GameBanshee Forums

1. I am just asking what are the views of the symers on this part of the world, and the recent almost at war tension like scenerio.

2. Dont ask me to explain the issue, as I am baised and can not be objective.

3. If you want me to explain the pakistani pov then i do so, but I think an India - is there one here - should also post their version.

Originally posted by CM
1. I am just asking what are the views of the symers on this part of the world, and the recent almost at war tension like scenerio.

Well I'm pretty much petrified of the whole situation. I always considered myself lucky that I wouldn't never see a nuclear warhead detonated in a populated area, but now I'm not so sure.

Woah.

Looks like i will have to issue a warning before start (not to you CM )

Could everyone please keep this civil. I don't want to close down a possibly interesting thread.

Yeah it is scary and what is worse, is that they might actually come to. Heaven Forbid. But if either Pakistan or India uses nukes, their respective nations and people will also be affected.
Even if Pakistan nukes the border area with Bruma, Pakistan will feel the nuclear fallout. And same with India attacking our border with Iran.

Also are their any Indians here?

I unfortunatly dont know that much about the situation in Kashmir or how its viewed by the involved nations. But I think that there is very little danger that any of them use nuclear weapons. That option just dont seem sensible even from a completly nationalistic and patriotic point of view.

Needless to say a "conventional" war is a disaster as well, but on a quite different scale.

No Indians that I know of so far...

Originally posted by CM
Yeah it is scary and what is worse, is that they might actually come to. Heaven Forbid. But if either Pakistan or India uses nukes, their respective nations and people will also be affected.
Even if Pakistan nukes the border area with Bruma, Pakistan will feel the nuclear fallout. And same with India attacking our border with Iran.

Also are their any Indians here?

... as for my thoughts on the use of nukes, I personally think that it is REALLY STUPID for both countries to nuke each other, like, throwing garbage and dung at your neighbor and yet you yourself get affected by the smell and the disease that would go along with it.

Of course, using nuke in itself is something that is never worth it. Somehow in the final analysis, the nukers themselves are nuking their own people.

BTW, I wont be surprised if Osama's goons are behind the recent violence at Kashmir... talk about revenge and tactical diversion...

Originally posted by Dottie
I unfortunatly dont know that much about the situation in Kashmir or how its viewed by the involved nations. But I think that there is very little danger that any of them use nuclear weapons. That option just dont seem sensible even from a completly nationalistic and patriotic point of view.

Needless to say a "conventional" war is a disaster as well, but on a quite different scale.

Well the reason I think a nuclear war may be possible is because (and no offence to CM or Thorin). India has a defence force capable of confidently capturing Pakistan, I'm more worried about what the Pakistani generals are capable of doing if pushed to the very edge.

I'm confused here...

Originally posted by Tamerlane


India has a defence force capable of confidently capturing Pakistan,

... a DEFENSE force capable of CONFIDENTLY CAPTURING Pakistan? Are they really that good?

No, Tammy, no sarcasm there. I simply want to know that I understood what you said.

Re: I'm confused here...

Originally posted by Maharlika
... a DEFENSE force capable of CONFIDENTLY CAPTURING Pakistan? Are they really that good?

No, Tammy, no sarcasm there. I simply want to know that I understood what you said.

I don't think I stated it right, but the Indians are confident of their capabilities. And the majority of defense analyst in Australia covering the situation, think the same way.

I doubt a border exchange would remain just that, if the situation continues...

There was an analysis over here of the two countries forces, and India had a far larger military force than Pakistan. It also has a larger population, of course, but Pakistan has very few offensive/defensive forces in comparison.

I'm sorry I can't quote specifics, but I don't remember the exact numbers.

Good move @Sleep, warning everyone to keep a level head in a potentially volatile subject such as this, and good topic @Fas.

Does anyone informed, ie. Fable or CE, have a link to a reasonably objective history of the Kashmir dispute?

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
There was an analysis over here of the two countries forces, and India had a far larger military force than Pakistan. It also has a larger population, of course, but Pakistan has very few offensive/defensive forces in comparison.

I also read about this last week in The Times, they quoted a vast figure, plus the article stated that they have better firearms and superior training.

I'm not an expert on this part of World History...

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper

Does anyone informed, ie. Fable or CE, have a link to a reasonably objective history of the Kashmir dispute?

... correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember that India and Pakistan used to be one big country colonized by the British. When the British left, the country was divided into (Muslim?) Pakistan and (Hindu?) Indian. The Kashmir area was vaguely(?) shared by both religious groups prior to the separation and both sides claim the area as historically theirs.

As I said, please correct me on this one if I'm wrong.

No surprises on that note...

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
There was an analysis over here of the two countries forces, and India had a far larger military force than Pakistan. It also has a larger population, of course, but Pakistan has very few offensive/defensive forces in comparison.

...since next to China, India is the second largest country in terms of population.

India has a far larger army than Pakistan. I do believe somewhere around 3 to 4 times larger. However according to the economist (this weeks edition, with the mind cover) it says that the Pakistan army is better trained and would match india equally if the war was confined to Kashmir and the LOC only. The telegraph and the think tank it quotes said that India would get a "bloody nose" if it attacked kashmir and would have to retreat.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 16,00.html

http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/ma ... stid=17583

However if the war is longer than a month, India will win. They have resources for a full fledged war for 6 months. Pakistan has enough for 1 month.

India and Pakistan along with Bangladesh were one counrty. But they spilt to form 2 countries India and Pakistan. Later in 1971 Bangaldesh spilt from Pakistan. Kashmir originally back in 1947 was 90 plus % muslim. Today i believe the Indian govt figure is 80 or a little less.

I think that the situation in Kashmir is similar to the middle east in that both sides have basically forgotten why they hate each other; it's all about vengeance and righting every wrong someone committed in the past. Something like 30,000 people have died in sporadic border disputes over the years and there's basically no end in sight.

What worries me is that 1) after all the years, neither side is willing to come to the negotiating table and seriously consider compromising and 2) the two sides do not have enough nuclear weapons for mutually assured destruction.

I don't think there's any doubt that in a prolonged campaign, India will win through the force of sheer numbers. The question is: If backed into a corner, will the Pakistanis use their nuclear arsenel against India, and what would India's response be?

Originally posted by HighLordDave
........1) after all the years, neither side is willing to come to the negotiating table and seriously consider compromising and........

Actually that is incorrect. Russia offered to hold peace talks a week ago. Pakistan agreed India declined. France, UK and the EU have offered to host and mediate talks. Each time they have been shot down by India. Pakistan cant afford to say no to peace talks because then the only alternative is a war which we will loose if it goes on for more than 1 month. So saying yes is mandatory otherwise we will become another Iraq or Iran.

Let me ask you a couple of questions, CM, and this is out of my ignorance.

First, what is so valuable about the province that has made India and Pakistan fight over essentially since the formation of both countries? Is it trade routes? Natural resources? Land that no one wants to give up?

Second, you say that the Pakistanis never refuse to attend peace talks, but are they committed to having productive peace talks? The Koreans (North and South) have been having peace talks since 1953, but neither side is willing to listen to what the other has to say. It's that kind of impasse that I see in Kashmir.

It is both realistic and ideological. For Pakistan it shows a 80% muslim majority state in India, while Pakistan was created for muslims. If it can remain a part of India and work, then why was there a reason for Pakistan being created.

For India it adds to its secular image. It is a muslim majority state which is part of india and it works. So there is issue of the Hindu Majority working against the minorities.

Military wise highest point in the region. Best for attacks and survallience.

Agriculture wise, it is the life line of all 5 major/only rivers in Pakistan. Due to the World Bank and Internationa Pressure India and Pakistan signed the Indus Water Treaty which legally said that India could not stop water from flowing to pakistan. However recently India has said it will scrap the treaty if need be. If it does do that. War will be the only option. As with out these 5 major rivers, Pakistan has no source of water.

Again I will stress this is the Pakistani perspective and way we see things. The Indians do see it differently.

Lastly productive peace talks. That is a non-starter as they cant get to the peace table anyway. However from all the peace talks in the past it is obvious, that the two want different things. 1 is that Pakistan wants to discuss Kashmir first and get it over with. India wants confidence building measures first, like trade deals or something else. Pakistans retort is that with the kashmir dispute still hanging over our heads how can there be true confidence building measures. I have no clue what the indian response is after that.

Again these are the Pakistani pov. I reallz hope an Indian was here, so you guys could decide for yourselfs.

Without offering opinons, let me add a bit of history to CM's analysis.

By the 1940s, the British public were sick and tired of their "empire." They wanted out of international conflicts, a lower defense budget, and an end to colonies. The government of the day saw the writing on the wall, and agreed. They recognized 64 provinces (and more than 500 sub-provinces) in all in "greater India," which was the goal of the most internationally renowned figure in the land at the time, Mahatma Gandhi. Many forces in British-ruled India disagreed with Gandhi's assessment of matters and considered it hopelessly idealistic to believe all these different peoples could form a reasonable, single nation, but only the Moslems under Jinnah mounted sufficiently organized opposition to achieve a state of their own: Pakistan.

Each of the provinces, then, was asked to essentially choose which of the two new nations they would go with. In retrospect, this certainly over-simplified matters, and completely neglected the concept of self-determination. One of the 64 rulers, in any case, didn't want to go with either India or Pakistan. Hari Singh thought that by playing the two larger nations off one another, he could achieve independence for Jammu and Kashmir. (Some say he simply hadn't made up his mind what to do.)

It didn't work out as he'd hoped. There were reports of Pakistani soldiers moving into Kashmir. He complained immediately to India in a panic, and was forced to sign an instrument of accession to receive their support in late 1947. This came in the form of a huge Indian army, and all thoughts of Kashmiri independence vanished.

Within a few months, India declared a unilateral cease-fire, holding onto 2/5ths of Kashmir. The UN mediated, then passed a resolution stating that the fate of Jammu and Kashmir would be determined by a plebiscite. India refused, indicating that Pakistan was in violation of an earlier resolution requiring that it's forces be withdrawn from its 3/5ths of Kashmir. Pakistan stated that the only people who crossed the border into Kashmir did so without permission and authority, and that the numbers were greatly exaggerated.

India then drew up the famous Article 370 for their constitution. Supposedly, it was a temporary measure folding Kashmir into India, until a plebiscite could be held.

And thus matters stand. Darkening the waters further are the actions of the Indian Army over time, which have thoroughly alienated Kashmiri residents with high-handed, brutal tactics. The population of Kashmir, initially moderate and even seen as favoring India years ago, is now largely militantly opposed to Indian rule. The army basically rules in Kashmir for India, on its side of the border.

Pakistan wants international involvement in the dispute, but India, remembering the resolution of the UN, will have none of it. It wants a treaty with Pakistan, using the current borders as the beginning point of negotation--an acceptable negotating position in theory, but not one Pakistan will accede to.

There you have it.

Thanks a lot to everyone who has posted history and clarifications here - I never really understood the reason behind the conflict, although I have been following it on the news for some time.