The public sentiment surrounding the tensions between India and Pakistan is deeply divided, oscillating between calls for peace and aggressive nationalistic rhetoric. Many commenters express concerns about the potential for military conflict and its dire consequences while also attributing motivations to political leaders that suggest manipulative use of conflict for domestic gain. There is a clear desire among a significant portion of the population for peaceful dialogue rather than war, although misconceptions and deep-seated animosities contribute to a complex narrative starkly divided along national lines.

India

Pakistan

Political Leaders

Only one post per 24 hours on this topic is allowed on this sub. Be civil and keep in mind of the following rules before participating here to avoid a permanent ban -


1. This is an anti-majoritarian space. Any form of overt or subtle imposition of (currently, in Indian context, the Hindutva nationalist or Indian jingoistic) majoritarian view will be subject to removal and ban.


2. This is an anti-colonial space. Any talk of annexing, occupying or displacing indigenous or migrant populations in any region will be subject to removal and ban.


3. This is an anti-capitalist space. Any talk condoning "collateral damage" as well as discussions promoting proliferation of arms etc. will be subject to removal and ban.


4. Equating tokenism to feminism is detrimental to womens' rights movements and is an unacceptable position to hold rigidly on this subreddit. Advancing jingoism, majoritarianism, or war hysteria through tokenism will be subject to removal and ban.


5. Fake or unsubstantiated news and opinions manufactured for war hysteria or war mongering will be subject to removal and ban.


If these criteria seem restrictive for you to post your opinions, it might be a good idea to listen and reflect instead. We will not entertain complaints on this matter, nor will we entertain exceptions.

rumi_shinigami

I seriously think operation sindoor had to be done, because if we didn’t retaliate they would’ve have done it again worse and sooner 

I think Pakistan won’t let this go easily and we might go for a full blown war. All the intercepted missiles were targeted at civilian areas and it is scary to think that even if one would have hit the target we would have had full blown war.

Another thing is international narrative is bad against us, we might have better economy than Pakistan but we are not self sufficient in a lot of things ( specifically manufacturing)

I really hope full blown war doesn’t happen but if it does I am ready to serve India in whatever capacity I physically can.

batteryghost

I think Pakistan wanted to escalate but wasn’t aware of it’s defensive incapabilities or probably they underestimated India. They thought just sponsoring the Pahalgam attack would not be retaliated by India etc. However, since India just went beast and destroyed their airbases and brought Pakistan to it’s knees, they realised they couldn’t defend themselves much longer and hence begged for a ceasefire by pulling in the US Govt.
I also think that India probably hit very close to their nuke stores and that made them shit their pants. It also caused panic for the US since they always want Pak to be equipped with nukes to counter India. And destruction of their nuke facilities just means starting over with equipping Pak with new facilities.
I agree our media covered this in a shitty way and we also lacked international coverage due to very few interviews, I think that could have been improved. None of our celebrities, so called influencers showed spine and leveraged their audience.

galactic-war

I wanted to  discuss this for long time . I think we did the right thing  by agreeing to cease fire , war and conflict is bad for our economy , our aim was to destroy terror bases and we did that successful 


China is definitely in it , like indirectly they were encouraging pakistan . I don’t know why usa involved , maybe because of china . 

I think modi government did fine , like  i was even more happy with our country unity , all parties and people joined together .  I think we taught pakistan lesson because some of them are  so delusional in think indian muslims wants to join their country and india will break 

Pakistan is constant headache for us , they will continue to trouble india even if we don’t attack their terror bases . They have embrassed themselves in news and in this conflict 

We need to develop our economy and improve our country especially in women safety , education and infrastructure . Economy is the only answer . 


Our celebs need to better , some of the bigger names didn’t even open their mouth but will act in patriotic movies .  Atleast put  some message for armed forces and  support the country . 

I have mixed feeling about pakistan people , like i feel bad for some people but they should acknowledge the problems in their country 

Media definitely needs to better , it was cringe and irritating to watch them . We all switched to DD news like 90s .

Extra-Platypus3720

“What could be the reason USA got involved?”
Girl, the US has been playing both India and Pakistan since time immemorial. There is nothing new about this. Go back to Bush Jr’s presidency and see America’s attitude towards south-east Asia. Nothing has changed. 

There is no concrete evidence of China being a “mastermind” but it is important to note that wars bring financial instability. If India were engaged in an active war, it would greatly benefit its competitors: China. China has also been an ally to Pakistan for a very long time. Let us please not speculate but be objective! Read the press briefings by their foreign ministry. 

Imo, instead of focussing on what could be and what could have been, we need to monitor our diplomacy with other countries, especially our neighbours. Currently, none of our neighbours like us. Sri Lanka may not be an outright hater but they have been getting assistance from China to build their infrastructure. 

If a war between China and us were to break out, we’d be completely decimated. We simply don’t have the financial means. Our tax money lines the pockets of the top 1%. The news will also periodically report the breaching of our boundaries by China. But administration will stay mum on it. Ffs the man has still not held an actual press conference. How are we okay with that?!

Politicians have had almost 80 years to solve our Kashmir problem. None of them have done jack shit because the conflict helps them get the votes. Why does Pakistan constantly live rent-free in our heads, when we should be looking at glaring failures of our information agencies. Yeah like no shit parts of Pakistan are hellscapes. But how the hell do they have more allies than us?! What does that say about the state of our administration? Why is it so easy for armed terrorists to carry out a shootout in a heavy tourist spot? Aren’t people who visit Kashmir constantly observing armed patrols everywhere? These are the questions we need to be asking ourselves. 

Lastly, regarding our defence forces. The same people cheering on our army personnel never said a word when something as preposterous as the Agneepath scheme was introduced. We don’t care about our army. We perhaps enjoy watching young men and women be martyred so these politicians can continue to exploit every damn part of our society. Who benefits from a war but the 1%? 


….I understand the act of terrorism in Pahalgam has invoked many feelings in everybody but let’s please use that energy to stay on top of news that is objective. Discussions can be endless and ultimately meaningless unless we take an active interest in geo-politics, war or not.

Reasonable_War5271

1. F16(american) was apparently shot down using s400(russian)

2. Western media narrative started to change against India.

3. Have you ever seen any country (let alone Pakistan, asking for a loan on twitter? Definitely staged) The IMF never approved Pakistan loans this fast. It's always negotiations upon negotiations before approval of the loan. Since the US has a majority of economic funds in the IMF it has the highest power to vote. (Assuming China(which has two votes- one as a single country, another as a combined nation) and Saudi - the two single voting countries were not in our favour). India realised expressing solidarity didn't actually turn into action. 

4. I thought this might be the reason for India to agree to  cease fire. But it didn't make sense when I went back and saw Jaishankar's reactions to agree to sanctions imposed on Russia a couple of years ago. 

5. People on flightradar 24  spotted american energy department's flight in Pakistan. Probably nuclear leakage did take place.

6. India got scared. Russia and Israel are nuclear power nations engaging in war for years where their and their supporters economy is getting sanctioned/cancelled and they haven't yet used their nuclear power. Nuclear power is a huge thing which neither countries didn't want to escalate nor admit that has happened. Which led to a ceasefire.

7. No matter what trump rushes and gives briefing, India has always maintained for years that it doesn't need any mediator when it comes to dealing with Pakistan. He just don't understand that it's more than "I don't do business if you both engage in a war". Here we are dealing with terrorists. When India was firm not to abide sanctions imposed for Russia, I don't think India would get scared that trump would do no business with us. He just wanted to mask his failures about Russia - Ukraine, Gaza - Israel war. 


It's been a couple of years since I favoured DD news over private news channels. They don't shout in the name of reporting nor they have fights in the name of debate. They cover more news in half an hour than that of 24/7 news channels which repeats same thing till they get their next sensational news. After this incident, my feelings of unfavorable turned into hatred towards them.

Also I don't think america, russia, china should  treat India and Pakistan as a market to sell their weapons.

Odd-Description-

I have no objection with ceasefire but 
1) I think ceasefire was done prematurely and under pressure. Indian armed forces should have been given more time to achieve their objective. 

2) This conflict exposed the flawed foreign policy of this current regime. Hardly any country came in support of us .

3) The fact that a foreign president declared ceasefire for us is humiliating and a great setback to India’s sovereignty and stature. U.S should never have been allowed by the Indian government to even enter the discussion, let alone mediate. For now, our PM should openly and unequivocally denounce US influence in this decision to save some face. 

4) If the objective of Operarion Sindoor was deterrence then I don’t think we have achieved it. There is no deterring the Pakistani regime. Their bread and butter runs on terror camps. The only way we can solve it is if the current power structure in that country ( Army -ISI rule) collapses and a stable democracy takes its place. 

5) However, if the objective of this operation was to do PR , photo op and show jingoism then yes we have succeeded. 

At the end we need to reflect on why we started this operation , what its objective was and whether we even achieved that objective before declaring ceasefire. Euphoric jingoism can give us momentary pleasure but our country needs a long term plan and a government with a spine that can follow that plan if we need to eradicate the issue of terror attacks. It’s a given that Pakistan will launch another terror attack against India. What then? Will we do another short operation and declare ceasefire? It’s high time we rose from temporary short term, feel good operations and think of how to get rid of this issue altogether.

Winter-Ladder-3591

India taking a hard stand again Pakistan funded terrorism was long time coming. We have always been a pacifist nation not taking any sides in any conflict and fiercely protecting our interests as a developing third world country. But we have been passive too long against terror elements funded and armed by other side of the border. We have sent a clear international message that while india is still a secular democracy looking forward, we will now follow zero tolerance policy for any threats to national security. Like I said, long time coming

bl_ueberrycheesecake

Operation Sindoor has been phenomenal success and there's no doubt about it. Not only India hit terror targets but also inflicted substantial damage to enemy air-bases. It had to be done honestly, only goes on to show that India will move mountains for the safety of her people. The overall media handling could have been done better. Perception matters a lot in International politics and the way things are, it feels underwhelming even though we are the superior side in this conflict.

China has a definite skin in the game in how situations have unfolded. Not only does it supply arms to Pakistan, it has also vouched for Pak's territorial integrity and their right to self-defend. China gains if India is occupied on borders. Wars are costly and no country can effectively focus on its economy and fight a war in parallel.

One unusual thing has been the pace of USA's involvement. They weren't so bothered in the start with their VP Vance saying "it's nothing to do with them". I think they bought Pak's nuclear bluff. Nobody has anything to do with Pak but no body wants to see it disintegrated too. Our neighbour has an advantage on how geographically well placed it is. Plus Trump's trade fascination.

Majestic_Year_801

[deleted]

I just feel bad for the civilians, they are the only ones suffering. And no one cares about them. For the "revenge" of 26 lives, we lost 26 more lives, what about them? will we go on another "retaliation" for them? when does it all end? At one point it becomes a dick riding contest with both sides ready to sacrifice their innocent citizens as "collateral"

also was this worth it? can there be a gurantee that there will be no terrorist attacks anymore?

In the midst of all this everyone forgot to ask the right questions, what about those terrorists? were they captured? and the covid deaths and how badly it was underreported, and what about the **colossal diplomatic failure?** no one is fucking questioning the govt and demanding accountability.

rantkween

There's nothing anyone can do about geopolitical tensions. Your dad should understand that of your wife has issues getting a visa to India k. The future and live with the possibility that she won't be able to visit. Its a huge inconvenience but if you plan to live outside india anyways it should be ok.

He put the condition cuz he doesn’t want you to marry her lmao. He’s sending you on an impossible task on purpose. You have two options: 

1) keep your pops happy and don’t marry her
2) forget what pops says and marry her 

Happy choosing.

FadingHonor

im not 100% sure so dont quote me on this, but I dont think your kids can get an OCI if one of their parents is from Pakistan. 

but you should be able to go with your wife and kids to india with them getting a visa. it shouldn't be like a crazy hassle. and Im positive you won't have any issues with your property as far as im aware but you should get that checked with someone more familiar with Indias laws and stuff. 

with all that said, all of this could change in an instant depending on what happens with india and Pakistan in the future. if there's, lets say, a full blown war and things are in absolute terrible shape. the Indian government could ban all visas for anyone even remotely related to Pakistan which would include your wife and kids.

Imaginary-Creme5071

Geopolitics aside (bc nothing you can do about that) your dad is being unreasonable and inflexible. He's the problem, not your wife. Choose accordingly I suppose.

sunparrot

Lmao i could've written this word to word. My gf is Pakistani born but Canadian raised. I've lied to my family that she'll easily be able to visit so that they let us marry but the truth is, She'll likely never ever get an Indian Visa since she has not denounced Pak citizenship and has no plans to do so.   
  
My plan is to just lie till we get married and then tell my family that Indian consulate cancelled her visa on some unrelated issue. Then when I have kids, I can take them to visit both India and Pakistan on their Canadian Passport. There's no other way. My mum wouldn't let me marry if she found out my gf will never visit back home. She already has tons of reservations, I don't wanna add another one.

ZairNotFair

How old are you? Why are you still letting your parents control your life?

Strict_Elevator_4742

It’s wild the shit people but before their love life, which is the #1 thing that matters.

Your uncles wife’s son is not gonna care about you in 30 years but your wife will. Stop giving up your life for family relations

MumeiNoName

Your dad's condition is ridiculous. Saying that it is the only condition, as if that makes it reasonable. He is putting up an unreasonable condition which he knows you cannot fulfill. 

It's like my dad could say, "I am not asking a lot of things child. I only have one condition. Wedding should happen on Mars"

And I would say "Fuck off dad!!".

wildwolf-1985

Legally you have no issue. Unless your wife has a NICop,   and that pretty much establishes connection to Pakistan. Citizen or not. That would pretty much thow a spanner in the works. 

Lets simulate the worst case scenario ? 

The problem is the beurocracy is full of self righteous, moral policing, boomers who sometimes try to push their idea of what's right(the reason you haven't immediately recieved a reply). When that happens you have to litigate and challenge the authorities. The courts will rule your way, but you need to be patient and tough as nails. They tried to deport kashmiri families, based out of Bangalore, from the other side of the border, when the whole conflict broke out. The Supreme Court stepped in and halted that order real quick. The government, for all it's many faults, isn't Maga, and submits to the will of the Supreme Court (which is one of the few sane institutions that prevail in that country). 

&gt; why should politics from two countries I wasn't even born in dictate my marriage ?

I feel like you're not evaluating your situation honestly.  

In this case your father's estate is dictating your marriage. You want to inherit his property, your ancestral lands, his capital assets(maybe you'd want to want to invest in the Indian stock market, maybe hire a pms and have a wealth manager make you money passively.) 

Worst case scenario, are you willing to pull the plug ?
You can tell your dad to sell what he owns when he's older, take the tax hit, and move on. If its not about money, your dad can will his estate to your sibling or niece/nephew. Again..... you move on. If your old man dies intestate, that's the most cumbersome scenario for you. 

In the end,  if nothing goes your way, this will be a choice between the woman you claim to love, and an inheritance  in another country, you don't plan on living in. Pretty much the price of your marriage. Sorry if that was a bit direct.

EDIT : .....And his account has been deleted. Nvm.

blusan

My brother is Pakistani and sister in law Indian. We never had any issues with politics. I mean we don’t even discuss it because it has nothing to do with where we live.

AnonymousIdentityMan

su5577

Bro your dad and what army? He doesn't have the ability to put "conditions" lol

teethandteeth

You are south african. I doubt that you are going to renounce SA citizenshit and take Indian. 

As far as your wife to be is concerned.. same case. 

Get married to her. Not being able to travel to India might appear big to you, but honestly, its a minor hiccup.

lukup

Pakistani born women married to an India born man. Both live in the US. I’ve had a NICOP since before I met him. We’ve been married for 9 years now. I couldn’t tell you how my in-laws feel about me not being able to go to India cause neither of us care. My husband has invested in the family business back home. He can go if wants. Eventually we will try for a tourist visa. But honestly who cares. It’s hard enough finding someone marriage material in this cesspool of dating.

miqh82

SadWolverine24

You know right, that OCI is a privilege and not a right.  In a hypothetical situation say in future if your wife extended family ties in Pakistan turn out to be linked to folks which are related to anything that Indiana govt suspects you too risk losing your OCI.

Also why do you care about OCI or property that much, you love her marry her live your life happily with her

GiediHarkonnen

Papa's boy just marry her. Not being able to go to India is not a big deal and ur not missing much. 

I really hate the family connection thing prevelant in our culture. Fuck the family why should we gaf about some great grandma and aunt in india

ArachnidEntire8307

The "Born in Pakistan" part may be an issue. But I know Pakistani origin people who have gone to India as recent as last year. Adnan Sami even became a citizen if I'm not mistaken. 


Do you even need to bring it up?? 

Bubbly-Molasses7596

Well because she is of Pakistani origin. None of your children will ever get an OCI.

Your children in all probability will not have any inheritance allowed from their grandfather. 

If she gets a visa to visit India, it would be a highly restricted visa allowing her to stay in one or few particular city only. Then too she would have to register her presence in the nearest police station.

Now you have the information. What you do with this is your choice. 

The way I see it, if you marry her, you will effectively sever your ties to India.

mistiquefog

The question is, why would you impose your wife and kids to go to a shitty fascist hellhole where it’s doubtful whether if she is even allowed?

Novel-Rise2522

/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.


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

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

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. The Pakistani army rulers exploit this to the hilt by promising an islamic utopia with india and israel as the enemies preventing it, thus removing the need for showing good governance. The hypocrisy is palpable when they create lunatic taliban on one end and do genocide against bengali muslims on the other end. Inflation is an double digits but Imran Khan can still be thrown into jail by doing terrorist acts against india. This delusional promise of an islamic utopia held together only by creating artificial low intensity wars against Israel and India has caused endless misery not only in india and israel but also in Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan and rest of the middle east. 

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

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

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

WordsUnthought

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

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

Answer: A nation is more than the people who inhabit it; it is also the stories that knit those people together.

India’s narrative draws on the epics — the *Rāmāyaṇa* and *Mahābhārata* — but also on the modern struggle for independence and a constitutional promise of pluralism. Pakistan’s narrative, shaped by the Two-Nation Theory, emphasizes the conviction that Muslims formed a distinct political community whose rights could not be safeguarded within a Hindu-majority India. Over time, that founding idea has sometimes hardened into an identity defined *against* India, reinforced by school curricula and a security establishment that views perpetual rivalry as strategic necessity.

To see how such “origin stories” can institutionalize hostility, imagine a counter-factual United States in which ten southern states secede under the banner of “The Confederacy of the Pure.” Their textbooks portray northerners as morally corrupt; pastors and civic leaders preach that the South’s deeper Christian faith entitles it to rule the entire Union; militias arise, cloaked in religious justification, to terrorize northern civilians. Now add a super-power patron that funnels weapons and aid because it sees advantage in a divided America. The result would mirror many of the structural dynamics India faces with Pakistan: grievance-based identity, militarized nationalism, and external sponsorship that prolongs conflict.

Important differences remain. Cold-War geopolitics and China’s border disputes, not an intrinsic Islamic mandate, have driven much of Pakistan’s foreign patronage. Christianity and Islam themselves are not determinative; socio-economic conditions, institutions, and great-power incentives matter more. Still, the analogy underscores the central point: when a state’s founding myth locates its raison d’être in resisting a neighboring “other,” reconciliation becomes exceedingly hard without reshaping that narrative from within.

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

No need to change your view. It’s facts. 

1. India has no first use nukes, Pakistan does not. 

2. India has never started wars with anyone. Pakistan started wars with India. 

3. Bangladesh genocide by Pakistan. 

4. Mumbai terror attacks, Parliament attacks are proven to be funded and planned by the Pakistani army. They don’t just target military but even civilians. It’s not India saying Osama was in Pakistan,  it’s not India that put Pakistan on the FATF grey list. 

5. India is not a Hindu country. Pakistan is specifically a Muslim country. India has almost the same number of Muslims as Pakistan. 


People can whinge about human rights in India, Modi and problems in Kashmir but Pakistan has significantly worse problems. And no one is reporting how life is in POK. 

Clean_Ad7640

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

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.

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

Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)! 


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

In 2022, there was an incident where India [accidentally launched a missile into Pakistan's airspace.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_missile_incident) It really was an accident, both nations later publicly stated as such. 

Obviously, leaders were on the phone within minutes of the launch. But it's telling to me that India could fire a missile at Pakistan, and Pakistan's response was basically "bro wtf." Not 50 missiles in the opposite direction. 

True, tensions weren't as high as they've been recently. But neither of these two countries really wants a nuclear war, despite all their saber rattling. The cooler heads in both governments will know how to deescalate before it gets that far. It's just a matter of if they manage it before the hotheads launch the big ones.

hilfigertout

Man I’d be disappointed India and Pakistan get Fallout 5 before we do 😔

As someone who keeps up with geopolitics to an annoying and frustrating degree, I would say don’t be so anxious. We’ve been in similar situations many times before. 

Most likely, we’ll see a pissing contest with back-and-forth 'attacks,' followed by a third-party country, like the U.S. or an EU nation, stepping in as mediators to help both sides de-escalate in a way that won’t infuriate their populations.

A previous problem that was more worrisome in my opinion was when the world witnessed Chinese and Indian military go head-to-head, engaging in literal hand-to-hand combat with basic weapons, and keep in mind that they are both nuclear armed nations. Also Chinas current strong-arming and hostile approach to Asian countries in the South China sea is a bit more worrisome in my opinion.

stop-hatin-on-me_mom

Don't worry they've been doing this forever. This is nothing new.

burgerking351

No.

India made targeted strikes against terrorist camps after a terrorist attack happened on their territory, which was linked to a Pakistani group.

Pakistan will fuss (because they don’t want to admit what everyone already knows — they find and support terror groups on their soil) and retaliate.

And then things will cool off.

Give it a few weeks. Neither country is nuking the other. They’ve fought a ton of wars before.

lavenderpenguin

Can someone explain why so many people suddenly care about this conflict

KingTechnical48

They just do this sometimes, if this kinda shit was happening between NATO and Russia id be sweating balls but India and Pakistan is fine

OkNewspaper6271

nah they have done this sort of conflict so many times and usually it fizzles out after a while.

alkalineHydroxide

I doubt it

Some sort of conflict happens over in the border areas every so often

Nuclear war is always a possibility, but few people would be insane enough to escalate to that level

talhahtaco

Either it doesn’t happen, so there is nothing to worry about, or it happens and it’s nuclear war, in which case I think I’ll be a little bit too dead to worry about it lol

etheran123

No. Everyone's got spies everywhere now, and even a thought of using nuclear bombs would get stopped dead in it's tracks quite quickly. Most countries have the means to deter, stop, and retaliate against nukes, and it'd take far far worse happening beforehand for it to even be a possibility.

draker585

Pakistani living in Canada here.

Nah, there's no way a nuclear war is going to happen. India and Pakistan are right next to each other, and any nuclear fallout from either side would have a massive impact on the other side's environment, economy, and safety.

Also if nuclear warfare were to happen, like for example if India was to nuke Pakistan, they would be making enemies out of a whole bunch of different countries including Bangladesh, Turkey, and most importantly, China (even though China and India are already kinda enemies).

Although war on this scale and happening outside of Kashmir hasn't happened since 1965, fighting between Pakistan and India is nothing new. From my obviously biased opinion this is all a result of power hungry Indian politicians using fear mongering to gain power.

As morbid as it sounds, Pakistani AND Indian Gen Zs generally think this whole war is a joke. There's very little if any animosity between us since we recognize that this war is as petty as to compare it to old men throwing sticks and stones at each other from across the street.

Inshallah everything will be resolved by people who are actually sensible and kind-hearted, and the needless violence and taking of lives will stop soon.

-Tuesday

Stop reading about it.

They’re on the other side of the world.  You’re going to be fine, unless you live there.

Miserable-Lawyer-233

On the bright side, it will help lower global temperatures

Ok_Award_8421

There’s several powder kegs rn globally. This one won’t be the one set things into action.

a-ol

I highly doubt that it's going to go to nuclear war, they did have several full scale wars even when they had nukes and it didn't devolve into a full scale nuclear war (Kargil 1999)

The_Grizzly-

Between Indian and Pakistan? No, no shot.

Spawnofslime556

i doubt it   
but at this point idc if it happens or not

RedcornCompanion

&gt; Do you think a nuclear war is gonna happen?

[*Millennial me reading this question...*](https://i.imgur.com/DprdLOS.jpg)

When I was in elementary, 1st through 3rd grade, we still did duck and cover drills in school (the President was Reagan).

SomeGoogleUser

Nuclear war isn't gonna happen because nobody is gonna win from it. India and Pakistan have been at odds for a long time. Them fighting a little is nothing new or unique.

MRE_Milkshake

India and Pakistan have hated each other for decades. It's nothing new.

Crysis482

It's currently quite unlikely. More than anything, this war is an opportunity for China to showcase its military technology through Pakistan, Europe to prove the mettle of its fighter jets, and the US to see how its naval equipment actually performs in the field.

So far, Pakistan has fared significantly better against India's Air Force than expected. Unless India spends *a lot* of resources to get Pakistan to reveal the whole of its defense grid, the war is probably not going to be decided in the air. Pakistan has no real offensive naval capabilities, but a fairly good naval defense setup, so one might expect that India will attempt a naval incursion, which will be of particular interest to the US.

If Pakistan successfully defends against India's navy, then India will have to decide if it wants to focus purely on air combat or send ground troops. If Pakistan fails to defend against India's navy, I imagine it will end up feeling pressured to launch a ground invasion. If troops start fighting on the ground, then to be honest it's going to get a lot more scary, as nuclear war becomes much more likely.

Ideally, Pakistan defends against India's navy, and is able to hold off their Air Force but unable to take any escalatory offensive action in the air. I think that in such a scenario, both sides will likely decide against a ground invasion and work towards a ceasefire instead. The fewer people in either country who are killed, the better.

The real winner here is China. The fact that Pakistan has been able to hold its own against India's very impressive Air Force for this long is a testament to the benefits of its partnership with China. I would imagine that a lot of countries in the Global South are becoming more and more interested in developing closer ties with China.

Gilamath

Pakistan can station 100000 cows at the border as a shield

hitlicks4aliving

ImpossibleClue3846

len890

Not nuclear war, but another proxy war is coming if things escalated. Also, They have been going at each other for ages.

We gonna see Ukraine Vs Russia 2.0 where China &amp; the west get to do a product testing on their Military technology

MessageOk4432

Pakistan's Defence Minister raised alarms about the possibility of war with India, leading to increased military preparations in both countries.

Tensions Between India and Pakistan

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want