India vs Pakistan

[Mame89]

You are right, the opposite has happened as India wanted. They wanted to scare Pakistan but could not eliminate their own terrorists. Muslims in Kashmir are going through a difficult time, their homes and Religious places of worship are being destroyed. The Modi government is trying to establish a fundamentalist regime by abolishing Article 70 of the special constitutional status there in 2019. Muslims constitute more than ninety seven percent of the population in Indian-controlled Kashmir and are oppressing them by demonstrating their power there. They are trying to incite communal riots all over India.

Under the guise of war with Pakistan, they have basically destroyed hundreds of Muslim religious places of worship and they are still setting the worst example. I think they are increasing the level of oppression against Muslims internally in such a way that in the future India will be another Israel in South Asia.

If we look at the history of tensions between the two countries, this is proof that Mahatma Gandhi failed to unite India as a country and bridge the differences between religious communities, the impact of which is still felt today. He himself did not dare to oppose the caste system in India. It must be admitted that the conflict between the two countries has been going on for a very long time, and now tensions have re-emerged from this war, of course who benefits? In my opinion, America. Because, India is also in a coalition with Russia. While China helps Pakistan which is a member of BRICS, the same as India and Russia. So, this war benefits America which is trying to divide the BRICS Coalition.

If we talk about India, get ready for India to be abandoned by technology and factory investors. India's decision to attack and declare war without ensuring clear reasons to Pakistan will only harm India itself. We know that India is one of the countries that is very popular with investors and manufacturers from various fields (automotive, technology, smartphones, even components). So with India in a state of war like this, it is not impossible that they will think twice about continuing their investments there and immediately move to a place that is considered safer for doing business.

[pooya87]

The United States, which sought to provoke China after failing to stir up trouble against Taiwan, chose to play on a new more tense front,

This needs to be highlighted and be the focus of both sides because at times of high tensions like this, both sides keep pointing the finger at each other. But they need to ask themselves "who benefits from their war". It definitely is neither India nor Pakistan.

This is like divide and conquer strategy. A destabilized Asia is only beneficial to NATO and specifically US and UK. So maybe it's time everyone stopped fighting each other and oppressing the people of Keshmir and instead focus on the real enemy.

[MusaPk]

This needs to be highlighted and be the focus of both sides because at times of high tensions like this, both sides keep pointing the finger at each other. But they need to ask themselves "who benefits from their war". It definitely is neither India nor Pakistan.

This is like divide and conquer strategy. A destabilized Asia is only beneficial to NATO and specifically US and UK. So maybe it's time everyone stopped fighting each other and oppressing the people of Keshmir and instead focus on the real enemy.

During recent conflict many innocent souls died on both sides of border, imagine situation of father or mother who lost his son in this conflict. The conflict is over but these souls won't return ever. It's time for both India and Pakistan to sit together and solve there issues through talk, main issue between India and Pakistan is Kashmir and if they settle that issue then living standard of millions of people in both countries can be raised. If they continue fighting like that then both these countries will be an ideal market for weapon selling countries.

[coupable]

This needs to be highlighted and be the focus of both sides because at times of high tensions like this, both sides keep pointing the finger at each other. But they need to ask themselves "who benefits from their war". It definitely is neither India nor Pakistan.

This is like divide and conquer strategy. A destabilized Asia is only beneficial to NATO and specifically US and UK. So maybe it's time everyone stopped fighting each other and oppressing the people of Keshmir and instead focus on the real enemy.

During recent conflict many innocent souls died on both sides of border, imagine situation of father or mother who lost his son in this conflict. The conflict is over but these souls won't return ever. It's time for both India and Pakistan to sit together and solve there issues through talk, main issue between India and Pakistan is Kashmir and if they settle that issue then living standard of millions of people in both countries can be raised. If they continue fighting like that then both these countries will be an ideal market for weapon selling countries.

What is happening now is the continuation of an entire history that began when Britain decided to leave India. What did it do? It divided it into two countries after supporting the Islamists for independence, despite the fact that India was a culturally and civilizationally diverse country where all ethnicities and groups lived in peace. Not content with that, colonial Britain left the disputed Kashmir region to them as a battleground. It then supported Bangladesh's independence, leaving Greater India divided into three countries. It also supported the nuclear drive in the region, turning the entire region into a volcano that could burn everyone at any moment. Who benefited from this division? Certainly not the people, but rather colonial Britain, which implemented a policy of "divide and conquer," making it easier to control without the need for a direct military presence.
Today, we continue to witness the same scene, with all the colonial powers able to take advantage of the crisis by selling weapons to all parties and fueling more religious and sectarian conflicts, turning the entire region into a weapons testing Lab. Is it in the interest of these peoples to devote all their resources to arming themselves to kill each other? As Pooya said, find the beneficiary and you will understand exactly what happened and what is still happening.

[uneng]

Today, we continue to witness the same scene, with all the colonial powers able to take advantage of the crisis by selling weapons to all parties and fueling more religious and sectarian conflicts, turning the entire region into a weapons testing Lab. Is it in the interest of these peoples to devote all their resources to arming themselves to kill each other? As Pooya said, find the beneficiary and you will understand exactly what happened and what is still happening.

This argument is similar to the men who blame the devil for their sins. Each country is responsible for their own actions and decisions. If there are two countries at war among themselves, it's because they decided to do so, and not because there is a third country selling weapons to them.

To blame USA for every problems people face in their own countries just remove the focus from the root of the real issues while sounding like an envious and resentmented statement. Probably the first step for third world countries to overcome being third world countries would be to stop blaming USA for their own inability of addressing local issues and diplomatic questions.

[Muba20]

This needs to be highlighted and be the focus of both sides because at times of high tensions like this, both sides keep pointing the finger at each other. But they need to ask themselves "who benefits from their war". It definitely is neither India nor Pakistan.

This is like divide and conquer strategy. A destabilized Asia is only beneficial to NATO and specifically US and UK. So maybe it's time everyone stopped fighting each other and oppressing the people of Keshmir and instead focus on the real enemy.

During recent conflict many innocent souls died on both sides of border, imagine situation of father or mother who lost his son in this conflict. The conflict is over but these souls won't return ever. It's time for both India and Pakistan to sit together and solve there issues through talk, main issue between India and Pakistan is Kashmir and if they settle that issue then living standard of millions of people in both countries can be raised. If they continue fighting like that then both these countries will be an ideal market for weapon selling countries.

To stay ahead in the world politics, big countries target new places. If they get a little scope there, they will implement their plan. When the United States failed in its confrontation with China on the Taiwan issue, they were trying to change their plan. And as part of that plan, America has been trying to create a base in Asia for a long time. When they could not defeat China in any way, the country tried to use India as an alternative weapon. When it was not getting the expected results there, the country has now created a situation of war between India and Pakistan over the undivided Kashmir issue.

India Pakistan war means loss for Asia. If countries do not understand their own good and bad and go to war due to the provocation given by others, that will be their suicidal decision. If there is a war between India and Pakistan, who will benefit the most? If India does not find the answer to this question, then this situation will not end.

[coupable]

Today, we continue to witness the same scene, with all the colonial powers able to take advantage of the crisis by selling weapons to all parties and fueling more religious and sectarian conflicts, turning the entire region into a weapons testing Lab. Is it in the interest of these peoples to devote all their resources to arming themselves to kill each other? As Pooya said, find the beneficiary and you will understand exactly what happened and what is still happening.

This argument is similar to the men who blame the devil for their sins. Each country is responsible for their own actions and decisions. If there are two countries at war among themselves, it's because they decided to do so, and not because there is a third country selling weapons to them.

To blame USA for every problems people face in their own countries just remove the focus from the root of the real issues while sounding like an envious and resentmented statement. Probably the first step for third world countries to overcome being third world countries would be to stop blaming USA for their own inability of addressing local issues and diplomatic questions.

I insist on holding Britain and America largely responsible for the catastrophic wars occurring around the world, because they are the primary and direct beneficiaries of these conflicts, in one way or another. When Britain fuels racial and ethnic conflicts, causing conflict and internal disintegration, it bears some responsibility for what is happening. Not all peoples know how to decide their own destiny, and with high rates of ignorance and low levels of education, it is easy to manipulate them and appoint corrupt rulers to ensure control. When you claim to help a blind man, then make him walk along a path with a hole in it, only to fall into that hole, should we blame the man for being blind and unable to know the road until he regains his sight, or should we blame me for deceiving him and making him walk toward that hole? We have witnessed on many occasions these colonial powers using the United Nations to decide whether to wage war, as happened with the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and how they also use their veto power to defend their allies. We have also seen what the United States does to benefit Israel, even going so far as to accuse the International Criminal Court of bias because they issued arrest warrants against Israeli entities due to the war in Gaza. Who do we blame here?

India and Pakistan are independent countries and have the legitimacy to make the appropriate decision whether to go to war or not. This is true, and I agree with you. However, there is an element missing from the picture, because those fueling these conflicts are the real beneficiaries, and they are an important part of understanding how things are going and how we got to where we are.

[uneng]

I insist on holding Britain and America largely responsible for the catastrophic wars occurring around the world, because they are the primary and direct beneficiaries of these conflicts, in one way or another. When Britain fuels racial and ethnic conflicts, causing conflict and internal disintegration, it bears some responsibility for what is happening. Not all peoples know how to decide their own destiny, and with high rates of ignorance and low levels of education, it is easy to manipulate them and appoint corrupt rulers to ensure control. When you claim to help a blind man, then make him walk along a path with a hole in it, only to fall into that hole, should we blame the man for being blind and unable to know the road until he regains his sight, or should we blame me for deceiving him and making him walk toward that hole? We have witnessed on many occasions these colonial powers using the United Nations to decide whether to wage war, as happened with the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and how they also use their veto power to defend their allies. We have also seen what the United States does to benefit Israel, even going so far as to accuse the International Criminal Court of bias because they issued arrest warrants against Israeli entities due to the war in Gaza. Who do we blame here?

India and Pakistan are independent countries and have the legitimacy to make the appropriate decision whether to go to war or not. This is true, and I agree with you. However, there is an element missing from the picture, because those fueling these conflicts are the real beneficiaries, and they are an important part of understanding how things are going and how we got to where we are.

Wars have always happened in American, African and Asian continents a long time before the native tribes, kingdoms and civilizations entered in contact with the Europeans. The europeans just have introduced superior military technology to those conflicts, what eventually caused much more impacting consequences. The point is: human nature is the same in every human beings. The white man isn't bad, while the yellow and black men are good. If the called opressed had the necessary tools, they would have been the opressors instead.

And by assuming not everyone has how to decide their own destinies in a time where information reaches everywhere through technology, at same time the blind man analogy is used, it means to consider a considerable portion of the global population to be disabled individuals, cognitively speaking... So should them be treated like disabled individuals?

It's ironical to think that way, because by your theory, it sounds exactly what Britain and America would want you to do...

[pooya87]

Today, we continue to witness the same scene, with all the colonial powers able to take advantage of the crisis by selling weapons to all parties and fueling more religious and sectarian conflicts, turning the entire region into a weapons testing Lab. Is it in the interest of these peoples to devote all their resources to arming themselves to kill each other? As Pooya said, find the beneficiary and you will understand exactly what happened and what is still happening.

This argument is similar to the men who blame the devil for their sins. Each country is responsible for their own actions and decisions. If there are two countries at war among themselves, it's because they decided to do so, and not because there is a third country selling weapons to them.

To blame USA for every problems people face in their own countries just remove the focus from the root of the real issues while sounding like an envious and resentmented statement. Probably the first step for third world countries to overcome being third world countries would be to stop blaming USA for their own inability of addressing local issues and diplomatic questions.

These statements are all based on facts and historical events including the interventions of Western powers to destabilize the region. Not just empty accusations to remove the responsibility on these countries.

In my opinion the best example that would help anyone understand these facts and see things more clearly is Syria. Just spend a couple of weeks studying the history of the past 2-3 decades of what happened in Syria. There are lots of similarities. You will even find similar arguments where people say "you are blaming the West for no reason".
10-20 years ago when we were saying it is US that is waging a dirty war against Syria, attacking people with chemical weapons, supporting terrorist organizations including but not limited to al-Qaeda and ISIS, etc. nobody believed it. Most people wanted to repeat the US propaganda that "Assad is dictator", "it was Assad that carried out the chemical attack against his people", "the ISIS terrorists are just protesters", etc.

Today Assad is gone and Syria is under occupation of various terrorist groups (al-Qaeda occupies the capital and a couple of other provinces, Israel occupies western regions and Golan heights and main water sources, ISIS occupies a handful of provinces, various little terrorist groups that call themselves Kurd occupy eastern parts of Syria).
This means you can find the truth easier...

For example go watch the Tulsi Gabbard (United States Director of National Intelligence) confessions to the US congress saying it was United States that supported al-Qaeda, funded them and armed these terrorists.
Go read the Timber Sycamore documents that will show you how US regime was arming and supporting such terrorist groups and was carrying out terrorist attacks against civilians.
Finally watch how Trump just shook hands with one of the heads of al-Qaeda and an internationally recognized terrorists who was like the second in command to Bin Ladan.

Then come back and read this topic again from the start to see when for example I say "the Keshmir terrorist attack was CIA's work" or when I say "US is only side benefiting from this conflict" what facts these statements are based on.

In 10, 20 or maybe 30 years from now they will declassify documents and confess to being behind a lot of such terrorist attacks and subsequent conflicts in the world. After all this is not their first time and not the only region they carry out terrorist attacks in.

[coupable]

Today, we continue to witness the same scene, with all the colonial powers able to take advantage of the crisis by selling weapons to all parties and fueling more religious and sectarian conflicts, turning the entire region into a weapons testing Lab. Is it in the interest of these peoples to devote all their resources to arming themselves to kill each other? As Pooya said, find the beneficiary and you will understand exactly what happened and what is still happening.

This argument is similar to the men who blame the devil for their sins. Each country is responsible for their own actions and decisions. If there are two countries at war among themselves, it's because they decided to do so, and not because there is a third country selling weapons to them.

To blame USA for every problems people face in their own countries just remove the focus from the root of the real issues while sounding like an envious and resentmented statement. Probably the first step for third world countries to overcome being third world countries would be to stop blaming USA for their own inability of addressing local issues and diplomatic questions.

These statements are all based on facts and historical events including the interventions of Western powers to destabilize the region. Not just empty accusations to remove the responsibility on these countries.

In my opinion the best example that would help anyone understand these facts and see things more clearly is Syria. Just spend a couple of weeks studying the history of the past 2-3 decades of what happened in Syria. There are lots of similarities. You will even find similar arguments where people say "you are blaming the West for no reason".
10-20 years ago when we were saying it is US that is waging a dirty war against Syria, attacking people with chemical weapons, supporting terrorist organizations including but not limited to al-Qaeda and ISIS, etc. nobody believed it. Most people wanted to repeat the US propaganda that "Assad is dictator", "it was Assad that carried out the chemical attack against his people", "the ISIS terrorists are just protesters", etc.

Today Assad is gone and Syria is under occupation of various terrorist groups (al-Qaeda occupies the capital and a couple of other provinces, Israel occupies western regions and Golan heights and main water sources, ISIS occupies a handful of provinces, various little terrorist groups that call themselves Kurd occupy eastern parts of Syria).
This means you can find the truth easier...

Syria is not the only example. Throughout modern history, the vast majority of civil and regional conflicts are externally manipulated. The parties that benefit from these ongoing conflicts are the ones operating behind the scenes. India and Pakistan are one people with a common culture and history. How did this hostility develop between the people of the same country? Colonial powers fueled these hostile sentiments and kept them boiling to exploit them whenever necessary.

[Rustam Meraj]

These statements are all based on facts and historical events including the interventions of Western powers to destabilize the region. Not just empty accusations to remove the responsibility on these countries.

In my opinion the best example that would help anyone understand these facts and see things more clearly is Syria. Just spend a couple of weeks studying the history of the past 2-3 decades of what happened in Syria. There are lots of similarities. You will even find similar arguments where people say "you are blaming the West for no reason".
10-20 years ago when we were saying it is US that is waging a dirty war against Syria, attacking people with chemical weapons, supporting terrorist organizations including but not limited to al-Qaeda and ISIS, etc. nobody believed it. Most people wanted to repeat the US propaganda that "Assad is dictator", "it was Assad that carried out the chemical attack against his people", "the ISIS terrorists are just protesters", etc.

Today Assad is gone and Syria is under occupation of various terrorist groups (al-Qaeda occupies the capital and a couple of other provinces, Israel occupies western regions and Golan heights and main water sources, ISIS occupies a handful of provinces, various little terrorist groups that call themselves Kurd occupy eastern parts of Syria).
This means you can find the truth easier...

For example go watch the Tulsi Gabbard (United States Director of National Intelligence) confessions to the US congress saying it was United States that supported al-Qaeda, funded them and armed these terrorists.
Go read the Timber Sycamore documents that will show you how US regime was arming and supporting such terrorist groups and was carrying out terrorist attacks against civilians.
Finally watch how Trump just shook hands with one of the heads of al-Qaeda and an internationally recognized terrorists who was like the second in command to Bin Ladan.

Then come back and read this topic again from the start to see when for example I say "the Keshmir terrorist attack was CIA's work" or when I say "US is only side benefiting from this conflict" what facts these statements are based on.

In 10, 20 or maybe 30 years from now they will declassify documents and confess to being behind a lot of such terrorist attacks and subsequent conflicts in the world. After all this is not their first time and not the only region they carry out terrorist attacks in.

In previous two centuries we will see America in almost every war. Not only Syria. If we go to Iraq we will see America if we see the Afghanistan again we will see America in her history. Ukraine Russia Conflict. China USA Tension. Israel Ghaza war. Or even in Pakistan and India war America is showing herself as a third party. And Trump's recent visit to Saudi Arabia and ask them to accept Israel . There is a big game behind it. He just wants tension in Muslim Countries. If Saudia will accept Israel so definitely my country Pakistan will not accept these words and it will also create more tension between Iran and Saudia. Means everywhere we will see that America is playing.
Like we can see his recent statement on 28 April where he said I run the country and the world. I want to make a little change in this statement. I run the country and conflicts of the world. that sounds better.

[philipma1957]

Today, we continue to witness the same scene, with all the colonial powers able to take advantage of the crisis by selling weapons to all parties and fueling more religious and sectarian conflicts, turning the entire region into a weapons testing Lab. Is it in the interest of these peoples to devote all their resources to arming themselves to kill each other? As Pooya said, find the beneficiary and you will understand exactly what happened and what is still happening.

This argument is similar to the men who blame the devil for their sins. Each country is responsible for their own actions and decisions. If there are two countries at war among themselves, it's because they decided to do so, and not because there is a third country selling weapons to them.

To blame USA for every problems people face in their own countries just remove the focus from the root of the real issues while sounding like an envious and resentmented statement. Probably the first step for third world countries to overcome being third world countries would be to stop blaming USA for their own inability of addressing local issues and diplomatic questions.

These statements are all based on facts and historical events including the interventions of Western powers to destabilize the region. Not just empty accusations to remove the responsibility on these countries.

In my opinion the best example that would help anyone understand these facts and see things more clearly is Syria. Just spend a couple of weeks studying the history of the past 2-3 decades of what happened in Syria. There are lots of similarities. You will even find similar arguments where people say "you are blaming the West for no reason".
10-20 years ago when we were saying it is US that is waging a dirty war against Syria, attacking people with chemical weapons, supporting terrorist organizations including but not limited to al-Qaeda and ISIS, etc. nobody believed it. Most people wanted to repeat the US propaganda that "Assad is dictator", "it was Assad that carried out the chemical attack against his people", "the ISIS terrorists are just protesters", etc.

Today Assad is gone and Syria is under occupation of various terrorist groups (al-Qaeda occupies the capital and a couple of other provinces, Israel occupies western regions and Golan heights and main water sources, ISIS occupies a handful of provinces, various little terrorist groups that call themselves Kurd occupy eastern parts of Syria).
This means you can find the truth easier...

Syria is not the only example. Throughout modern history, the vast majority of civil and regional conflicts are externally manipulated. The parties that benefit from these ongoing conflicts are the ones operating behind the scenes. India and Pakistan are one people with a common culture and history. How did this hostility develop between the people of the same country? Colonial powers fueled these hostile sentiments and kept them boiling to exploit them whenever necessary.

Have not Hindus and Moslems fought for hundreds of years?

Or did they subside along side of each other in peace before the western world intervened.

I do not know much about them before Great Britain ruled them.

Say 1850 to 1950 then they were free.

Google says Hindus and Muslims were a mixed bag hot and cold 1600 to 1700

The article below covers 1450 to 1770 it supports your ideas.

https://www.asianstudies.org/publications/eaa/archives/india-in-the-world-the-world-in-india-1450-1770/

[alani123]

India VS Pakistan is such a peculiar case of how economics and politics can be intertwined.

Both large countries and similar in economic terms, India and Pakistan have strong economic ties in spite of the lack of freedom of travel and movement.

India threatened to cut Pakistan off the main river supplying the country's water system. This heightened tensions in the disputed region of Kashmir and with one thing leading to the other India and Pakistan had the largest air fight that there has ever been in history!

When there's war at this scale, countries usually suspend their diplomatic relations and cut trade unilaterally. Now, none of that happened. These two countries depend on each other for trade and supply of goods and they know it well too! So if there's any case where international trade has helped relations, it can be Pakistan and India.   

[Yokkattannee]

India VS Pakistan is such a peculiar case of how economics and politics can be intertwined.

Both large countries and similar in economic terms, India and Pakistan have strong economic ties in spite of the lack of freedom of travel and movement.

India threatened to cut Pakistan off the main river supplying the country's water system. This heightened tensions in the disputed region of Kashmir and with one thing leading to the other India and Pakistan had the largest air fight that there has ever been in history!

When there's war at this scale, countries usually suspend their diplomatic relations and cut trade unilaterally. Now, none of that happened. These two countries depend on each other for trade and supply of goods and they know it well too! So if there's any case where international trade has helped relations, it can be Pakistan and India.   

they actually need each other even though conflicts often occur between India and Pakistan, especially in the economic sector because they have the same interests especially concerning many people, because many factors and reasons in terms of trade are the most important for both countries. because they are close together so the cost is lower for import costs than taking from other countries which of course is more expensive.

[coupable]

Today, we continue to witness the same scene, with all the colonial powers able to take advantage of the crisis by selling weapons to all parties and fueling more religious and sectarian conflicts, turning the entire region into a weapons testing Lab. Is it in the interest of these peoples to devote all their resources to arming themselves to kill each other? As Pooya said, find the beneficiary and you will understand exactly what happened and what is still happening.

This argument is similar to the men who blame the devil for their sins. Each country is responsible for their own actions and decisions. If there are two countries at war among themselves, it's because they decided to do so, and not because there is a third country selling weapons to them.

To blame USA for every problems people face in their own countries just remove the focus from the root of the real issues while sounding like an envious and resentmented statement. Probably the first step for third world countries to overcome being third world countries would be to stop blaming USA for their own inability of addressing local issues and diplomatic questions.

These statements are all based on facts and historical events including the interventions of Western powers to destabilize the region. Not just empty accusations to remove the responsibility on these countries.

In my opinion the best example that would help anyone understand these facts and see things more clearly is Syria. Just spend a couple of weeks studying the history of the past 2-3 decades of what happened in Syria. There are lots of similarities. You will even find similar arguments where people say "you are blaming the West for no reason".
10-20 years ago when we were saying it is US that is waging a dirty war against Syria, attacking people with chemical weapons, supporting terrorist organizations including but not limited to al-Qaeda and ISIS, etc. nobody believed it. Most people wanted to repeat the US propaganda that "Assad is dictator", "it was Assad that carried out the chemical attack against his people", "the ISIS terrorists are just protesters", etc.

Today Assad is gone and Syria is under occupation of various terrorist groups (al-Qaeda occupies the capital and a couple of other provinces, Israel occupies western regions and Golan heights and main water sources, ISIS occupies a handful of provinces, various little terrorist groups that call themselves Kurd occupy eastern parts of Syria).
This means you can find the truth easier...

Syria is not the only example. Throughout modern history, the vast majority of civil and regional conflicts are externally manipulated. The parties that benefit from these ongoing conflicts are the ones operating behind the scenes. India and Pakistan are one people with a common culture and history. How did this hostility develop between the people of the same country? Colonial powers fueled these hostile sentiments and kept them boiling to exploit them whenever necessary.

Have not Hindus and Moslems fought for hundreds of years?

Or did they subside along side of each other in peace before the western world intervened.

I do not know much about them before Great Britain ruled them.

Say 1850 to 1950 then they were free.

Google says Hindus and Muslims were a mixed bag hot and cold 1600 to 1700

The article below covers 1450 to 1770 it supports your ideas.

https://www.asianstudies.org/publications/eaa/archives/india-in-the-world-the-world-in-india-1450-1770/

All over the world and throughout history, people have lived in harmony amidst all their differences, and even when problems arise, people quickly find ways to overcome them so that life can continue. When do conflicts arise? When there is a third party that benefits from them, fuels them, and ensures they do not end. Who is this third party? Often, it is a third party seeking to destroy its rivals by making them fight, so that it can rule. Or it is an external occupying force seeking to establish a foothold in a specific geographical area.

Colonial Britain has always been adept at creating strife and provoking conflicts as a prelude to partition, which serves as the key to imposing control. India is home to thousands of religions and sects with different ethnicities, and we never hear of them fighting for any reason. When Britain came and occupied it, resistance movements emerged. In order to eliminate the resistance, Britain fueled religious strife, and the Islamists formed a united front. Before leaving, it granted them a large part of India's vast territory to create a new country, born by British rule. Pakistan is part of India, and both peoples know this fact well. India and Pakistan are not the only examples. Wherever a region was colonized by Britain, you will find divisions and disputes, whether over borders or entire disputed territories.

[UmerIdrees]

Both countries should understand that war never brings peace. They should settle it among themselves. If war really happens, both will face a huge economic crisis. And how many people will die is unimaginable. Both countries have nuclear weapons. Both countries have provocateurs behind them. Both countries are ready to show their strength, but they should think about the harm that will be done to the public and the loss of many lives.

Modi is big cause of bad relationships between these two teams. He is a person who did not do anything for the better relationship between these two teams. Indian cricket team did not play any series in last 10 years because he is in the power and we will see bad condition between these two countries. Pakistan is  Muslim country and India is Hindu country and Modi want to destroy Pakistan but War will not happen so he want to destroy Pakistan economically, So they stopped water of Pakistan and now Pakistani condition is miserable because all system is dependent on rivers .Pakistani army is top of the world and we will see big defend system by Pak because we saw big battle between these two teams in the past .

I wouldn't say that Pakistan's condition is miserable because India stopped the Water flow in Pakistan but we have a downfall due to our own reasons  (political) and that has nothing to do with the Pak-India tension. Even the Pakistan Air Force showed great strength during all these tension days and they protect their country in these challenging times. Salute to the Air Forces of Pakistan. They make us proud   

[Rustam Meraj]

Today, we continue to witness the same scene, with all the colonial powers able to take advantage of the crisis by selling weapons to all parties and fueling more religious and sectarian conflicts, turning the entire region into a weapons testing Lab. Is it in the interest of these peoples to devote all their resources to arming themselves to kill each other? As Pooya said, find the beneficiary and you will understand exactly what happened and what is still happening.

This argument is similar to the men who blame the devil for their sins. Each country is responsible for their own actions and decisions. If there are two countries at war among themselves, it's because they decided to do so, and not because there is a third country selling weapons to them.

To blame USA for every problems people face in their own countries just remove the focus from the root of the real issues while sounding like an envious and resentmented statement. Probably the first step for third world countries to overcome being third world countries would be to stop blaming USA for their own inability of addressing local issues and diplomatic questions.

These statements are all based on facts and historical events including the interventions of Western powers to destabilize the region. Not just empty accusations to remove the responsibility on these countries.

In my opinion the best example that would help anyone understand these facts and see things more clearly is Syria. Just spend a couple of weeks studying the history of the past 2-3 decades of what happened in Syria. There are lots of similarities. You will even find similar arguments where people say "you are blaming the West for no reason".
10-20 years ago when we were saying it is US that is waging a dirty war against Syria, attacking people with chemical weapons, supporting terrorist organizations including but not limited to al-Qaeda and ISIS, etc. nobody believed it. Most people wanted to repeat the US propaganda that "Assad is dictator", "it was Assad that carried out the chemical attack against his people", "the ISIS terrorists are just protesters", etc.

Today Assad is gone and Syria is under occupation of various terrorist groups (al-Qaeda occupies the capital and a couple of other provinces, Israel occupies western regions and Golan heights and main water sources, ISIS occupies a handful of provinces, various little terrorist groups that call themselves Kurd occupy eastern parts of Syria).
This means you can find the truth easier...

Syria is not the only example. Throughout modern history, the vast majority of civil and regional conflicts are externally manipulated. The parties that benefit from these ongoing conflicts are the ones operating behind the scenes. India and Pakistan are one people with a common culture and history. How did this hostility develop between the people of the same country? Colonial powers fueled these hostile sentiments and kept them boiling to exploit them whenever necessary.

Have not Hindus and Moslems fought for hundreds of years?

Or did they subside along side of each other in peace before the western world intervened.

I do not know much about them before Great Britain ruled them.

Say 1850 to 1950 then they were free.

Google says Hindus and Muslims were a mixed bag hot and cold 1600 to 1700

The article below covers 1450 to 1770 it supports your ideas.

https://www.asianstudies.org/publications/eaa/archives/india-in-the-world-the-world-in-india-1450-1770/

Dear @philipma1957 with the passage of time the war visuals has been changed. In the past mostly empires war with others to acquire lands and they apply their rules to that lands.
Before the Britain Rule there were Muslims and Hindus were living on one land and they were happy. After Britain came they just fuelled up the religious strife. And when they went from this land they gave two countries and they gave two nations. And in the history of sub continent the time of 1850-1950 was the worst time of the history.

But now the things are changed. In these days if a war will be started so after that war there were nothing to live. It will destroy everything. We have seen what happened in WW2. And WW3 will be more worst. Now the countries are not fighting for the land they are fighting to show they are better than the other countries. Means this is the war to show who is the super power.

[philipma1957]

Today, we continue to witness the same scene, with all the colonial powers able to take advantage of the crisis by selling weapons to all parties and fueling more religious and sectarian conflicts, turning the entire region into a weapons testing Lab. Is it in the interest of these peoples to devote all their resources to arming themselves to kill each other? As Pooya said, find the beneficiary and you will understand exactly what happened and what is still happening.

This argument is similar to the men who blame the devil for their sins. Each country is responsible for their own actions and decisions. If there are two countries at war among themselves, it's because they decided to do so, and not because there is a third country selling weapons to them.

To blame USA for every problems people face in their own countries just remove the focus from the root of the real issues while sounding like an envious and resentmented statement. Probably the first step for third world countries to overcome being third world countries would be to stop blaming USA for their own inability of addressing local issues and diplomatic questions.

These statements are all based on facts and historical events including the interventions of Western powers to destabilize the region. Not just empty accusations to remove the responsibility on these countries.

In my opinion the best example that would help anyone understand these facts and see things more clearly is Syria. Just spend a couple of weeks studying the history of the past 2-3 decades of what happened in Syria. There are lots of similarities. You will even find similar arguments where people say "you are blaming the West for no reason".
10-20 years ago when we were saying it is US that is waging a dirty war against Syria, attacking people with chemical weapons, supporting terrorist organizations including but not limited to al-Qaeda and ISIS, etc. nobody believed it. Most people wanted to repeat the US propaganda that "Assad is dictator", "it was Assad that carried out the chemical attack against his people", "the ISIS terrorists are just protesters", etc.

Today Assad is gone and Syria is under occupation of various terrorist groups (al-Qaeda occupies the capital and a couple of other provinces, Israel occupies western regions and Golan heights and main water sources, ISIS occupies a handful of provinces, various little terrorist groups that call themselves Kurd occupy eastern parts of Syria).
This means you can find the truth easier...

Syria is not the only example. Throughout modern history, the vast majority of civil and regional conflicts are externally manipulated. The parties that benefit from these ongoing conflicts are the ones operating behind the scenes. India and Pakistan are one people with a common culture and history. How did this hostility develop between the people of the same country? Colonial powers fueled these hostile sentiments and kept them boiling to exploit them whenever necessary.

Have not Hindus and Moslems fought for hundreds of years?

Or did they subside along side of each other in peace before the western world intervened.

I do not know much about them before Great Britain ruled them.

Say 1850 to 1950 then they were free.

Google says Hindus and Muslims were a mixed bag hot and cold 1600 to 1700

The article below covers 1450 to 1770 it supports your ideas.

https://www.asianstudies.org/publications/eaa/archives/india-in-the-world-the-world-in-india-1450-1770/ divisions

All over the world and throughout history, people have lived in harmony amidst all their differences, and even when problems arise, people quickly find ways to overcome them so that life can continue. When do conflicts arise? When there is a third party that benefits from them, fuels them, and ensures they do not end. Who is this third party? Often, it is a third party seeking to destroy its rivals by making them fight, so that it can rule. Or it is an external occupying force seeking to establish a foothold in a specific geographical area.

Colonial Britain has always been adept at creating strife and provoking conflicts as a prelude to partition, which serves as the key to imposing control. India is home to thousands of religions and sects with different ethnicities, and we never hear of them fighting for any reason. When Britain came and occupied it, resistance movements emerged. In order to eliminate the resistance, Britain fueled religious strife, and the Islamists formed a united front. Before leaving, it granted them a large part of India's vast territory to create a new country, born by British rule. Pakistan is part of India, and both peoples know this fact well. India and Pakistan are not the only examples. Wherever a region was colonized by Britain, you will find divisions and disputes, whether over borders or entire disputed territories.

That is still true in the USA.

We still  have deep divisions in the various states.

I would argue the idea of sanctuary states for illegal immigration is a riff on the civil war we had in the 1860s.  Which was fostered by England cotton use gown with slaves.

[asriloni]

It seems india vs pakistan gives domino impact to the BRICS. I'm watching my tv this morning, and find the news says that India is considering to leave from BRICS. It's because of China who could not be neutral, and stand for Pakistan instead of them.

It's not only that. India is also refusing the de-dolarization strategy, and stand for their connection with US. I think the leaves of India won't be a good news for BRICS.

I still predict more domino effect to come. 

[Iranus]

It seems india vs pakistan gives domino impact to the BRICS. I'm watching my tv this morning, and find the news says that India is considering to leave from BRICS. It's because of China who could not be neutral, and stand for Pakistan instead of them.

It's not only that. India is also refusing the de-dolarization strategy, and stand for their connection with US. I think the leaves of India won't be a good news for BRICS.

I still predict more domino effect to come. 

It is true that India is at odds with some BRICS members such as not supporting the idea of ​​creating a common currency and de-dollarization, border conflicts with China, or Pakistan. But there is no official information that India is considering leaving BRICS, it is all just rumors.

But I don't think they will leave bloc because they also benefit a lot from BRICS from economic to military. Don't forget that they have very close ties with Russia, they depend on Russian oil and military because 70% of India's military equipment is supplied by Russia. Russia is also their largest energy supplier, accounting for 40%, so leaving BRICS would cause a rift in this relationship and would not be beneficial for the Indian economy at this point in time.