

Pakistan is a nuclear state over which India exerts zero control. Pakistan has routinely launched terrorist attacks in India to which India cannot retaliate because Pakistan is a nuclear state, because Pakistan is a "major ally" of the US (just a few months ago, US funded the Pakistani military) and because the world tends to treat Pakistan as a victim if India so much as thinks of retaliating.

I don't think any of that is true. I think if India and Pakistan went to war, no one else would get involved. The only significant involvement from world powers (most notably the US, the EU and China) would be to make it clear that the use of nuclear weapons would illicit a severe, concerted response against the side that used them.

This includes first use, and any retaliatory use. If either or both sides use nukes, for any reason, but especially to target a civilian population, the major powers will demand the full surrender and disarmament of one or both nations, and back up that demand with their combined intelligence, economic and political might. It wouldn't need to be direct military power. Far from it. The US, EU and China, working together, can remove any single government without a military invasion, with the use of intelligence operations, diplomatic efforts and economic sanctions.

So what is stopping India from going to war against Pakistan isn't the world, or even the fear of nukes, it's an internal decision: India's leaders don't think a conventional all out war is worth it, for them personally or for the country.

And they are correct. India's government isn't effective enough to wage such a war without political embarrassment. You think the Russian war effort in Syria and Ukraine was embarrassing? Wait 'til India goes to war, to see what "embarrassing" looks like. The display of incompetence, at every level, government, military leadership, operational, would lead to its leaders getting run out of town next election cycle. And that's just the political fallout. The economic fallout of an extended war would lead to mass suffering. India's economy struggles to feed people as it is, it can't sustain a war without huge sacrifices.

The only way to change this state of affairs is through westernization first. Privatization, free market policies, western style governmental structures,  a sustained fight against corruption at every level of government, and a principled, pro-western foreign policy. Then and only then can India afford to actually wage a war in self defense. Until then, the only thing to do is what they're doing: putting up with state funded terrorism coming their way from Pakistan. Accepting that, from time to time, Islamists from Pakistan will come in and massacre some people.

Quote

India follows the Israel's West Bank model for governing Kashmir, to some extend. India bulldozes the houses of Kashmiris suspected to be terrorists. Reports of rape and torture by the Indian military are common. Mass graves (most likely of Kashmiri Muslims) were found in Kashmir that weren't identified or investigated.

So India IS NOT following the Israeli model. Israel has a great economy and a competent government which is in full control of the IDF. They control the West Bank through surveillance, intelligence work and arrests/targeted assassinations against combatants, not through rape and mass murder. 

There are no Israeli units running around the West Bank doing whatever they want to the local population. The government is in full control. If someone is assassinated, it's because a. they're a combatant, and b. an official order was given, recorded, and subject to judicial overview.

That's why tiny Israel can afford to go to war on 4-5 different fronts at the same time (as it did recently), while India cannot afford to go to war against a country that's six times smaller than itself.

What India would need to do, to be able to wage war competently, is precisely to stop what it's doing, and follow the Israeli economic, political, judicial, diplomatic, intelligence and military model. In short, become a western country.

Edited May 18 by stansfield123

[stansfield123]

Quote

Some leftists have compared India to Israel and Kashmir/Pakistan to Palestine, but India is not (yet) the religious ethnostate here.

Israel isn't a "religious ethnostate". It's just an ethnostate. The vast majority of Jews (across the world, including in Israel) are non-religious. Jewish culture, both in Israel and across the world, is predominantly secular. Feel free to go to Israel and check for yourself: you'll encounter less religion than you would in the US or most of Europe.

And India is an ethnostate too. Almost every country on Earth is an ethnostate.

[human_murda]

3 hours ago, stansfield123 said:

So what is stopping India from going to war against Pakistan isn't the world, or even the fear of nukes, it's an internal decision: India's leaders don't think a conventional all out war is worth it, for them personally or for the country.

It's all of the above.

3 hours ago, stansfield123 said:

India's economy struggles to feed people as it is, it can't sustain a war without huge sacrifices.

The only way to change this state of affairs is through westernization first. Privatization, free market policies, western style governmental structures,  a sustained fight against corruption at every level of government, and a principled, pro-western foreign policy.

As I've stated previously, the most anti-Western state in India leads on most metrics. So this is categorically untrue. Besides, India cannot ally with the West because the West has historically allied with Pakistan. India's foreign policy is a consequence of the West allying itself with Pakistan, even during the 1971 genocide conducted by Pakistan. During the genocide, Kissinger called India's prime minister a bitch and Nixon called her an old witch. US sided with Pakistan since independence since India perceived to be more socialist.

Also, look at China: one of the most anti-Western countries in the world and one of the fastest developing countries the world has ever seen. China's economic growth is considered an inspiration in the developing world.

3 hours ago, stansfield123 said:

And they are correct. India's government isn't effective enough to wage such a war without political embarrassment. You think the Russian war effort in Syria and Ukraine was embarrassing? Wait 'til India goes to war, to see what "embarrassing" looks like.

Terrorism is a form of asymmetric warfare. Pakistan uses it because they can't win a conventional war. Also, nobody in India cares about "defeating" Pakistan. Defeating Pakistan (especially, the civilian government) would not end terrorism. The Pakistani government has to get gain control over its own army (instead of the military controlling the civilian government, as it is currently) and deal with terrorist camps operating near the Indian border themselves.

3 hours ago, stansfield123 said:

That's why tiny Israel can afford to go to war on 4-5 different fronts at the same time (as it did recently), while India cannot afford to go to war against a country that's six times smaller than itself.

It's not Israel that's going to war with multiple countries. It's US that's waging war through Israel.

3 hours ago, stansfield123 said:

What India would need to do, to be able to wage war competently, is precisely to stop what it's doing, and follow the Israeli economic, political, judicial, diplomatic, intelligence and military model. In short, become a western country.

No, Pakistan is the South Asian version of Israel. Pakistan was founded as a homeland for Muslims like Israel was for Jews.

2 hours ago, stansfield123 said:

And India is an ethnostate too. Almost every country on Earth is an ethnostate.

No. India is as much an "ethnostate" as the EU is. Stop trying to equate all countries in order to excuse actual ethnostates. India is a union of states that were a part of the British empire. India is not even a nation state, let alone an ethnostate.

France and Japan are nation states. Israel is an ethnostate as it's supposed to be a country for people with Jewish ethnic origins. Pakistan was founded as a country for South Asian Muslims. Pakistan allowed all South Asian Muslims to migrate there.

India is neither an ethnostate nor a nation state, just a Union of states but more centralized than the EU. Each state in India has different official languages, different cultures, laws, history and architecture. Kerala architecture is different from Tamil architecture in the neighboring state (and the architecture of every other state). Hindus in Kerala eat beef while beef is illegal in many other states. Kerala government is communist, while the government of other states are not. The official languages in Kerala (where I'm from) are Malayalam and English. The central government communicates with the state governments in either Hindi or English (based on the preferences given by the states).

Pakistan also has different linguistic regions, but they all have the same official languages (Urdu and English) and is supposed to be a country for South Asian Muslims. Pakistan is also diverse to some extent ethnically, but that diversity is not recognized at a government level. Only Urdu is taught in schools and Islam (specific sects of Islam) is the state religion.

Edited May 18 by human_murda

[Jon C]

2 hours ago, stansfield123 said:

Almost every country on Earth is an ethnostate.

Ethnostate doesn’t simply mean “most people belong to one ethnicity” but that there are citizenship restrictions meant to maintain that ethnic majority. By this correct definition, modern ethnostates are comparatively rare. 

Whether Israel’s Nationality Bill qualifies to make it an ethnostate has been a source of disagreement for decades; the bill was challenged and upheld only a few years ago. 

I’m not aware of any country in Europe that has a comparable law, but feel free to provide an example. 

[human_murda]

1 hour ago, human_murda said:

India is neither an ethnostate nor a nation state, just a Union of states but more centralized than the EU.

Apart from what was stated before, each state has a different movie industry (Malayalam cinema in Kerala is the fourth largest film industry in India), different religions (Punjab is Hindu majority, Arunachal, Nagaland, Mizoram and Meghalaya are Christian majority, Ladakh is Muslim+Buddhist, etc), different ethnicities, etc. Kerala shares little to no history with other states (2200 years ago, Kerala was ruled by the Chera dynastry, then various medieval and early modern Kingdoms followed by the modern state). The biggest festival in Kerala (Onam) is unique to Kerala. There are many other cultural traditions (Theyyam, Kathakali, etc) which is unique to Kerala. Similar is the situation in other states. People's appearance also vary slightly from state to state (these are Kashmiri students visiting Kerala, these are Bhutias from Sikkim, these are Mizos from Mizoram, these are Jarawa people from the Andaman Islands, these are Meitei people in Manipur). India is the successor state of the British Empire, not a nation state or ethnostate (and no, India did not invade these places. They were part of the British Empire and then became a part of India).

Malayalam is the official language of Kerala, Tamil in Tamil Nadu, Kannada in Karnataka, Telugu in Telangana, Bengali in West Bengal, Nepali, Sikkimese and Lepcha in Sikkim, Punjabi in Punjab, Marathi in Maharashtra, Gujarati in Gujarat, Odia in Odisha, Assamese in Assam, Mizo in Mizoram, Meitei in Manipur, etc.

Different states use different official scripts everywhere (from official documents to street signs): Malayalam script in Kerala, Tamil script in Tamil Nadu, Kannada script in Karnataka, Telugu script in Telangana, Gujarati script in Gujarat, Punjabi script in Punjab, Meitei script in Manipur, Bengali script in West Bengal, Odia script in Odisha, Nastaliq script in Kashmir, Devanagari script in Uttar Pradesh, Marathi script in Maharashtra (similar to Devanagari), etc. There are multiple official scripts in many states (depending on the percentage of population using them).

India was not founded as a nation state nor as an ethnostate. The legal framework of India reflects that.

4 hours ago, stansfield123 said:

India's economy struggles to feed people as it is, it can't sustain a war without huge sacrifices.

Poverty is not that relevant to military strength. A country's military is subject to economies of scale and is more dependent on the total GDP than GDP per capita. India just surpassed Japan in FY2025 to become the 4th largest economy by nominal GDP in USD and will surpass Germany's by 2028. By purchasing power parity (PPP), India is GDP is almost 60% of the US. Based on IMF projections, India's GDP (by PPP) will surpass that of the US by around 2037. It doesn't matter if India becomes "pro-Western" or not. That's more of a concern for the West than India. Being "pro-Western" didn't do anything for Pakistan. India has been the fastest growing major economy (after adjusting for inflation) for several years.

It is the total GDP (in nominal USD and by PPP) that determines military strength. In this sense, India is way larger than Russia (and obviously, Israel). However, the goal of India isn't to "defeat" Pakistan but more so to bring them in line and respect some norms. If Pakistan's civilian government collapsed, that would be an even bigger problem.

Edited May 18 by human_murda

[stansfield123]

The West is, for the most part, allied to everyone who's willing to work with us. For example, it is allied to both Turkey and Greece. And it's allied to both Israel and a host of Arab nations, including Qatar (which is actively sponsoring the murder of Israelis). There are many other examples of the West building up close ties to both sides of some long standing conflict.

We would love to be allies with India. We would love to have far closer ties to India than we currently have to Pakistan. We would love to sell India ten times as many weapons as we sell to Pakistan, if you can afford them. That's because we know that, almost no matter how horrible some government is, there is always someone even worse, willing to take over. That's why we support Pakistan: we don't want some far worse savages to take over.

And sure, we discourage wars, to some extent. But we tread pretty softly, for the most part. If someone really wants to have a war, they can have it, we're not going to be that upset about it. We would get upset by the use of nukes. Very upset, I think. It's not my decision, obviously, but I think the prevailing line of thought among western decision makers is that the use of nukes is an existential threat to humanity, and that the best response to a nation using nukes is to make an example of that nation. To make it very, very clear that there's nothing to gain through breaking that taboo.

But the western reaction to conventional wars in far away lands, and even the full blown removal of an entire population (like in Nagorno Karabakh, and like it might happen in Gaza), tends to be quite muted. We protest, we take symbolic action, but we don't actually do much. We could, we're extremely powerful, but we choose not to, because it's not our job.

So yeah, you could do whatever you wish to Pakistan, short of nuking them. We don't really get involved in such things.

[human_murda]

29 minutes ago, stansfield123 said:

The West is, for the most part, allied to everyone who's willing to work with us.

Yeah, no. India was one of the founding members of the Non-Aligned Movement. It was the US that pushed India away because India didn't "pick a side". Also India being more socialist than Pakistan was perceived as India aligning itself with the Soviet Union.

29 minutes ago, stansfield123 said:

So yeah, you could do whatever you wish to Pakistan, short of nuking them. We don't really get involved in such things.

Considering all the bombings and coups done by the US and Israel across the world, it's better that way.

Also, you're incorrect. US has aided Pakistan in the 1971 Bangladeshi genocide and the US media initially suppressed news of the genocide. US gets involved in everything (and loses pretty often).

29 minutes ago, stansfield123 said:

We could, we're extremely powerful, but we choose not to, because it's not our job.

US doesn't stay away from other countries (with the largest number of foreign interventions: the US has intervened in 81 foreign elections and has done 400 military interventions in the past few decades), lost half the wars it started and as of 2025, isn't that powerful relatively (especially compared to China).

29 minutes ago, stansfield123 said:

So yeah, you could do whatever you wish to Pakistan, short of nuking them. We don't really get involved in such things.

India doesn't really care about Pakistan. We don't care about such trivial things, unlike the US. Pakistan is mostly irrelevant to India's long-term future. US picked a side for no reason and US aligning with Pakistan is more of a problem for the US than India. It's the US that decided to cut ties with India over Pakistan (because Pakistan was more "capitalist").

Edited May 18 by human_murda

[stansfield123]

18 minutes ago, human_murda said:

It is the total GDP (in nominal USD and by PPP) that determines military strength.

You should read up on the history of warfare. Pay especially close attention to the various wars between Israel and the Arabs. See how that theory holds up in reality. Check out the strength, on paper, of the two sides in the Yom Kippur War, for instance.

No, my friend, it's not GDP, or the various rankings of "military strength", that matter most. It's competence that matters most. A fighting force that knows what it's doing will beat an army several times its size. This is true today, and it was true 3000 years ago.

[human_murda]

2 minutes ago, stansfield123 said:

You should read up on the history of warfare. Pay especially close attention to the various wars between Israel and the Arabs.

Now look up the GDP of the US vs Arab states. It's not just Israel's war.

Edited May 18 by human_murda

[stansfield123]

I didn't realize you're an Indian nationalist, and anti-American. Had I known, I wouldn't have started this conversation. It's a waste of time, obviously.

Why the hell are you on this forum?

Edited May 18 by stansfield123

[human_murda]

9 minutes ago, stansfield123 said:

I didn't realize you're an Indian nationalist. Had I known, I wouldn't have started this conversation. It's a waste of time, obviously.

I'm completely opposed to Indian nationalism. I don't even consider India a nation. I'm also opposed to American nationalism. What makes you think I would support Indian nationalism just because I'm opposed to American nationalism? I will oppose Indian nationalism when I talk to Indians.

9 minutes ago, stansfield123 said:

Why the hell are you on this forum?

You joined in 2023. I should be asking you. Is Objectivism a philosophy of American nationalism? Is Objectivism the "Juche" of America?

Edited May 18 by human_murda

[stansfield123]

11 minutes ago, human_murda said:

I'm completely opposed to Indian nationalism. I don't consider India a nation. I'm opposed to American nationalism, though.

You joined in 2023. I should be asking you.

I like Ayn Rand's philosophy. She chose the United States as her country, considered it the greatest champion of reason and individualism in the history of mankind. She believed the US had the moral high ground, as a result, over any nation which chooses collectivism. I don't have specifics, but I believe she even singled India out by name as an example of such a nation.

It's perfectly reasonable to ask why someone who has the exact opposite stance is on this forum. If you like and read Rand's work, how could you possibly think India is a force for good in the world? Worse: that India was a force for good in the world back during the Cold War, when it refused to join the fight against the greatest evil humanity ever spawned.

 

Edited May 18 by stansfield123

[human_murda]

38 minutes ago, stansfield123 said:

If you like and read Rand's work, how could you possibly think India is a force for good in the world? Worse: that India was a force for good in the world back during the Cold War, when it refused to join the fight against the greatest evil humanity ever spawned.

You think supporting the Bangladeshi genocide was "good" while opposing that (with help from the Soviet Union) is evil? Interesting. I don't think that's even consistent with Objectivism, let alone what I personally think.

(And yes, I've read everything written by Ayn Rand).

38 minutes ago, stansfield123 said:

I don't have specifics, but I believe she even singled India out by name as an example of such a nation.

She thought India was poor because of mysticism. She's wrong, of course. India is poor because of extractive colonialism (and won't be poor for long. India will be middle Income in a decade and high income in about 30-35 years. These aren't my estimates but estimates of economists. Also, in this regard, China is way more impressive).

It's funny when American nationalists project their nationalism onto others (and think that their nationalism is good while everyone else is evil).

I don't care that much about the US. It's like any other country (unless you're brainwashed to believe it's special, like an American version of Juche). India isn't special either, just another country (unless you're brainwashed by Hindu nationalists).

Also, why the fuck do you think someone born and raised in India should become an American nationalist? And believe whatever nonsense Americans believe about their own country? Are you that brainwashed? The US is not that special. The US just happened to gain independence 171 years before India did and had a 171 year head start.

Edited May 18 by human_murda

[stansfield123]

54 minutes ago, human_murda said:

You think supporting the Bangladeshi genocide was "good" while opposing that (with help from the Soviet Union) is evil?

I don't believe that a nation is morally responsible for the actions of another nation. Through its history, the US has formed many alliances with reprehensible rulers and governments, and I think that it was, more often than not, a good thing. I think it was a good thing that the US allied with the Soviets in WW2. That's despite the fact that I have family members who fought on the other side. I can look past that, and make the objective judgement that Hitler was the greatest evil in the world, at the time, and that defeating him was an existential imperative.

I also think it was a good thing that it allied with various entities with horrendous ideology, during the Cold War. I also think it's a great thing that Trump was in the Middle East, shaking hands and making deals with all sorts of murderous animals just this week.

The US exists in this world. It cannot escape that fact. It must interact with this world. This is true for every successful nation on Earth, not just the US, of course. When faced with two bad options, one must choose the lesser evil. Choosing the greater evil is evil, and refusing to act, waiting to die, is also evil. Obviously, the US simply withdrawing within its borders, and letting the Soviets take over the world, would've been the US simply waiting to die. That's not a scenario in which America is still an independent, free nation by 1970.

So I never fault anyone for choosing the lesser evil. I only fault those who choose the greater evil, or who refuse to choose, in that situation. The US chose the lesser evil, by forming a limited alliance with Pakistan and whoever else was willing to join the fight against the Soviets. A limited alliance which DID NOT involve Americans participating in genocide, and which was not formed with the purpose of facilitating genocide.

India, meanwhile, made the morally reprehensible choice both when it chose to work with the Soviets, and when it refused to pick a side. The only moral choice to be made, during the Cold War, was to fight on the western side. India would've benefited greatly by fighting on the better side in the Cold War, and humanity would've benefited as well from having the most populous nation on Earth doing the right thing. The Cold War would've ended sooner, and the world would be a better place.

Luckily, we didn't need you guys. We got it done ourselves. Just as we're gonna get Putin done ourselves. Again, without your help, because, again, you can't pick a side. Oh well. Enjoy your theoretical "military might". And pray you never have to test it ... against China, for instance.

 

Edited May 18 by stansfield123

[human_murda]

59 minutes ago, stansfield123 said:

I also think it was a good thing that it allied with various entities with horrendous ideology, during the Cold War. I also think it's a great thing that Trump was in the Middle East, shaking hands and making deals with all sorts of murderous animals just this week.

So it's good that India tried to stay neutral with both the Soviet Union and USA, no? India has never gone against the US. It's US that rejected India because India stayed neutral. If US can ally with both sides of a conflict, why can't other countries?

You might consider the rivalry with the Soviets as something of cosmic importance, a fight between good and evil. But for the rest of the world, that's some petty backyard fight happening somewhere out West. Like you think of what's happening between India and Pakistan.

59 minutes ago, stansfield123 said:

So I never fault anyone for choosing the lesser evil. I only fault those who choose the greater evil, or who refuse to choose, in that situation. The US chose the lesser evil, by forming a limited alliance with Pakistan and whoever else was willing to join the fight against the Soviets.

Between US and Soviets, who's the lesser evil? Soviets because they didn't support Pakistan and the Bangladesh genocide. Why should the US get to choose the lesser evil, but India should support the greater evil (the country which supports Pakistan)?

And no: before you suggest that Soviets are inherently evil regardless of context, that's just an American narrative. From the context of India's interests, Soviets were the lesser evil. To recall the statement of India's foreign minister:

The idea that the West's interests are the world's interests is a Western construct. China wouldn't have developed if they accepted that.

It's pretty much a colonial era belief that the world needs to spend more and more of its resources to support the interests of the West, that the rest of the world need to do sacrifices on top of sacrifices to advance Western interests and if you don't, it will lead to the collapse of "civilization" itself (where civilization here is implied to mean and only mean the West. If the West falls, there's no civilization, it's only savages). This is the colonial/imperialist idea that other countries sacrificing their interests for the sake of the West is intrinsically good.

Edited May 18 by human_murda

[stansfield123]

20 hours ago, human_murda said:

So it's good that India tried to stay neutral with both the Soviet Union and USA, no?

I don't know. If you're in India, look around you. And then, travel to a few other SE Asian countries, which chose to ally with the West and fully or partially embrace western political values (South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Hong Kong), and look around there too.

What you see is the ultimate measure of the merits' of each country's past decisions. You can argue all you want that India is amazing, on here, if you then walk to the closest river, and you can't see the water because the entire surface is covered in trash flowing down into the ocean.

Your government can't even solve that problem, but you think it could run a massive war against Pakistan competently? Ponderous.

Edited May 19 by stansfield123

[Jon C]

1 hour ago, stansfield123 said:

What you see is the ultimate measure of the merits' of each country's past decisions.

The totality of those decisions, not simply which alliance they chose in a particular conflict. History is more complex than a snappy one-liner. 

 

1 hour ago, stansfield123 said:

Your government can't even solve that problem, but you think it could run a massive war against Pakistan competently? Ponderous.

The domestic performance of the nazis was rife with corruption and incompetence, but they still gave the world a run for its money. Is it that India *cant* solve these problems or that it simply chooses not to, and instead invests resources elsewhere, because that’s how the incentives are currently aligned? 

[human_murda]

1 hour ago, stansfield123 said:

If you're in India, look around you. And then, travel to a few other SE Asian countries, which chose to ally with the West and fully or partially embrace western political values (South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Hong Kong), and look around there too.

South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong aren't SE Asian. Thailand was never colonized and isn't really that different from Kerala. Kerala's HDI is 0.798 (2023) same as Thailand, slightly higher than China (0.797), similar to Malaysia (0.81) and higher than every country in SE Asia (Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, etc) except for Singapore, which is a city-state and trans-shipment hub that cannot be compared to India or Kerala. Also, all of these countries were way richer than India at the time of independence. India's GDP per capita was significantly lower than Sub-Saharan Africa at the time of independence. It was 6 times lower than Haiti at the time of independence:

This has nothing to do with the Indian government but is because of British colonialism for 190 years (1757 to 1947). All the East Asian countries you listed were also way richer than India. They were only poorer than USA.

China is a much better comparison. It's way more anti-Western and an order of magnitude more developed than India.

1 hour ago, stansfield123 said:

What you see is the ultimate measure of the merits' of each country's past decisions. You can argue all you want that India is amazing, on here, if you then walk to the closest river, and you can't see the water because the entire surface is covered in trash flowing down into the ocean.

SE Asia isn't they best comparison when it comes to throwing trash in rivers. People in SE Asia throw trash in rivers way more than people in Kerala.

This is Kandalloor village (Kerala):

This is Pullinkunnu village (Kerala):

This is Alappuzha town (Kerala):

This is Ambalappuzha town (Kerala):

This is Thavinjal village (Kerala):

This is Kumarakam village (Kerala):

This is also Kumarakam (Kerala):

This is Kochi city (Kerala):

This is Ernakulam city (Kerala):

This is a canal in a neighborhood in Ernakulam (Kerala):

Kerala was 7-8 poorer than Haiti during British rule. It's developing without any Western influence and the roads are also changing accordingly every day:

This is Trivandrum (where I'm from):

You don't need "Westernization" to develop. Everything in Kerala is changing every day. It's also a bit rich for an American nationalist to boast about cleanliness in East Asia and the lack of development in Kerala while half the cities in the fully Westernized US looks like this while having 20 times the GDP per capita of Kerala (and with 248 years of independence):

2 hours ago, stansfield123 said:

Your government can't even solve that problem, but you think it could run a massive war against Pakistan competently? Ponderous.

You act like this is the first time India and Pakistan have had a conflict. There has been four wars between India and Pakistan and it's not difficult for India to beat Pakistan (unlike the US trying to defeat the Afghan Taliban). The more important factor is the potential loss in Indian lives and the fact that there's no point in defeating Pakistan.

[stansfield123]

On 5/19/2025 at 6:29 PM, human_murda said:

Also, all of these countries were way richer than India at the time of independence.

In 1947, there were virtually no dogs in Japan. Care to guess why? It's not because the Japanese thought dogs are delicious. It's because that was all there was left to eat.

The reason why Japan is a better place than India has nothing to do with where they started in 1947, and everything to do with what they did since 1947.

 

 

[Harrison Danneskjold]

On 5/18/2025 at 9:57 AM, human_murda said:

US doesn't stay away from other countries (with the largest number of foreign interventions: the US has intervened in 81 foreign elections and has done 400 military interventions in the past few decades), lost half the wars it started and as of 2025, isn't that powerful relatively (especially compared to China).

Wait - lost half the wars we started?  Where are you getting that?

People often cite Iraq as a lost war, since we failed to convince the Iraqis that they should embrace Western values.  And we did fail to convince them of that, true enough, but that's not exactly a military operation.  Where is Saddam Houssein today?
People often also cite Vietnam as a lost war, and we did retreat from Vietnam.  Did we retreat because there were no American soldiers left to fight, or because the enemy had crippled our ability to deliver equipment and munitions to the front lines?  We left Vietnam because we got bored of farming Chinese peasants for XP.  Mao's philosophy was that he could throw more Chinese peasants at us than we had bullets to fire at them, which was absolutely dead wrong - he had more Chinese peasants than we had the desire to continue mowing them down.

And that's basically what the Chinese military still has.  Plenty of bodies.  Granted, they're getting pretty close to the point of being able to challenge the American military, but mostly because there are so damn many of the Chinese (and even then they are not there yet; if they were then Taiwan would not still be a country).

Even if we were to count Iraq and Vietnam as losses (which were not military losses) I'm still at a loss for how you get to half the wars we've started.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

On 5/18/2025 at 10:14 AM, human_murda said:

Is Objectivism a philosophy of American nationalism?

Quote

There is a special reason why you, the future leaders of the United States Army, need to be philosophically armed today. You are the target of a special attack by the Kantian-Hegelian-collectivist establishment that dominates our cultural institutions at present. You are the army of the last semi-free country left on earth, yet you are accused of being a tool of imperialism — and "imperialism" is the name given to the foreign policy of this country, which has never engaged in military conquest and has never profited from the two world wars, which she did not initiate, but entered and won. (It was, incidentally, a foolishly overgenerous policy, which made this country waste her wealth on helping both her allies and her former enemies.) Something called "the military-industrial complex" — which is a myth or worse — is being blamed for all of this country's troubles. Bloody college hoodlums scream demands that R.O.T.C. units be banned from college campuses. Our defense budget is being attacked, denounced and undercut by people who claim that financial priority should be given to ecological rose gardens and to classes in esthetic self-expression for the residents of the slums.

Some of you may be bewildered by this campaign and may be wondering, in good faith, what errors you committed to bring it about. If so, it is urgently important for you to understand the nature of the enemy. You are attacked, not for any errors or flaws, but for your virtues. You are denounced, not for any weaknesses, but for your strength and your competence. You are penalized for being the protectors of the United States. On a lower level of the same issue, a similar kind of campaign is conducted against the police force. Those who seek to destroy this country, seek to disarm it — intellectually and physically. But it is not a mere political issue; politics is not the cause, but the last consequence of philosophical ideas. It is not a communist conspiracy, though some communists may be involved — as maggots cashing in on a disaster they had no power to originate. The motive of the destroyers is not love for communism, but hatred for America. Why hatred? Because America is the living refutation of a Kantian universe.

...

In conclusion, allow me to speak in personal terms. This evening means a great deal to me. I feel deeply honored by the opportunity to address you. I can say — not as a patriotic bromide, but with full knowledge of the necessary metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, political and esthetic roots — that the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and, in its original founding principles, the only moral country in the history of the world. There is a kind of quiet radiance associated in my mind with the name West Point — because you have preserved the spirit of those original founding principles and you are their symbol. There were contradictions and omissions in those principles, and there may be in yours — but I am speaking of the essentials. There may be individuals in your history who did not live up to your highest standards — as there are in every institution — since no institutions and no social system can guarantee the automatic perfection of all its members; this depends on an individual's free will. I am speaking of your standards. You have preserved three qualities of character which were typical at the time of America's birth, but are virtually nonexistent today: earnestness — dedication — a sense of honor. Honor is self-esteem made visible in action.

-Ayn Rand at West Point, italics and bold are mine

 

On 5/18/2025 at 7:46 AM, human_murda said:

As I've stated previously, the most anti-Western state in India leads on most metrics. So this is categorically untrue.

Oh, yes.  And as an American (Ayn Rand's favorite country, which was founded on some pretty extreme anti-British sentiment) I'm glad to live in the most anti-Western state in the world.

 

On 5/18/2025 at 10:12 AM, stansfield123 said:

I didn't realize you're an Indian nationalist, and anti-American. Had I known, I wouldn't have started this conversation. It's a waste of time, obviously.

He also attributes whatever success India has gained in the 20th century to the Communists and every bad thing that has ever happened before to the West.  But it is interesting to hear the perspective that's holding India in the third century.

[tadmjones]

Well the Chinese must of got better , in Korea we killed or wounded almost a million Chinese combatants and left in a draw. In Vietnam they halved  their casualties and the whole place went commie.

Why was it Saddam needed to die, the first time? It would be unAmerican to ‘let’ him have the Kawait?

That Taliban is quite the outfit, too.