Public opinion is largely positive with a high regard for India's leadership and proactive role in disaster risk reduction on an international platform. Admiration is directed towards the educational efforts and strategies being employed, though some discussions stray towards unrelated geopolitical issues. Overall, public sentiment appreciates India's position as a model of effective disaster management, despite occasional criticisms related to other national matters.

India

GPDRR

I think your premise is flawed. Countries don't develop because of democracy. Usually the latter comes after economic development already happened, usually under autocratic regimes. Asian Tigers like South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore developed massively under authoritarian regimes before eventually embracing more democratic ideals. China's economic miracle, still ongoing, is surely not because of democracy, as harsh as it sounds.

cnio14

India is a *large* country and the development is uneven across regions. Different regions, ethnic groups, languages and geographical features necessarily lead to uneven development in the absence of a strong central government. China has a strong central government. India in comparison does not, because a federal/decentralized approach works best to reconcile the many different groups living on the subcontinent. China's system lends itself to better central government because the North China Plain is its most populous and agriculturally rich area, allowing outward projection of power, and a wide majority of its people are Han and speak Mandarin or Cantonese. Therefore, centralized government is far easier to implement and strengthen. India lacks this, it's divided by ethnicity, caste, religion, language and class, and these differences exacerbate geographic divisions as well to make it a country that needs a different approach. Of note also, India largely skipped the industrialization process that the United States underwent in the 19th century and that China has been undergoing since the era of Deng Xiaoping. India is showing that development *may* be possible without large-scale industrialization, but it's too early to tell. Industrialization leads to urbanization which leads to national infrastructure development, communication development, and much more sustainable birth rates. 

Then you add the legacy of the caste system and effects of British colonialism and you get this country where there are wildly rich people living in one place and a few miles away people have no sanitation. Speaking of sanitation, India's development is mirroring the rapid, uneven development of a lot of developing countries, like Iran and South Korea during the Cold War- both of whom had paved roads, villas and automobiles, but basic sanitation and social services didn't come until later. India is *still* trying to combat disease and lay country-wide infrastructure and sanitation. Finally, goes without saying, India is one of the world's most corrupt countries. This hampers its democracy and when so much money is being embezzled and ending up in inefficient, corrupt uses, development can lag behind.

All that being said it's a far cry from the days after independence. It's come a long way and if it keeps going, it's bound to eventually get there.

UMK3RunButton

Some of it is because India remains an absolute pain in the ass to do business with. I work in intl freight ops, I handle imports from India all the time. They are never without some sort of problem. Roads in Gujarat that become impassible due to rain. Factories randomly cancelling pickup dates. Shippers that refuse to answer their email or pick up their phone. Remarkably poor data entry. Port delays. Product quality issues, onerous license and export formalities, and high costs. The Indian government collects a 16% tax on pretty much every transaction we do there.

I handle shipments from China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brazil, even Kenya that don’t come with that much headache. India has some very fundamental infrastructure and regulatory reform issues to sort out before they can hope to have a competitive industrial sector. Certain cultural norms around business practices are an issue as well. Nobody else is calling me to haggle every single line on an invoice or renege on agreed rates once they have the cargo.

I say all this as someone who is generally a fan of India with many, many friends from there.

watkykjynaaier

[deleted]

Democracy and economic development are two separate things. I think that US propaganda has tried to link the two concepts implicitly, and for good reason. An overwhelming majority of people care more about their personal economic situation than they do about who is in government or how their government is structured. Democracy is popular as long as people think it will bring them prosperity, but as soon as they have prosperity they stop caring as much about how their government is structured.

reddit_man_6969

Weirdly shocked how not one person has mentioned that India had socialist economy for years till it opened up in 1991 and the process of reforms has been slow because of a mixture of it being a democracy, corruption and infrastructure.

India is one of very few countries that have consistently grown above 4% since the 50s. It's growth is consistent even if it's not always incredibly rapid or at the same pace. This is a country with mutliple languages, ethnicities, religions etc. It's difficult to get things moving when there's so many different parts.

China had some specific advantages India didn't, and India squandered a lot of possible opportunities in the 80s like semiconductors and not being friend of the US and leaning towards the Soviets further restricted its ability to grow in the 20th century.

LATAM countries have been independent for longer than India has been and while they are ahead of India, they're probably not as far ahead as they ideally should be given the headstart. 

South East Asia is a better example and for virtually all of them, they've been under a dictatorship for some period of time and India in the 90s was still much more closed off relative to them.

Nomustang

To just put it bluntly india is the size of whole European and African population put together with over 1000 different languages and cultures.

International_Tax574

You don’t seem to understand how economic development works, you need to industrialise and grow at high rates for at least 50 years to become a developed country. India only liberalises its economy in 1991 and it has been growing fast since then but will need another 20-30 years to reach upper income

CoolDude_7532

China and India are both incredibly corrupt. However, in China the central government has the power to make things happen whereas in India the local governments have the power. Basically, in China, corruption speeds actions and in India it slows it down. 

Unhappy-Room4946

Foreign direct investment are not going to come with the level of corruption and the Byzantine bureaucracy and regulations that will stop you every step of the way.

I am not disputing that India is a democracy. But many other countries are democracies and it doesn't make them democratic in all regards.

Look at the whealthiest companies and individuals in India and tell me with at straight face that those people raised to those position only because of merit.

Europeans and Americans are queuing to start production lines in India. But they won't find India welcoming most of  the time. And I am not talking about mining, or environmental and human rights regulations we also have at home. Please keep those regulations.

andr386

How many of the countries you have referenced were ruled by a literal corporation for a century? How many were forcibly **deindustrialised** over the course of 200 years of distant foreign rule? How many went from holding 25% of the planet's GDP to something negligible? My grandmother, who is still with us, is listed as a British subject on her birth certificate. Colonisation is not some aspect of a distant past, it is still within living memory.

The fact that a country of a hundred, a thousand languages, ethnicities, castes, and tribes, birthed in the blood-soaked atrocity of Partition, with an average lifespan in the 40s and a literacy rate of 10%, did not descend further into a balkanised orgy of chaos and bloodshed is an unparalleled monument to the strength of the Indian state apparatus. 

You're missing the forest for the trees. India is a miracle because it has all the things you mentioned like democracy, rule of law, free speech, and vaguely functional infrastructure. It's a miracle that it isn't something more akin to the DRC or CAR.

Compare India with countries that had a similar per capita income and population density   
(with a 100 million plus population), not Scandinavia or the former USSR. Having been to the  
Central Asian countries several times, I can assure you its nothing like Norway.   
What may be more relevant is the face at which countries like India are:  
- Reducing absolute poverty.   
- Reducing population growth.   
India has made several mistakes in its economic growth, but democracy has enabled it to take   
corrective actions, ensure rule of law to a higher extent than in dictatorships and keep very   
diverse groups united. There is no evidence that our neighbors, who have switched between   
democracy and dictatorships, have done better with a dictatorship.

Dean_46

Too many people and different ethnic groups under one umbrella, and not enough natural resources to go around and not an effective central government to preside over it all.

Poor baseline development at time of independence, unity issues due to partition with Pakistan, lack of western support to punish their non aligned stance during Cold war, large population that requires a lot of growth before significant results can be realized and also makes governance more difficult.

runsongas

Education and gdp per capita. The per capita part is important. You can educate a ton and make lots of people rich but it needs to be large in proportion to your population before you can build the tax base to support development

Synaps4

Short version - US and Europe were pro capitalism, Eastern world was most socialist and communist. And India post Independence was pushed in arms of Eastern world.

*Summary*
Post Independence, India showed preference to be capitalist and align with US and approached them. But it considered Indians and India beneath it. India has since then allied with the USSR and then Russia. 
So the ideology has not been capitalist.

***Pre Independence***
India started poor. Like very very poor. 
The absence of a Indy war was accompanied by the absolute emptying of coffers, destroying all industry. There is enough written out there on how one of the most profitable business was shipping cheaply and forcibly cotton from India to Europe and finished textiles sold back to Indians. Local millenium old artisanal ecosystems were destroyed. The same thing was repeated in all industries destroying India from it's roots. This took India from being responsible for 15-25% world GDP to less than 2-3%. There is some economic paper which puts the total loot of India by the British to £ 45 trn. Yup trillion. Before British left there were 15-17 famines killing millions of Indians.

***Post Independence - upto 1980's***
Absence of sufficient international trade because of socialist policies 

***1980's to now***
US and Europe chose China as it's manufacturing outsourcing destination and India as software and bpo outsourcing destination. Manufacturing had many more trillions than software.


From such a starting point, it's not surprising that India is still so underdeveloped despite being a free, democratic nation?

DesiBail

Indians I've dealt with are very egotistical and strive to differentiate themselves form others with them superior.  So you can imagine with this attitude the people at the top are constantly enriching themselves at the expense of others (corruption).  All my indian acquanitances agree corruption is a huge problem in India and essentially create a huge barrier to efficient capital movement.

ChesterDoraemon

Another point I haven’t seen mentioned is that the Indian government’s budget has always been suppressed. On independence the Bank of England defaulted on India’s war loans amounting to 5000 tons of gold vanishing, which was worth 5 billion dollars then (roughly 70 billion today). Then on top of that the taxable population was limited to urban centres as rural taxation was difficult. Lots of undocumented people, lots of remote places, lots of cash/barter transactions, not a lot of people were using banks to store their wealth so it wasn’t on the books as taxable, so to speak. Then on top of that the neighbours were aggressive, and constantly declaring wars in each decade, drawing on a lot of funds that could’ve gone to education, infrastructure, etc.

TorontoGiraffe

India will not be China, or Japan and Germany, coz cognitive diferences.

Away_Comparison_8810

Sometimes a country needs someone who is focused on rapid development economics to jumpstart it. I look at the examples of south korea and japan as pretty important examples. But the US had its keynesian days as well. 

It may be that a temporary command economy is what they need for a little while, then they can liberalize after about 5-10 years and all will be well and good. 

What makes that really complicated is the amount of hindu nationalism because you can have that Keynesianism and temporary developmental command economy but if it comes with nationalism, it may start to look like fascism.

Optimistbott

I recommend that you listen to the Red Line Podcast, Episode 113: [https://www.theredlinepodcast.com/post/episode-113-can-india-replace-china-in-the-global-supply-chain](https://www.theredlinepodcast.com/post/episode-113-can-india-replace-china-in-the-global-supply-chain)

&gt;India's path to becoming a global economic superpower like China is hindered by several factors, including limited technical and financial capacity, persistent unemployment, and challenges in attracting foreign investment due to bureaucracy and regulatory issues. India's large GDP does not translate into high per capita income, indicating a gap in economic development and individual purchasing power. India's potential to launch global infrastructure initiatives similar to China's Belt and Road Initiative is constrained by these limitations.

The podcast itself goes into a lot of details. There is not a single factor, but rather a combination of many. Spoiler: It has nothing to do with its colonial past. Japan, South Korea, and Germany were completely destroyed by the war and have very few natural resources.

leto78

Literally, about 4,000 continuous years of the absolute worst corruption on earth is all, otherwise, they've totally done an amazing job. I mean that unironically; they've done a great job. The whole country is insanely corrupt and has been since before most other countries in existence today were even born yet.

Significant-Cod-9871

India had socialism until the 1990s, which throttled economic growth. Don't forget that China only started growing rapidly once it switched to a fascist economic system.

Hot_Damn99

Democracy is a hindrance towards rapid economic growth, not a factor favouring it

leo_sk5

I have often wondered if the deeply ingrained caste system has had anything to do with it.

ConsiderationBorn231

Starter comment: The Indian military has launched a series of air strikes on 9 sites located across Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, according to a statement made by the Indian government.

“A little while ago, the Indian armed forces launched ‘OPERATION SINDOOR’, hitting terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir from where terrorist attacks against India have been planned and directed,” according to the statement.

The Indian government continues in saying that no Pakistani military facilities were included in these attacks.  The Pakistani government has denounced these attacks, and has vowed to retaliate.

These strikes come following recent escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir region, following a terrorist attack on Hindu tourists in Indian-controlled Kashmir last month.  The attacks were committed by a Muslim terrorist group called “The Resistance Front”, who claimed responsibility for the attacks.

With Pakistan vowing to retaliate against the strikes, what do you think will come next for India and Pakistan?  Do you think this recent escalation will cool, and tensions simmer?  Or do you think that India and Pakistan will continue escalating, potentially risking another all out war between each other over the Kashmir region?

TheStrangestOfKings

I have long said that, if there’s ever going to be a nuclear war that ends civilization, the India-Pakistan conflict will be the one that does it. This is deeply concerning.

Free_Puff_Daddy

The ball is in Pakistan's court now.

India did a limited strike and said it was only at terrorists rather than Pakistan proper.

Pakistan can either let it go and then renegotiate the Indus treaty in a peaceful (enough) time, or retaliate and proceed to get clobbered and lose all land east of the Indus.

BolbyB

It will be interesting to see if some of these regional conflicts start having their poles align and cause coalescence into actual factionalism.

Saint_Judas

damn, did they actually bomb the Bin Laden presidential library in pakistan?

parrano357

Well that’s concerning to say the least. I’m hoping both sides can show some restraint and dial it down. The last thing the world needs is a hot war between two nuclear powers with a grudge

Mundane-Drawing-3662

So sounds like they’re going to war. 

Now, Trump claims that Ukraine would never have happened had he been in office because, you know, everyone respects him so much. So how come a brand new war is cropping up under his administration?

xantharia

About time, every country has a duty to response to terrorism threats.

jvproton

Is there any point ? I don't find this decision mindful at all

Agitated_Ad4345

Is it still safe to travel to Kashmir in December?

MySunrise_

Maybe if Donny wants that peace prize that he thinks is owed to him - this would be the perfect opportunity for a third party leader to broker peace.

mikey-likes_it

Does anyone have any confidence that Trump will handle this situation diplomatically or try to de-eacalate things. I feel like the world is a hotbed that is just waiting for an event to ignite it. 

ArcBounds

This war would never have happened if Harris was in office. Even sleepy old Joe Biden would have been able to stop it.

Every1HatesChris

/u/Even-Ad-9930 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1kjl02e/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_india_is_greatly_in_the/), in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

DeltaBot

India is a largely secular country, you are right there. Things have been getting a bit worse lately, but big picture - India’s been an open and diverse democracy since 1947.

Kashmir is a tricky situation because it not only relates to a border conflict, but also reflects the larger Hindu-Muslim animosity - basically stems from it.

But to address your point about India being in the right, I would say it very much depends on where you are getting your information and how accurate and credible it is. Mainstream media narratives usually associate Muslim-majority countries to terrorism and conflict. So while Pakistan can do a lot more regarding terrorism within the country, it’s usually more complex and deeper than just that. It’s a very poor country and hugely disaster-prone. I don’t think the country has recovered from a massive flood it faced a few years ago. But yesterday it received an IMF. And the pro-Indian side of social media was so quick to link the loan to terrorism, when it’s actually helping people in need. Again, Pakistan can do a lot better.

I think both countries are at fault. At the time of independence from the British, Kashmir was given the choice of joining Pakistan, India or staying independent. The then-king needed time to decide (to essentially hold a referendum) and asked both countries if they could maintain status quo. Pakistan said yes, but India wasn’t very interested. Eventually the people of Pakistan and its army invaded Kashmir, which forced the King to seek help from India and formally join the country. Hasty decisions taken by both sides, but it’s the people ultimately getting affected, always.

Hindu-Muslim frictions go beyond this conflict. While there was always some tension, it was the British Empire that sowed conflict between Hindus and Muslims to prevent a united opposition to its rule. And that grew over years and led to the creation of India and Pakistan (and Bangladesh). Artificial borders drawn by colonisers continue to cause problems for local communities and countries today.

Understanding world politics and conflicts isn’t about taking sides. It’s about viewing actions in context; and each context is different. We have tend to put different and varied types of events or situations around the world into certain categories that we’re not willing to budge from. And these categories influences the way we look at each side. Pakistan supporting terrorism? That’s a narrow view of this. What would be more helpful would be to look at why people in Pakistan are choosing violence, why are they attacking India, why is there hatred. There is always a source to a conflict, it doesn’t happen in a vacuum. The more we pick sides and say who’s right and wrong, the more we move away from that source.

Inner_Operation47

Both countries are in the wrong, Kashmir should be independent and then both India and Pakistan can stop bickering for centuries, it makes no sense and in the end, only the population suffer, die in bombings and live in poverty. With regional stability, you can see investments pouring in and people's lives improving rather than having fanatical wars.

India is actively being shaped as a Hindu nation state. Persecution of Sikhs, Christians, and Muslim minorities is common place. Indian democracy is increasingly representing mob rule with hateful rhetoric being prolific.

If you don’t believe me, have a scroll through mostly English-speaking Indian subs. There’s a massive hardline ethno-nationalist sentiment growing and increasingly shaping Indian politics. This would be a non-issue ethics aside if India wasn’t one of the most ethnically, linguistically and culturally diverse hubs on the planet.

The crux of your argument falls apart when you acknowledge that the people of Kashmir perceive the Indian state as an occupying state. 

AsterKando


To those who are still learning thank you. It’s refreshing to hear people admit they’re seeking understanding rather than shouting from fixed positions. That’s what we need more of.

You’re right: this conflict isn’t just about borders. It’s not just about Kashmir. It’s about how violence is used.And this is where Pakistan’s role becomes impossible to ignore.

India, for all its very real flaws and there are many is a secular democracy on paper and in practice, to a significant extent.
Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Parsis, and others have lived and thrived there for decades. Yes, there is hate speech, misuse of laws like 295A, and rising majoritarian rhetoric. But these are internal battles, and they are fought publicly through courts, protests, media, and elections. That’s democracy, messy as it is. 

Pakistan’s case is different. It has a long-documented history of harboring terror groups as strategic tools, not just against India, but even at the expense of its own stability.

Let’s zoom out. This is bigger than one attack or one airstrike. This is about decades of history, demographics, and hypocrisy: 

Pre-Partition, Kashmir was a princely state ruled by a Hindu king, Maharaja Hari Singh, despite its mixed population. For centuries, the region had a rich Hindu and Buddhist cultural foundation. Over time, Islam became dominant partly through peaceful conversions, but also through political and social pressures. So no, Kashmir was not originally Muslim territory.

At Partition in 1947, the Maharaja chose to accede to India under duress, as armed Pakistani tribal camps had infiltrated Kashmir. That triggered the first India-Pakistan war that India won, and ever since, Pakistan has claimed Kashmir simply because it’s Muslim-majority.

But here’s the contradiction:
If religion alone decides borders, then what about the 15% of Pakistan’s population that was Hindu in 1947? Today, they are less than 2%, wiped out by blasphemy laws, forced conversions, mob violence, and state-backed persecution.

Meanwhile in India:
- Muslims were ~9% of the population in 1947
- Today, they are 14%+ and growing though at a slower rate but that is not because of any special treatment, but because of access to education, healthcare, and urbanization. 
- Yes, India has issues: hate speech, 295A misuse, rising polarization. But Indian Muslims vote, run businesses, represent India internationally, and live under a Constitution that protects their rights.

Now let’s fast forward:
15 days ago, 26 innocent Hindu civilians were killed in Pahalgam, in yet another terror attack targeting Hindu tourists.

India responded with an airstrike.
Not on Pakistani civilians.
Not on the Pakistani military.
But on known terror camps across the border camps that have repeatedly bred extremist violence aimed at Indian civilians and forces.

And now?
Suddenly, Pakistani outlets and some Western media cry “escalation.”

They say:
“There are no terror camps in Pakistan.” Really?
- Osama bin Laden was found hiding in Abbottabad, next to a military base
- LeT and JeM leaders roam freely in Pakistan
- A Jaish-e-Mohammed leader was spotted at the funeral of those allegedly “civilians” killed in the recent strike

So let’s be clear: 
India didn’t strike Pakistan. India struck terrorism.

If anything, Pakistan should be relieved India is dismantling the same extremist networks that Pakistan’s own people fear, but their government won’t touch.

Meanwhile, Pakistan jails its own PM (Imran Khan), silences families like the Bhuttos, and crushes dissent that threatens the army or questions the status quo. 

This isn’t Hindu vs Muslim.
It’s India, a flawed but functioning democracy vs Pakistan, a military-run state using religion and terror as political tools.

India fights its battles in the open: through courts, protests, elections.
Pakistan fights through proxies and denies what the world already knows.

Let’s stop pretending this is a fair comparison. And let’s stop blaming India for defending its citizens while the real enablers of terror hide in plain sight.

Imaginary_Strike4744

Kashmiri people should decide their fate, not the other countries.

Sad_Fill_1149

I have been studying history my whole life. I'm in a masters program now and only a year or so ago did I start to really learn about this sometimes declared and something undeclared war that's been going on for nearly 80 years.

First off, I think it's wrong to only focus on India and Pakistan as it presents only nationality. The reality of this is that the conflict is fundamentally based on religion and culture. This includes Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists and even Atheists.

One thing I wrote in a thesis paper I put together a few semesters ago is that every side of the conflict has been very wrong many times and has been persecuted by other sides of this conflict, especially in pogroms which is a term usually meant for anti-Jewish riots but I am a Jew and I'm telling you, at least for me, it's fine to use the term in relation to violence against others groups.

Pretty much every religious group I mentioned in India and Pakistan has been the victim AND persecutor of a riot/pogrom at one time or another. Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and Buddhists have all been victims of this horrific religious violence while also being perpetrators throughout history.

Yes, I think you are right when it comes to who is right and who is wrong right now between India and Pakistan. Pakistan's government simply refuses to do enough to stop terrorism. One thing I was thinking about earlier today is that Pakistan, to this day, refuses to apologize for their role or even acknowledge the Bangladesh genocide.

I really can't stand when governments like Turkey and Pakistan insist that we all do something about their allegations of genocide against Israel but they can't even acknowledge what their own country did. It's hypocrisy at it's worst.

Let me finish with this: Religious violence is part of the history and present state of affairs for India and Pakistan and right now, I'm very worried that more pogroms could take place against Muslims in India and Hindus in Pakistan.

Some crappy/ rushed ceasefire isn't going to prevent that.

I hope everyone finds a way to stay safe.

Different-Chance-988

“I am not aware of a lot of the details of the India Pakistan conflict and am trying to gain a deeper understanding”

Just stop right there.  Do not decide to then make a big judgement  about a situation you don’t actually know anything about.  “I don’t know anything, but…”. Just don’t.  

Go read some books and get back to us.  

Grace_Alcock

&gt;I think there is a lot of information and evidence online which suggests that Pakistan government supports directly or indirectly the terrorism against India.

ummm. Osama Bin Laden was found chilling literally a stone-throw distance away from the PMA (Pakistan Military Academy), the West Point of Pakistan.

TeriMaaKiLalChudiyan

Answer: To everyone saying that Kashmir is the reason for animosity is incorrect. The contested muslim majority area in Kashmir is small percentage of what you see in the map as Jammu and Kashmir. Even in Kargil district there is sizable population of buddhists and hindus. Even Kashmir valley had a sizable hindu population 80 years ago. It does not make sense to fight 80 years for 30000 sq km area (150 km \* 200 km). It is entirely possible to solve it on the table, it is some 13% of the area that you see in the map of J&amp;K.

As soon as Kashmir becomes part of Pakistan, the military of Pakistan will point their guns on other states like Punjab.  It is just plain animosity with india and Kashmir itself has little to do with the conflict. They were doing militancy and Punjab when they could.  Peace with india means there is no legitimacy for the army rulers of Pakistan, and to Pakistan itself. When Atal Vajapayee started to resolve the conflict, military of Pakistan started an all out war in Kargil and did a coup to remove any chance of a resolution. When Mr Modi went to Pakistan to meet Mr Nawaz Sharif , their army did Pulwama in the next few days.

It is possible that the military rule has some deeper underpinnings. Possibly this situation is inevitable when you have an islamic neighbor. Islam in their head already makes them superior but it does not help that they think they are taller and fairer and should rule the lesser people. They showed that to the people of Bangladesh who were islamic themselves in 1971.

The British created Pakistan possibly in full awareness of what was to ensue. They planted incapable rulers when leaving so they could come back and rule india again. That did not happen but we are left in this weird state of affairs.

Disastrous_Crow1447

your take has some truth but oversimplifies things. india’s secular credentials are real—hindus, muslims, sikhs, others coexist, and its democracy is messy but functional. pakistan, though, isn’t just a “muslim country letting terrorists roam.” their government has a history of backing groups like lashkar-e-taiba, with evidence like the 26/11 mumbai attacks where pakistani terrorists killed 166 civilians. india’s shared dossiers on this, and even caught one attacker, ajmal kasab, alive. pakistan’s inaction on these groups fuels distrust.

kashmir’s a complex mess—both claim it, both have armies there, and civilians suffer in the crossfire. but pakistan’s use of proxies to hit indian cities isn’t just about kashmir; it’s bled into civilian targets like markets and trains. that’s where the “terrorism” label sticks hard. war’s brutal, but soldiers sign up; civilians don’t.

pro-pakistan folks might argue india’s heavy hand in kashmir—like internet blackouts or detentions—breeds resentment, pushing people toward militancy. they’d say pakistan’s just supporting “freedom fighters.” but when those fighters bomb cafes or schools, it’s hard to buy that narrative. pakistan’s state funerals for militants don’t help their case either.

you’re right to question pakistan’s terror links—there’s piles of evidence, from un reports to intercepted communications. but don’t sleep on india’s flaws; its kashmir policies aren’t saintly. still, targeting civilians via proxies puts pakistan on shakier ground. keep digging—check primary sources like un sanctions lists or india’s terror dossiers for a clearer picture. anyone pro-pakistan here, feel free to counter, but explain why civilian deaths don’t outweigh the kashmir cause.

SmallDetail8461

Your view seems to be based in the preconceptions that "Hindiusm is a nice peaceful religion, Islam is a nasty terrorist religion".

WordsUnthought

I would rest only one case here:

You must have heard pakistani(deliberately in small-caps, as a form of protest) politicians boasting and threatening the usage of nuclear weapons. Recently, they said that, if they feel they are attacked, they won't let any other country survive. Every now and then they try to move their nuclear-related-arsenals to threaten other nations. 

Any sane human knows the extent oof destruction, Nuclear weapons carry out. But, their nationals celebrate this act of their politicians. 

On the other hand, India has a No-First-Use-Policy for its nuclear arsenal.

keechoo_ka_dadaji

I'm not from India, but as far as I know, India also allows a lot of terrorist groups to exist too. Look into Nagaland for example. If business owners don't pay their "share" to the terrorist groups, them and their families will not be safe. And the Indian government is not doing anything about it.

eric39es

I see most of the comments have accused india of neglecting muslim minority population and stating it as a reason why everything is happening over there. 


So, While Pakistan lectures India on minority rights, it's ironic that Hindus, who made up 12-23% of its population pre-partition, now comprise less than 2%. 


India's Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and has initiatives to promote minority welfare, making it a beacon of tolerance and inclusivity in the region.


India's Muslim population has been growing steadily. According to the 2011 census, Muslims make up around 14.2% of the population, which translates to approximately 172.2 million people. 


This growth rate is higher than that of Hindus, with Muslims growing at 24.6% between 2001 and 2011, compared to 16.8% for Hindus during the same period.


It's to be noted that India has the third-largest Muslim population globally, with the majority being Sunni Muslims. The growth rate and projections depend on various factors like birth rates, migration patterns, and government policies.


So you can take a guess who is supressing whom. And whats with the illiterate mindset of these people driven by their masters [ terrorist group leaders, millitary head ] harboring unnecessary hate

Zestyclose-Visual927

First off, there's been quite a few conflicts between India and Pakistan since 1947, so it's quite a big claim you're making. The political context in and between the two countries has changed over the years. I'm just going to focus on more recent stuff since that seems to be what you're actually focused on. 

You base your claim in part on seeing India as secular and reasonable compared to Pakistan. Whilst it's true, the government in Pakistan is not very democratic I wouldn't be quick to praise India's current government in that department either. The Indian Prime Minister Modi's politics are based on a particularly nasty brand of Hindu nationalism.

Before he was Prime Minister, Modi was in charge of a province called Gujurat and was widely seen to be complicit in the 2002 riots where 2,000 muslims were massacred. Since then, his time in power has involved authoritarian crackdowns on political opponents, journalists, academics, and minorities (especially Muslims). His party, the BJP also has a far-right paramilitary wing called the RSS. Modi has consistently undermined democratic and secular institutions in India in favour of Hindu supermacist policies. 

Finally, even before Modi India has occupied much of Kashmir against the wishes of the majority of the population. Kahmiris face extreme violence from India's military occupation. Arbitrary detention, extrajudicial killings, torture and bans on freedom of expression are common. Violence by Kashmiri insurgents has to be understood in a context of decades of brutal occupation by India. Pakistan certainly exploits that situation for its own interests. But before buying into Indian justifications of war as a response to terrorism its worth bearing in mind how India has terrorised civilians in Kashmir for decades. Ending the occupation and giving Kashmiris a fair referendum would be a much more effective way to fight terrorism than starting a war with Pakistan that risks nuclear escalation.

Strange_Rice

I don’t believe this is an actual changemyview post since you’ve admitted to disliking Pakistan making your bias pretty apparent. Anyhow here’s my attempt:
India might have been a decent secular country in the past but that is no longer the case. Th BJP runs on the RSS ideology which is an extreme right wing hindu nationalist ideology believing in Hindu superiority. Modi who was the chief minister of Gujarat allowed the 2002 riots which saw 2000+ Muslims killed and earned him the title of the Butcher of Gujarat. So much so that he was banned from many western countries until he became the Prime Minister (including US and UK) with some countries even cutting off diplomatic ties with the state of Gujarat. Imagine the same person now leading the country
You should also look up the ‘Akhand Bharat’ which is an idea that majority of South Asia (including Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar and Tibet) should all be one unified India. This idea has become very popular in the text years and directly fuels the RSS ideology of Hindu superiority
Secondly, India has constantly blamed Pakistan for cross border terrorism but failed to provide any proofs. Even after the Pahalgam incident, Pakistan called for an impartial third party investigation which India refused and kept blaming Pakistan. So much so Indian state asked for local help with their investigation and provide information AFTER it attacked Pakistan. This shows they didn’t have any proof and hence were the escalators. You can not accuse someone, attack them and then start gathering proof to support your accusations (no proof has been put forward yet)
On the other hand, India is no saint. In 2023 Justin Trudeau accused India of violating its sovereignty by assassinating a Sikh separatist leader in Canada. But if we keep it just India and Pakistan, India directly supported and according to some reports trained the Mukti Bahini (1971 war and creation of Bangladesh which used to be East Pakistan) but more recently in 2016 Pakistan arrested a serving RAW agent in their state of Baluchistan (look up Kulbushan Jhadav). India initially denied any association with him (despite Pakistan releasing his video confession) but when he was sentenced to death India appealed to the ICJ and had the execution stayed
Also let’s not forget Pakistan itself has been severely affected by terrorism in the last 2 decades where they have blamed India for supporting the terror groups while so far it has been mostly blame game by both sides, Pakistan has atleast on paper provided more proof than India and never escalated it in the sense India has
I’m not a believer of conspiracy theories but I find it very convenient that all recent India Pakistan conflicts have aligned well with Indian elections (key states or general)
2001 attack on parliament - 6 months before 7 state elections (with mostly being key states)
2008 Mumbai attacks - before the 2009 general elections
2016 URI attack - 5 state elections (with mostly being key states
(India claimed to have responded by doing surgical strikes in Pakistan but it was debunked by international media)
2019 pulwama attack - before the general elections
(India attacked Pakistan both attacked each other with India being the first one to attack and also the only one to suffer casualties. They lost 1 jet to Pakistan and 1 helicopter shot by Indian friendly fire)
2025 Pulwama attacks - 8 Rajya Sabha seats up for election and 1 key state 
(Both countries attacked each other with India being the first one again. International media has confirmed 3 Indian jets shot down by Pakistan including a Rafale. Pakistan claims 5 shot down including 3 Rafales)
All these conflicts, India accused Pakistan but has failed to provide any proof. On the other hand the list of terrorist attacks on Pakistan is much longer but luckily those have not turned into India-Pakistan conflicts
If per your point, India is actually right, they should 1) address Pakistani of supporting terror in Pakistan and 2) provide proofs of Pakistan supporting terror in India

I also saw your replies to multiple people on secularism claiming the Hindu population in modern day Pakistan fell by more than 85% since 1941. This is a very flawed argument in my opinion because 6 years after the census, in the 1947 partition there were mass migrations meaning non Muslims that were now in Pakistan moves to India and Muslims now in India moved to Pakistan. So at the very least any comparisons you want to do should be with the 1950s censuses that happened after the partition and migrations

Lastly, having both Indian and Pakistani friends, one thing I can tell you that they all get along mostly pretty well and nobody hates the other. That being said I have still noticed general Indians to have more strongly negative feelings about Pakistan and Pakistani people
But to address that concern of yours all I have to say is that the world is not what you see in movies and state run media and state run propaganda. Please do your research with an unbiased and open mind and verify everything with independent and impartial media/organizations

Realistic-Tap8474

Your view is extremely Islamophobic. 

You're sort of characterization of India as a secular liberal democracy is more true on paper than in practice, India has long been and is especially now under Modi and Hindu supremecist state that is extremely unequal and unfair to non Hindus in the subcontinent (usually within Indias borders, but not limited to). Pakistan is also on paper a secular government, I beleive some for of democracy, but it is a majority Muslim nation and certainly the political parties of Pakistan are heavily Muslim.

The truth is the Indian sub continent is extremely diverse and the 2 largest religious groups are Hindus and Muslims. India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh all used to be the British colony of India and the various Indian and Muslim kingdoms before it. Indian Muslims and Hindus have don't multiple genocides agaisnt each other historically (and certainly both have done genocides agaisnt each other in the memory of living indians and Pakistanis today). There isn't really a good side or a bad side here, it's a big mess.

All of that said, what's happening India is much the same as isreal and certainly the way the west, and America especially perceives of it. Simply put the west is currently about as Islamophobic as europe was anti Semitic in the late 1800s to early 1900s. The reality of the situation is americans and Europeans are just waiting for a reason to go take the lives of Muslims they just fuckin hate. Yes Muslim majority countries are designated state sponsors of terror and yes they do infact fund, coordinate, and execute violent acts. But the thing is every country does this, like as Americans we have the CIA which is i guess NOT a terrorist organization because the violent and disruptive acts they do on a regular basis around the world are geopolitical beneficial to us? Like ostensibly terrorism refers to "actions meant to coerce people through the use of fear and violence" but in practice it's an extremely vague term that mainly seems to refer to the geopolitical adversaries of the west.

Like if you really want to get into this, the country of interest is Iran which is a revolutionary Islamic republic. Why revolutionary? Because they had to over throw their king. What king? The shah that the brits and Americans installed in their country that ran the country into the group to be a colonial client state of American and great Brittany for cheap oil. Of course they over threw the shit government we forced upon them and of course they are mad at use for doind that to them. Well since the revolution we've been cool to them right? No, we have economically abused them with sanctions and the IMF keeping them in permanent economic depression for HALF A CENTURY? I'm not saying it's justified for them to fund bombers and stuff, but I'm just saying it's understand why they're doing it. We are not being completely honest establish about the abuse we have been leveling agaisnt them for almost a century now and their means of resisting it is only ever framed as them being like violent psychotic religious fanatics. Similar but different for all the other Muslim majority middle eastern nations except Saudi Arabia, who are basically the Muslim sell outs.

Heres the thing about racism and terrorism (and yes Islamophobia is racism. No Muslims aren't a race, but the specific anti Muslim bias and treatment to a T matches racism): do you think European jews didn't comitt acts of terrorism amidst the pogroms and abuse in Europe?  Like you know jews picked up this reputation for being communists because... communist parties in Europe were some of the only political organizations that jews could join or made it a specific part of the policy agenda to treat jews and equals? Like when you talk about stuff like the Warsaw ghetto uprising, you know everyone called them terrprists right? In america, if you asked the KKK in the Jim crow era they would say they never lynched an innocent person, that they always felt like they were killing rapists and theives. Like basically the way you talk about Pakistan as like a country full of these violent religious extremist psychopaths and terrorists, you know their country is not primarily kept down because of their religious fundamentalist culture right? It's stuff like the IMF the prevents their economy from ever developing, they can't afford schools and services and stuff because they have no economy. They have mud brick houses and mosques and see a world leaving them in the dust on purpose and there's nothing they can do, of course it's gonna drive them crazy and of course they're going to try and violently resist.

This thing in India and Pakistan looks identical to October 7th in isreal. You definitely have an initial terrorist attack from the Muslim side (though it must be stated that the territory has been disputed for a long time prior to this attack). The terrorist attack kills not an insignificant number of people, October 7th in isreal has some 2000-3000 catives/ casualties, in kashmir you have 24 Hindus killed. But then you have this MASSIVE response to the attack that kills way more Muslims than the original terrorist attack. And I know you can get all justice porn about it with the tough guy shit, but at the end of the day Muslim lives just don't count as much as kon Muslim lives do they? You can just kill 10, 100, 1000 Muslims for ever 1 non muslim killed by a muslim can't you? You definitely don't have to take seriously their side in the territorial disputes, you definitely don't have to take seriously their economic oppression or anything do you? Really Muslim terrorist attacks are what Islamophobes want because they can use it as vice for doing the thing they actually want to do, which is just kill more muslims and take more of their land. They don't ever get to live decent lives or have land that's theres. They are always suspicious and it's always OK to just kill them in the 1000s and when they try and fight back that's just mkre proof that they are psychopathic religious fanatics and terrorists isn't it?

ChikenCherryCola

It doesn’t really matter. There are no circumstances in which Pakistani is the good guy and the better option for „the West.“ 

India is the most populous country on Earth, a democracy, well integrated in the global community, and a huge potential market for both talent and consumer goods. 

Pakistan is an Islamist regime walking a tight rope just to maintain control of the country. They’re as extreme and supportive of extremism as Saudia Arabia and Iran. 

It’s not a hard choice.

TeamSpatzi

Stop Rewarding Pakistan’s Bad Behavior

Imagine living in a world where your family is subjected to violence every few years—where the trauma of terrorist attacks becomes generational. Now imagine someone asking you to reward the source of that trauma for "good behavior." That is exactly what certain policymakers and commentators continue to suggest when they advocate for increased aid, diplomatic engagement, or concessions toward Pakistan. This approach is not just naïve—it is dangerously tone-deaf.

India has bent over backward for decades to build bridges with Pakistan. From the 1991 confidence-building measures to Prime Minister Modi’s surprise visit to Lahore in 2015, India has shown extraordinary restraint and goodwill. Ceasefires, bus services across the Line of Control (LoC), trade talks, and liberalized visa regimes—India has pursued every diplomatic avenue, even after repeated provocations.

And what has Pakistan given in return?

A blood-soaked record of terror.

From the 1993 Bombay bombings to the 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament, from the horrific siege of Mumbai in 2008 to the suicide bombing in Pulwama in 2019, Pakistan-based terrorist organizations—often with the implicit or explicit support of the Pakistani state and its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)—have waged an unrelenting campaign of violence against India. Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Hizbul Mujahideen—these are not fringe actors. They are instruments of Pakistan’s long-standing policy of bleeding India by a thousand cuts.

Let’s be clear: this is not about people-to-people relations. It is about a state that has consistently harbored, trained, and exported terrorism while presenting a moderate face to the international community. When a nation’s founding ideology proclaims that Hindus and Muslims cannot coexist, and its strategic doctrine relies on asymmetrical warfare and nuclear blackmail, trusting it to act in good faith is not diplomacy—it’s delusion.

So why do some voices still argue for appeasement? Why are we still treating Pakistan as a misunderstood neighbor instead of the repeat offender it is?

If your best idea is to offer more aid or diplomatic overtures to a regime that has used every olive branch as cover for its next ambush, you are not seeking peace—you are enabling the cycle of violence. As the saying goes: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Let’s stop pretending that failed strategies will suddenly yield different outcomes.

It’s time for responsible action:

Classify Pakistan as a state of concern, much like Iran or North Korea. Its record on terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and regional destabilization demands it.

End all arms sales and military support, including the $400 million F-16 maintenance package. There is no justification for strengthening a military that shields terror proxies.

Push for FATF blacklisting, as Pakistan continues to fall short on shutting down terror financing despite international pressure.

The facts are clear. The timeline is damning. And the moral imperative is obvious. Pakistan’s actions have made it abundantly clear that it is not a partner for peace. India—and the international community—must stop rewarding bad behavior with false hope and failed diplomacy.

Because peace is not possible without accountability. And justice delayed is not just denied—it is detonated, bus by bus, market by market, soldier by soldier.

Certain-Day6648

There is substantial evidence indicating that elements within Pakistan’s military and intelligence services have supported terrorist organizations, particularly those operating against India and Afghanistan. This support has been documented through various incidents, investigations, and international reports. ￼

⸻

1.	⁠2025 Pahalgam Attack

In April 2025, a terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Indian-administered Kashmir, resulted in the deaths of 26 civilians. Investigations by India’s National Investigation Agency (NIA) linked the attack to Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) operatives, with digital footprints tracing back to safe houses in Muzaffarabad and Karachi, Pakistan. One of the attackers, Hashim Moosa, was identified as a former Pakistani Special Forces commando, suggesting direct involvement of Pakistani military personnel in orchestrating the attack . ￼ ￼

⸻

2. 2008 Mumbai Attacks

The 2008 Mumbai attacks, which claimed 166 lives, were executed by LeT operatives trained in Pakistan. Investigations revealed that the attackers received support from Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), with evidence including training manuals, maps, and communication intercepts. Notably, an ISI officer known as Major Iqbal was implicated in funding and directing aspects of the operation . ￼ ￼

⸻

3. ISI’s Links to Terrorist Groups

The ISI has been accused of maintaining relationships with various terrorist organizations, including the Haqqani Network and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM). These groups have been used to further Pakistan’s strategic interests in the region, particularly in Afghanistan and Kashmir. Reports indicate that the ISI has provided training, funding, and safe havens to these groups . ￼

⸻

4. State-Sponsored Terrorism Designations

Pakistan’s involvement in supporting terrorist activities has led to international scrutiny. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) placed Pakistan on its “grey list” from 2018 to 2022 due to deficiencies in countering terrorist financing. Additionally, the U.S. State Department has consistently highlighted Pakistan’s role in harboring terrorist groups in its Country Reports on Terrorism . ￼ ￼ ￼

⸻

5. Recent Diplomatic Evidence

In May 2025, during heightened tensions between India and Pakistan, the Indian envoy presented photographic evidence purportedly showing Pakistani military personnel alongside known terrorists. This was cited as proof of Pakistan’s continued support for terrorist activities against India . ￼

⸻

These instances underscore a pattern of support by elements within Pakistan’s military and intelligence services for terrorist groups operating in the region. While Pakistan officially denies such involvement, the accumulation of evidence from various sources suggests a complex relationship between the state and these non-state actors.

https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/countries/pakistan.html

https://www.state.gov/reports/country-reports-on-terrorism-2022/pakistan/

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/india-pakistan-live-look-whos-behind-him-indian-envoys-photo-proof-of-pak-sponsored-terror-8368696

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-pakistan-supports-terrorist-groups-and-why-the-us-finds-it-so-hard-to-induce-change/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Weekly-Fortune2611

India funds terrorists in Balochistan who murder anyone who isn't Baloch and there's evidence they've also had a hand in funding the Pakistani Taliban.  


This most recent war should've never happened and was just Modi wanting to throw a bone to his extremist supporters who want a war with Pakistan because most of them haven't actually lived through a war or fought in a war.  There was zero evidence Pakistan was behind Pahalgam, and the blame came out immediately.  The reason the blame came out immediately and tensions started was also a way for Modi to cover his ass because of how badly the state failed in protecting it's citizens and capturing or killing the perpetrators of the attack.  The attack reportedly went on for around an hour and no one came to stop it.  Had this happened in a country that wasn't a third world kleptocracy the people in charge of security of that area would've been fired immediately and possibly brought up on charges.  I would bet my entire life savings the person in charge of security in Pahalgam has friends in high places, and the way the third world works is that governments will make the average citizen fall on their swords for the sake of someone's career if that person is a faithful loyalist.  And this is exactly what happened.


India was completely and is still completely in the wrong here.  The insurgency in Kashmir is mostly homegrown because of the state's actions towards Kashmiris.  It's impossible to cross the line of control too, militants get killed all the time trying to cross it on either side.  I've been to the line of control and there are pillboxes everywhere and there isn't an inch of it unprotected so if someone from Pakistan supposedly got in, it's entirely the fault of whoever is in charge of the sector for being an incompetent leader.  


TLDR: there's no evidence Pakistan had anything to do with Pahalgam, and it has absolutely nothing to gain by pissing off India.  The Indian response was the Indian government's attempt to cover up it's own security failures and incompetence.


Also India invaded Pakistan in East Pakistan only to get a pro indian government in.  Pakistan was fighting an insurgency of Bengali nationalists there who were slaughtering minorities living within East Bengal.  My wife's parents literally survived this just barely.  Had the massacres of Biharis never happened Operation Searchlight would've never happened.  Operation Searchlight was fully justified and a security action of a state on it's own soil.  India had no business interfering.


Also India uses the excuse of "the Maharajah of Kashmir joined us" meanwhile two Princely States tried joining Pakistan and India invaded them and annexed them.  It's a little hypocritical to claim Kashmir when the majority didn't support joining India but because they had a Hindu ruler India used that as an argument for invasion.

TerryMakichoott

Replace India with US and Pakistan with Mexico and imagine the US starts shooting missiles into Mexico to stop drug cartels which are linked with factions of the Mexican government. 


I get the anger from India but the truth is it was an massive escalation in the conflict for a terrorist attack that cant actually be linked to Pakistan government. 


Also I don't want to excuse Pakistan for institutional failure but its similar to Mexico in that its about corruption and incompetence instead of then actively using these groups to attack India. 

Rich-Instruction-327

Not pro Pakistan at all - but I think you should really consider what a country being "in the right" means.

People like to project interpersonal conflicts onto countries, where the crux of the issue would be resolved if one person just changed their mind. 

Now, people know this isn't realistic, that's not how international conflicts ever end. So the way we're tempted to model things is to pull back the metaphor of "organizational personhood" and give it out to whatever 'side' seems best. With personhood comes consistency, reasonableness, moral reflection - everything that makes someone responsible enough for personal rights and not just human rights.

Everything else is left as a complex circumstance. The organization-person can probably handle if relieved of the pressure making things a "conflict". Some judge just needs to make a ruling and finally settle the issue, right?


So, who do we support in getting full stakeholder rights? India... keeping in mind that means the current Indian government? "The people of Kashmir"... whatever form that takes - ignoring how that makes it *easier* for both governments to directly pressure the people there?


I'm not saying "both sides" are "equally right", I'm saying that you cannot make someone "right" or "wrong" without defining who they are much more precisely than you think, and thus excluding anyone who isn't consolidated on the most massive scale.

There are Indian voices for a much more lasting peace than I'd trust the Modi government to plan, that's easy to believe - but can you picture the same being true for Pakistan?


Regardless of how much anyone in this Pakistani government was actively involved, the fact is that no lasting organisation experiences itself as "having caused or enabled the killing of civilians". They experience themselves as "having failed to stop it", and there's always more understandable explanations than you think. They can just never be good enough.

Whether it's the fault of a previous government, inadequate target ID, aberrant actors, or divergence from policy... Even literal Taliban leaders have, on multiple occasions, claimed strikes, belatedly learned that a bunch of civilians were murdered, then fucking un-claimed them.


Defining two sides to a conflict, one of which is overall "in the right" or "in the wrong" will not help you answer the questions that de-escalate a conflict. Are you ready to escalate it? Then you can decide that Pakistan means "the Pakistani government", India means "the Indian government", and one of them is, overall, in the right.

panopticoneyes

I think a bit of geology is in order here.

The Indus river to Pakistan is as important if not even more important as the Nile to Egypt. Most farm lands in Pakistan, a country that needs to feed over 200mil people, are in fact semi-deserts that are only made possible to plant crops by irrigation from the flow of this singular river.

There is only a slight problem: most of the water flow that supplies the Indus river are coming from major upstreams (4 major ones) which are all located inside India (either in uncontested terrirtory or in the Indian-controlled Kashimir region). And India has built over 50 dams along these upstreams. By the Indus Water Treaty (IWT), India is legally bound to not construct water storage, reservoir and/or cannal systems that could give it the capability to cut off the critical water supply into Pakistan in significant numbers.

One of the first actions that India took since this most recent conflict, is to suspend the IWT, making threats on water flow to Pakistan that comprises something like 90% of that country's supply of fresh water. This action has no military value whatsoever, it's only aimed at hurting the civilians. It violates international law and bilateral treaties, and is above all morally reprehensible.

Edit: I called the suspension of IWT "state-sponsored terrorism" on India part in the original comment. I was reminded in the comments that due to the treaty's existence, India does not have the physical facilities to actually stop the water flow to Pakistan in meaningful ways in the near term.

Unlikely-Turnover744

Explore Indian and Pakistani social media spaces on Twitter, Reddit, and YouTube. Trawl the comment sections.

You will find out the reality of both countries.

Pakistan does not support terrorism. US used Pakistan in the 1980s to fight the USSR in Afghanistan using asymmetric warfare. It used the idea of holy war (jihad) to indoctrinate young men to go fight the war in Afghanistan against the Soviets by convincing them that it was their religious duty.

They did this because they had a problem similar to what Ukraine faces against Russia currently -- that there aren't enough bodies to throw at the enemy. Afghanistan was a country with a relatively small population. This is how they got young men to go die for US foreign policy in Afghanistan.

The trouble is that once you let the genie out of the bottle, it's not easy to put it back in. Once you put an idea (i.e., religious obligation to fight the invader) in a society, it is very difficult to eradicate it.

This is why so many Western govts are reluctant to allow their young men to go fight in Ukraine, even though they initially flirted with the idea.

It was an insane thing to do but the CIA did it anyway.

NB: That's who Osama bin Laden was, originally. He was the CIA's guy who served as liaison.

Pakistan helped by being a conduit for money, arms and the venue for training.

There is plenty of poverty and ill-educated kids in Pakistan. The US funded seminaries where poor families could send their sons. There, they would be clothed, fed, and educated completely free of charge, except the education was religious and a proportion of these young kids were sent off to go fight in Afghanistan.

After the Soviet-Afghan War was over, US left and left the mess behind. This mess metastasized over time in various guises, till Pakistan eventually crushed it at the cost of 80,000 Pakistanis and USD 120 billion.

India, meanwhile, has fomented terror in Pakistan for decades. They have spent a lot of money funding violence in Karachi (Pakistan's biggest city home to some 25 million to 30 million people) and in Baluchistan.

Pakistan has a serving Indian Navy officer called Kalbhushen Yadav in custody who was caught carrying out terrorist activities in Pakistan.

Pakistan has learnt hard lessons that the West still hasn't learnt, and it's pretty rich of Western people to accuse Pakistan of something that they themselves caused. I accuse all Western countries here because in the final analysis, no Western country has its own independent foreign policy. They all follow US in this matter.

A1700AW

so on 22nd April 2025 an incident took place where some terrorists killed 26 HINDU MENS( there were asked about their religion and was said to recite Kamla if they couldn't they were shot in the head). then a Pakistan based  jihadi militant group \*Lashkar-e-Taiba\* indirectly took the fault about this incident and this was later taken down. this is what resulted India attacking 9 located  terrorist organisations in Pakistan (Pakistan claims them to be civilians not true cause legit some most wanted terrorist came to PAY respect for the deads ). Pakistan is a chaotic state where army doesn't listen to its own gov and these terrorist group doesn't listen to the army either which casue all the dirt surrounding its name . Pakistan always ends up sheltering terrorist and deny of their presence isn't new the word has seen it and this time the govt wanted to make the  bold and clear statement that they will not tolerate these terrorist activities and Pakistan couldn't ever control these terrorist group of India gov took things on their hands hence they identified 9 diff terrorist sites and destroyed them

about the Kashmir being a disputed area has been mistranslated by western media . after independence Kashmir couldn't decide whom they would side after partition the king thought it would be better to join and hence made a pact to let J&amp;K to get some special treatment {work as an independent state} . after partition Pakistan occupied some part of Kashmir and pok {Pakistan occupied Kashmir}was formed. even if the Kashmir issue is resolved Pakistan will always have a problem surrounding India cause Pakistan will carry the inferior complexity with them

Strict-Lab-605

For me, while Pakistan's active support for terrorism is abhorrent, one must always look at the historical background. The princely state of Jammu and Kashmir was and still is majority Muslim and was thus supposed to join Pakistan, as per the partition agreement. However, this was complicated by the fact that the ruler, Hari Singh, was Hindu. While at first he dithered and maintained independence, he opted to accede to India after Pakistani militias invaded in an attempt to force the issue. As a result India occupied most of the princely state. When the UN got involved they made the recommendation that a referendum be held, a referendum that would almost certainly have resulted in Kashmir joining Pakistan. India initially agreed, but the referendum never took place as subsequent Indian governments elected to maintain control of the territory. An important caveat is that the holding of a plebiscite was conditioned on both sides withdrawing their militaries from the region, which neither did. India used this as an excuse to simply never hold the referendum and keep Kashmir under it's control. However, the fact that Kashmir was never supposed to be part of India, based on the Muslim population's overwhelming majority is undeniable.

And yes, Pakistan's use of terrorist groups in Kashmir is criminal, but India's treatment of Kashmir is not all peaches and roses either, as New Delhi has engaged in various attempts to suppress the Muslim majority, trying to redraw the demographic makeup of the territory, whilst also withdrawing the special autonomy that the area enjoyed up until 2019.

  
TL;DR: It's complicated.

Martoto_94

Chemical-Plankton420

Honestly, the sad truth is the Reddit demographic is too small in comparison to the ones that may agree with your view... if you catch my drift. As you can tell, you are likely to get many backhanded responses that subtly still agree with your view, overshadowing the ones actually trying to change your view. 

You are better off asking this in r/pakistan.

Many countries are secular and peace loving on paper but community tensions exist and are a constant problem.

I am curious why one would think imposing any external involvement in a so called terrorist country has ever actually reduced terrorism. Since when in the history of time has destabilising a country's economy through war or going for allegedly terrorist establishments has ever addressed the root cause? 

Peaceful negotiations and independent investigations as requested are the way forward. At the end of the day both nations need to focus on improving the quality of life of their own civilians. I'd much rather see both countries work on joint women empowerment and educational programmes for example. Funny how people are obsessed with figuring out who is right and who is wrong but never how to work together on some of the challenges both nations share.

Munchew101

Pakistan shouldn't exist at all. The conversation should start with the justification for Pakistan first before assessing India's reactions.

Pakistan was created on the basis of a fear of being a minority in a Hindu India. There was no actual systematic oppression of Muslims by Hindus in India until that point though. I'm really quite shocked as to how this argument is just bought in most circles.

A country cannot be violently partitioned on the basis of fear alone. There are many minorities in many communities who have actually faced persecution (e.g. African Americans in White America). What about the minorities in Europe? In China? Why don't they get separate countries?

African Americans made many calls for a separate country. Those factions (Malcolm X types) were quickly dismissed as radicals and they only got Liberia. The US has 0 moral standing in this discussion, yet they step in and claim arbitration. Can Muslims do call to prayer in America? Is Eid a national holiday in America? Do Muslims in America implement things like Triple Talaq (banned even in Muslims countries but not in India for the longest time).

So I would say before even looking at post partition actions by both countries, look at the justification for Pakistan. Look at the fact that the light skinned, monotheists from the North want their own segregated right wing Islamist state. They violently broke away from the rest of the country to achieve this unjust goal.

Despite India's failures in handling the conflict, Pakistan has no real moral standing here. They know this. That's why their primary raison d'etre is India hatred. They can't survive without it because they were founded on the basis of an unjustifiable negative reaction towards India. Whether or not India is secular is irrelevant. Time to move away from the Western mainstream narrative that places Democracy above all else.

Thin_Kangaroo5263

Context is fine, and historical context is important. But there is far too much emphasis placed on it these days. Individual actions are choices made by people in that time and place, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that this is right or wrong, depending on the action. 

Is Kashmir a complicated issue? Sure, doesn't excuse the killing of civilians. Does India have its share of the blame? Sure, doesn't excuse the cross border terrorism and attacks of civilians. Does the Indian government use Kashmir as political capital? Sure, but that is how democracy works, every party of every country, uses a seige mentality and tragedy as political capital. 

Just saying something is "complicated" doesn't absolve people of their actions in the present. Does absolve Al Qaeda of 9/11, doesn't absolve LeT of their terrorism, doesn't excuse the Hamas attacks. If you play the game of assymetric warfare, you're gonna to be killed by a state actor. Statistically, that is probably 90% how you're going to be killed. 

You cannot challenge the monopoly of violence a state has over its people, and expect to get anything other than a bullet to the face. This is not because "it's complicated" it's because that is the crux and the social contract of a social/governmental order.

THeWizardOfOde

Keep in mind that ‘terrorism’ is a definition created by whoever is in power to mean ‘acts against the interests of those in power’, it has become meaningless as a term to describe actual terrorism

So accusations of pakistani aggression towards india being called terrorism when indian aggression towards pakistan is put down as ‘military intervention’ or ‘necessary correction’ or maintaining national defence’ when they are basically doing the same thing to each other, is literally just a marketing tool to make people think one side is more right than the other

Robin hood would have been called a terrorist. The rebels in star wars would have been called terrorists. George washington and the revolutionary army were terrorists. The black panthers were. Anti-slavery rebellions were terrorists. Native americans were. Terrorism in today’s world just means ‘inferior armed forces trying to gain some goal over the government’

I’m from the UK where pakistanis and indians live in large numbers so i’ve known plenty of people of both nationalities in school and into my adult life. Both countries hate each other. Both countries want the other to not exist if possible. Neither country can actually do anything about it

India is definitely not in the right in almost 100% of the violence it inflicts on pakistan, directly or indirectly (indirectly for example both withholding the water supply upriver as they’ve done in 2025 and poisoning their water supply as they were accused of a few years ago, or urging other nations and charities not to give aid to pakistan). Pakistan is also not in the right

It is two sides who are incredibly racist and religiously intolerant towards each other, so neither of them are doing the ‘right’ thing. And yes, to us they are all south asians but to them, there is a racial distinction. They can tell their home nationalities on sight. India is certainly not greatly in the right just because they have more religions in their country, or because they have labelled pakistanis terrorists and haven’t labelled themselves terrorists 

I hope this makes sense

LifeofTino

You shouldn’t really be talking about any of this until you read about Indian Partition, a topic rarely discussed in the west

Live-Profession8822

"India is a secular country" is historically, but not directionally correct. Give it a few years and it'll be illegal to say "India is a secular country" in India. If you're someone to whom a political party being good means that party strives to improve quality of life as much as possible for all people in the country they represent, then BJP are certainly not the good guys. Pakistan is ruled by Muslim-supremacist terrorist-sympathizers, and India is ruled by Hindu-supremacist terrorist-sympathizers. It's an old, boring, and immature story. I, for one, am ready for all the "My \_\_\_\_\_ is superior to your \_\_\_\_\_ and I'm going to prove it by oppressing/killing you" to fuck off already. We literally have robots that can do the dishes and write novel code for us. Can we stop killing each other about whose made-up story is the best?

AlternativeAnt5559

The timing of the attack - coinciding with that of the VP’s visit is very telling in that they wanted international attention. This was a dastardly and cowardly attack. To attack innocent tourists after asking their religion and specifically targeting only hindus shows loud and clear that this was a premeditated hate crime. 

RIP to the dead and may their kin find strength. The Indian government’s response will be watched by millions. 

Pakistan will pay for this with more international isolation, a broken economy. 

Their general Asim Munir said as much a few days ago that Pakistan was created for one reason and one reason only that Muslims and Hindus cannot live together. Their army has been completely Islamized. 

India should cut all diplomatic relations with Pakistan including all sports relations.

hinterstoisser

SS: Here’s a concise summary of the article:

**Terrorist Attack in Pahalgam, J&amp;K (April 22, 2025):**

- A **terrorist attack in Baisaran Valley, Pahalgam** (Anantnag district, J&amp;K) left **over 20 tourists dead** and **at least 24 injured**.
- The **attack site is remote**, accessible only by foot or horseback, making evacuation difficult. Locals used ponies; helicopters were deployed.
- **12 injured tourists** were admitted to Pahalgam hospital; all are reportedly stable.
- **PM Modi**, on a visit to Saudi Arabia, **condemned the attack**, directed swift action, and asked **Home Minister Amit Shah** to visit the site.
- Leaders across the political spectrum, including **President Murmu, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, and Opposition Leader Rahul Gandhi**, condemned the attack.
- **Security operations** were launched by the Army and J&amp;K Police. BJP leader Ravinder Raina blamed **Pakistani terrorists**.
-

BROWN-MUNDA_

Pakistani bots are hard at work trying to divert attention.

highfivemelee

It is going to get spicy in a few days time.... expect another airstrike across the border and another stand off. This time, IAF will have the Rafales armed with Meteor and Stormshadows which they didn't have back in 2019.

There is a limited timeframe for IAF to act because PAF has not yet acquired the J-35 and KAAN they are rumoured to be in process of acquiring. IAF will not get another opportunity like this until India gets its own 5th Gen fighter.

Sumeru88


To everyone calling for India to take some big action — that’s exactly what Pakistan’s Army Chief, Asim Munir, is hoping for. This isn’t new. Every time a Pakistani military leader starts losing popularity at home, they stir up tensions with India to shift the spotlight and rally support. And unfortunately, it usually works.

India needs to be smarter this time. Instead of the usual “you hit me, I hit back” response, we should be thinking a few moves ahead — not just in straight lines, but in layers, like a chess game in 3D.

Don’t let Munir turn this into a moment that saves his image. Most Pakistanis don’t want him — they want real democracy and an end to military control. India should be backing that sentiment, not helping him play the hero again.

And for once, even the U.S. and Saudis might be willing to support a reset in Pakistan, if only because it’s in their own interest. A stable, democratic Pakistan helps everyone. China can be forced to be nuetral if not helping in this cause as it's for Pakistan's benefit (which they claim they support).


Let’s not play into the same old script.

curiousstrider

You have to destroy the head of the snake, else it wont matter, maybe IDF was right all along.

Necessary_Assist_841

Pakistan still never learning, hope modi deals with them , no mercy to them.

demon13664674

Pahalgam lies deep in Jammu Kashmir and is far away from Azad Kashmir border. Seems to be a long trek for the intruders if they did manage to get inside from Azad Kashmir side.

waqar911

In my limited experience this was always the first warning sign especially with new Ceos they always love to cut.

This is the playbook… New CEO “freezes” salary and hire &gt; CEO “assesses” company (This is a lie) &gt; CEO “hires” own team &gt; New org “identifies” employees to hit a cost target, say 15%.

Above all the noise, the clearest signal is installing a new CEO.  I would wager restructuring in 90 days. New CEO is under time crunch for 2025 bonus.

ubdumass

My husband's company halted pay increases for a couple years before layoffs started.  I would not be doomsday but I would also consider getting a resume updated and reconnecting with your network now in case.

Evening-Welder9001

I mean, it isn’t a good sign.

Could just be a stopgap measure due to financial issues. Could be the start of a snowball effect.

Would not hurt to get your resume ready and start testing the job market waters for yourself.

Sir_Stash

I've only worked in large corporations, but in those environments the decision to do staff reductions and layoffs is always done with intense and real time scrutiny of not just current performance but projection of future performance.

Because, there are other cost saving levers outside of layoffs. For example in many at-will countries, an employer can decide to do things like furloughs (which is forced, unpaid "vacation") for its staff. So if the situation is that current performance is terrible, but all leading indicators of quick recovery are positive ... doing a furlough instead avoids the emotional carnage of layoffs and preserves knowledge/skillset in the organization long enough until the recovery.

Layoffs are often last resort and happen because current performance is terrible, future and projected performance is terrible, and there's no creative way out of dilemma. (Although in some industries like tech it seems the leadership is a lot more eager about and leans into layoffs as a way to "motivate" employees and cull poor performers. It's twisted.)

Koelsch

I would assume they are trying to avoid layoffs by that move. Expect to see hiring freeze to go with that.

Stay alert.

franchisesforfathers

India showcased its leadership in disaster risk reduction at the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction (GPDRR) by highlighting disaster resilience strategies and advancing its position as a model for disaster management.

India's Leadership in Disaster Risk Reduction at GPDRR 2025

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want