India vs Pakistan

[Bitcoin Smith]

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/

If we go deep into the religious it always end up in shit hole, people say India is a Hindu country but the reality is there's no religion called Hinduism as many people presume, people who follow the Hindusm will have difference of opinions if we ask someone from northern state and one from Southern State, even Hindus considers not every Hindu is same because they believe only certain people deserved to be lived while all others are just born to serve the one at top.

Anyway India was never a country either before British came and they just segregated people into major groups for their convenience once they invaded hundreds of nations, dynasties and Empires.

If you ask me British is what caused all these mess in the first place.

[Olatundespo]

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. 

I have not seen the information you have provided yet. If India withdraws from BRICS, it will try to maintain good relations with the United States again. The US administration will also want to get India closer as a friendly country, although the two countries have recently had hostile relations over tariff policy and immigration issues. In addition, there are serious allegations of human rights violations against India and the UN Human Rights Organization has been accusing it of persecuting people of different religions. It is true that state-sponsored persecution of religious minorities in India is increasing and religious places of worship are being destroyed. If the Indian Ministry of Foreign Affairs strategically wants to maintain good relations with the US administration, their decision to leave BRICS may be good, but not maintaining good relations with neighboring countries is a bad example for India.

I think if BRICS could have implemented a strong financial circle and established an independent currency system against the dollar, then the socio-economic situation of those countries would have improved immensely and dependence on the dollar could have been reduced. Donald Trump has taken a stand against the creation of such a cooperative organization and has threatened to impose additional tariffs and restrictions on BRICS countries.

[pooya87]

I'm watching my tv this morning, and find the news says that India is considering to leave from BRICS.

This type of doctrine that some countries (like Turkey and India) use is what we call "Pendulum Doctrine". You will see them play on both sides. For example you see Turkey as part of NATO (a Western thing) while geographically being in Asia and a Muslim majority country. We have India that is part of BRICS but participates in G7 (a completely Western thing against BRICS) and is part of G20 thing.

Countries with such policies will never "leave" either side. They will remain a member of all sides thinking it benefits them the most while suffering the consequences of this silly little doctrine (eg. the Turkish very high inflation for many years) because they don't belong to anything and most importantly it makes them look untrustworthy.

[Fortify]

With tensions rising between India and Pakistan, how would an all out war between these nuclear powers impact crypto markets and global finance? Short term crash or flight to digital assets?

War only brings destruction and is good for neither country, in fact China does everything they can to stoke division between these two nations because it keeps rival region powers weak. I'd say that India and Pakistan are culturally quite similar, but get involved in petty disputes that occasionally blow up in a spectacular way. Any time war happens, especially between two nuclear powers, it is likely to create a bit of a dip in the markets as investors try to determine whether to reallocate their portfolios away from a danger zone. Keeping a strong economy is actually a good reason not to go to war, Russia is in the middle of it's invasion right now and has lowered itself so many rungs down the economic ladder, they can paint a rosy picture by producing tanks (that get destroyed rather quickly) in a war economy, but it doesn't actually add value and eventually drains all reserves.

[MusaPk]

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.

If you look at bigger picture then whenever Britain gave any country an independence or left the region after there rule is over they left a conflict to destabilise the region forever. The current conflict of Kashmir between India and Pakistan, the creation of illegal state of Israel and displacement of Palestinians from there native cities , the Cyprus issue are are all created by Britain deliberately. There is proverb about this Britain behaviour that "If two fish are fighting in a river, a long-legged Englishman has just passed by".

Kashmir is now one of the most heavily militarised zone in the world and both India, Pakistan are spending billions of dollars on this conflict. The rivalry between India and Pakistan has gone out of control and now it's not possible for both these countries to normalise there relations, which is very unfortunate. Only if government of both countries realise this fact that there rivalry is just helping the big powers in selling there weapons. The wars and military spending's by both countries could be used to lift the living standard of millions of people in the both countries.   

[SATWAT]

With tensions rising between India and Pakistan, how would an all out war between these nuclear powers impact crypto markets and global finance? Short term crash or flight to digital assets?

War only brings destruction and is good for neither country, in fact China does everything they can to stoke division between these two nations because it keeps rival region powers weak. I'd say that India and Pakistan are culturally quite similar, but get involved in petty disputes that occasionally blow up in a spectacular way. Any time war happens, especially between two nuclear powers, it is likely to create a bit of a dip in the markets as investors try to determine whether to reallocate their portfolios away from a danger zone. Keeping a strong economy is actually a good reason not to go to war, Russia is in the middle of it's invasion right now and has lowered itself so many rungs down the economic ladder, they can paint a rosy picture by producing tanks (that get destroyed rather quickly) in a war economy, but it doesn't actually add value and eventually drains all reserves.

Agreed war always brings more destruction and problems while mostly common peoples faced more consequences things like these are mostly happen due to religious impact on country which is currently faced by India.
Recently few attacks on civilians increase conflict in this region and things gone on high level of war with few things which also needed to be highlighted ignored by many firstly India started shouting at Pakistan without any solid proof or thing secondly this happens from 250 kilometers from border inside India even they have 8 lakh army persons in this area mean fail of security and intelligence agencies.
Thirdly they were prepared or pushed for this attack even thinking without last result, and they faced humiliation but still media trial and many other things are going by them mean this was all preplanned, but they never think about this side which happened.

[coupable]

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.

If you look at bigger picture then whenever Britain gave any country an independence or left the region after there rule is over they left a conflict to destabilise the region forever. The current conflict of Kashmir between India and Pakistan, the creation of illegal state of Israel and displacement of Palestinians from there native cities , the Cyprus issue are are all created by Britain deliberately. There is proverb about this Britain behaviour that "If two fish are fighting in a river, a long-legged Englishman has just passed by".

Kashmir is now one of the most heavily militarised zone in the world and both India, Pakistan are spending billions of dollars on this conflict. The rivalry between India and Pakistan has gone out of control and now it's not possible for both these countries to normalise there relations, which is very unfortunate. Only if government of both countries realise this fact that there rivalry is just helping the big powers in selling there weapons. The wars and military spending's by both countries could be used to lift the living standard of millions of people in the both countries.   

The region will not calm down as long as there are those who profit from the crisis. And as you mentioned in the example I really liked, by the way, as long as there is an Englishman in the picture, don't expect to see peace anytime soon. The Englishman has evolved and is now wearing American, Chinese, and even Russian clothing, since everyone is forced to be a party to the conflict that is to choose an ally in the conflict according to their interests, thus prolonging the war.
War is a full economic cycle from which arms manufacturers and sellers benefit, and through which the inciting countries achieve geostrategic goals. However, its impact on local economies is disastrous because the countries in conflict drain their resources to purchase weapons that will be used to destroy the resources of the enemy, which is also a country with its own economy and resources.

Kashmir and Palestine are two clear examples, but they are not the exception, because every place once colonized by Britain has today become a conflict zone. In the Arab region, we have the Palestinian case, which is a British creation. A little further north, there is the Kurdish issue, which Britain left displaced on the borders of four countries (Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria) after the Agreement to divide the Ottoman Empire following its fall in WWI. It is one of the most hushed-up issues in history, and the Kurds continue to resist persecution from all sides on their way to realizing their dream of an independent country.

[Rustam Meraj]

I'm watching my tv this morning, and find the news says that India is considering to leave from BRICS.

This type of doctrine that some countries (like Turkey and India) use is what we call "Pendulum Doctrine". You will see them play on both sides. For example you see Turkey as part of NATO (a Western thing) while geographically being in Asia and a Muslim majority country. We have India that is part of BRICS but participates in G7 (a completely Western thing against BRICS) and is part of G20 thing.

Countries with such policies will never "leave" either side. They will remain a member of all sides thinking it benefits them the most while suffering the consequences of this silly little doctrine (eg. the Turkish very high inflation for many years) because they don't belong to anything and most importantly it makes them look untrustworthy.

That is right countries like Turkey and India handle their relationships with other nations. You call it Pendulum Doctrine which means they try to work with many different groups even if those groups seem to be against each other. These countries do this because they believe it helps them most giving them more freedom and different partners. They think it lets them get benefits from all sides and not be stuck with just one group.
And you also pointed out problems with these double sided work. Other countries will say that they do not belong to one side and will say them untrustworthy like you already mentioned. This can make their relationships difficult. And also if they will try to satisfy many different groups so this can lead them to economic problems like Turkey high inflation. So while it is way to balance interests it also comes with its own set of difficulties and risks.

[dezoel]

The region will not calm down as long as there are those who profit from the crisis. And as you mentioned in the example I really liked, by the way, as long as there is an Englishman in the picture, don't expect to see peace anytime soon. The Englishman has evolved and is now wearing American, Chinese, and even Russian clothing, since everyone is forced to be a party to the conflict that is to choose an ally in the conflict according to their interests, thus prolonging the war.
War is a full economic cycle from which arms manufacturers and sellers benefit, and through which the inciting countries achieve geostrategic goals. However, its impact on local economies is disastrous because the countries in conflict drain their resources to purchase weapons that will be used to destroy the resources of the enemy, which is also a country with its own economy and resources.

Kashmir and Palestine are two clear examples, but they are not the exception, because every place once colonized by Britain has today become a conflict zone. In the Arab region, we have the Palestinian case, which is a British creation. A little further north, there is the Kurdish issue, which Britain left displaced on the borders of four countries (Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria) after the Agreement to divide the Ottoman Empire following its fall in WWI. It is one of the most hushed-up issues in history, and the Kurds continue to resist persecution from all sides on their way to realizing their dream of an independent country.

Sometime back this region was called world by name of Golden Bird because this is full of sources and also one of the business hub, but after arrival of England things take changes they looted here all best things even it's still in $ Trillions.

As domestic power increase, and they have to leave due to domestic awareness and force they have done few things which are the biggest conflicts and already have too much bloodbath even now few new big players are also having their own interest, and they are using their own intelligence sources to set fire many proofs are available but sadly no good leader to give them better direction.

Kashmir is one of the hot topic due to it's importance as many rivers are coming from here and it's also one of the most beautiful regions in world which can generate Billions of USD in tourism but it's never happen and peoples are killing each other arms are coming which are worth Billions of USD every year and developed countries are enjoying with this funding.

[coupable]

The region will not calm down as long as there are those who profit from the crisis. And as you mentioned in the example I really liked, by the way, as long as there is an Englishman in the picture, don't expect to see peace anytime soon. The Englishman has evolved and is now wearing American, Chinese, and even Russian clothing, since everyone is forced to be a party to the conflict that is to choose an ally in the conflict according to their interests, thus prolonging the war.
War is a full economic cycle from which arms manufacturers and sellers benefit, and through which the inciting countries achieve geostrategic goals. However, its impact on local economies is disastrous because the countries in conflict drain their resources to purchase weapons that will be used to destroy the resources of the enemy, which is also a country with its own economy and resources.

Kashmir and Palestine are two clear examples, but they are not the exception, because every place once colonized by Britain has today become a conflict zone. In the Arab region, we have the Palestinian case, which is a British creation. A little further north, there is the Kurdish issue, which Britain left displaced on the borders of four countries (Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria) after the Agreement to divide the Ottoman Empire following its fall in WWI. It is one of the most hushed-up issues in history, and the Kurds continue to resist persecution from all sides on their way to realizing their dream of an independent country.

Sometime back this region was called world by name of Golden Bird because this is full of sources and also one of the business hub, but after arrival of England things take changes they looted here all best things even it's still in $ Trillions.

As domestic power increase, and they have to leave due to domestic awareness and force they have done few things which are the biggest conflicts and already have too much bloodbath even now few new big players are also having their own interest, and they are using their own intelligence sources to set fire many proofs are available but sadly no good leader to give them better direction.

Kashmir is one of the hot topic due to it's importance as many rivers are coming from here and it's also one of the most beautiful regions in world which can generate Billions of USD in tourism but it's never happen and peoples are killing each other arms are coming which are worth Billions of USD every year and developed countries are enjoying with this funding.

Let's not forget that governments are the primary cause of conflicts, not the people at war with each other. Hindus and Muslims have lived together for centuries without conflict and continue to do so in India, which still has a large Muslim population. I've heard young people posting videos on TikTok, Facebook, and other social media platforms rejecting war and denying that there was any justifiable reason for it. The will of the two peoples for peaceful coexistence is the only way for peace to be set in this region. As for the governments in both countries, they are known for their corruption and subservience to hostile Western powers that manipulate the situation from behind the scenes.

Economically, no party benefits even if they win the war, because these are wars of attrition and there are no winners. The economic beneficiaries are arms dealers, whether individuals, companies, or countries, as well as those who will sign reconstruction contracts later after the war destroys the infrastructure of both countries. They also include the World Bank and the lending agencies that will lend to both countries to repay the companies that signed the reconstruction contracts.

[Rustam Meraj]

Let's not forget that governments are the primary cause of conflicts, not the people at war with each other. Hindus and Muslims have lived together for centuries without conflict and continue to do so in India, which still has a large Muslim population. I've heard young people posting videos on TikTok, Facebook, and other social media platforms rejecting war and denying that there was any justifiable reason for it. The will of the two peoples for peaceful coexistence is the only way for peace to be set in this region. As for the governments in both countries, they are known for their corruption and subservience to hostile Western powers that manipulate the situation from behind the scenes.

Economically, no party benefits even if they win the war, because these are wars of attrition and there are no winners. The economic beneficiaries are arms dealers, whether individuals, companies, or countries, as well as those who will sign reconstruction contracts later after the war destroys the infrastructure of both countries. They also include the World Bank and the lending agencies that will lend to both countries to repay the companies that signed the reconstruction contracts.

Not even this if we will see now in other countries like UAE and other Arab countries. So we will see that many Hindu and Muslims are living in one room. They are sharing everything with each other.
And for now I think the war is only Politics. Like in this Pakistan vs India case Modi always start a little conflict to win his next election. They just hit people emotionally to get votes for the victory. But now when I scroll the social media so I am looking that Indian nation has totally rejected Modi. And his tactics are not working at this time.

[SATWAT]

Let's not forget that governments are the primary cause of conflicts, not the people at war with each other. Hindus and Muslims have lived together for centuries without conflict and continue to do so in India, which still has a large Muslim population. I've heard young people posting videos on TikTok, Facebook, and other social media platforms rejecting war and denying that there was any justifiable reason for it. The will of the two peoples for peaceful coexistence is the only way for peace to be set in this region. As for the governments in both countries, they are known for their corruption and subservience to hostile Western powers that manipulate the situation from behind the scenes.

Economically, no party benefits even if they win the war, because these are wars of attrition and there are no winners. The economic beneficiaries are arms dealers, whether individuals, companies, or countries, as well as those who will sign reconstruction contracts later after the war destroys the infrastructure of both countries. They also include the World Bank and the lending agencies that will lend to both countries to repay the companies that signed the reconstruction contracts.

Not even this if we will see now in other countries like UAE and other Arab countries. So we will see that many Hindu and Muslims are living in one room. They are sharing everything with each other.
And for now I think the war is only Politics. Like in this Pakistan vs India case Modi always start a little conflict to win his next election. They just hit people emotionally to get votes for the victory. But now when I scroll the social media so I am looking that Indian nation has totally rejected Modi. And his tactics are not working at this time.

Indians and Pakistanis were living and few are still living in same rooms in many countries because they are doing jobs with no personal interest and rules and laws in these countries are strict for things which create problems.
If anyone creates problem they will quickly deport him which could be harmful for him and his family, so things are balanced but in their own countries both are not rule of law due to religious differences and things are happening openly peoples killing each other in the name of religious.
Worst thing even many those understand consequences of things like these are not able to handle this which is increasing hate crimes both faced serious loses in recent conflict and both are victorious as well because this is all about politics game tension is still around and things are not going to have better solution due to recent elections in India which is always had things like these near election for having power.

[slapper]

~

Let's not forget that governments are the primary cause of conflicts, not the people at war with each other. Hindus and Muslims have lived together for centuries without conflict and continue to do so in India, which still has a large Muslim population. I've heard young people posting videos on TikTok, Facebook, and other social media platforms rejecting war and denying that there was any justifiable reason for it. The will of the two peoples for peaceful coexistence is the only way for peace to be set in this region. As for the governments in both countries, they are known for their corruption and subservience to hostile Western powers that manipulate the situation from behind the scenes.

Economically, no party benefits even if they win the war, because these are wars of attrition and there are no winners. The economic beneficiaries are arms dealers, whether individuals, companies, or countries, as well as those who will sign reconstruction contracts later after the war destroys the infrastructure of both countries. They also include the World Bank and the lending agencies that will lend to both countries to repay the companies that signed the reconstruction contracts.

Two governments, both structurally incentivized to posture, escalate, and claim “national interest,” while the real stakes are financial flows, not border stones. War as an “economic event” is almost never a net positive. Unless you count the orgy of profits for arms contractors, the shadowy players in the $10B India-Pakistan “informal” trade, and the IMF endless lending carousel. The tragedy is that, from a systems view, the public desire for peace is statistically irrelevant next to elite incentives. War only reliable harvest is debt, trauma, and fat global bond yields. The kids on TikTok posting anti-war memes? In a hundred years, their uploads may be the most meaningful diplomatic documents of the era. Meanwhile, the arms merchants and IFIs write history in term of money, not humanity

[coupable]

~

Let's not forget that governments are the primary cause of conflicts, not the people at war with each other. Hindus and Muslims have lived together for centuries without conflict and continue to do so in India, which still has a large Muslim population. I've heard young people posting videos on TikTok, Facebook, and other social media platforms rejecting war and denying that there was any justifiable reason for it. The will of the two peoples for peaceful coexistence is the only way for peace to be set in this region. As for the governments in both countries, they are known for their corruption and subservience to hostile Western powers that manipulate the situation from behind the scenes.

Economically, no party benefits even if they win the war, because these are wars of attrition and there are no winners. The economic beneficiaries are arms dealers, whether individuals, companies, or countries, as well as those who will sign reconstruction contracts later after the war destroys the infrastructure of both countries. They also include the World Bank and the lending agencies that will lend to both countries to repay the companies that signed the reconstruction contracts.

Two governments, both structurally incentivized to posture, escalate, and claim “national interest,” while the real stakes are financial flows, not border stones. War as an “economic event” is almost never a net positive. Unless you count the orgy of profits for arms contractors, the shadowy players in the $10B India-Pakistan “informal” trade, and the IMF endless lending carousel. The tragedy is that, from a systems view, the public desire for peace is statistically irrelevant next to elite incentives. War only reliable harvest is debt, trauma, and fat global bond yields. The kids on TikTok posting anti-war memes? In a hundred years, their uploads may be the most meaningful diplomatic documents of the era. Meanwhile, the arms merchants and IFIs write history in term of money, not humanity

Well, when is this supposed to end? Clearly, peace agreements and de-escalation treaties are useless, as anyone or any party can provoke another conflict. Nothing justifies regional neighbors spending billions of dollars to produce nuclear weapons to serve the interests of other countries waging proxy wars, while their domestic economies suffer from countless crises, in addition to environmental pollution, demographic explosion, and resource shortages.
It is also worth noting that India is supported by the United States, which confronts China, which supports Pakistan. However, at the same time, India and China are members of BRICS, an economic bloc that aims to establish a global balance in the face of American and Western encroachment on the global economy.