[screye]

India wants peace. A peaceful India threatens Pakistan's entire existence as a military state. Therefore, Pakistan keeps instigating with outrageously cruel terrorist attacks.

There are no strategic goals here. Either side may recover some vantage points high up in the Himalayas. But that's about it.

[hayst4ck]

Israel and Russia also want peace. China wants peace with Taiwan. The US wants peace with Greenland and Canada.

You have to be careful with that word, peace, because all wars are defensive.

[screye]

Israel did want peace with Gaza (Gaza specifically, not West Bank). After the 2005 Gaza disengagement, Israel did a lot to normalize relations with Gaza. They wanted peace until they gave up all attempts to do so, after October 7th.

Peace implies disengagement by maintaining long-standing borders. India wants peace by maintaining Line of Actual Control (LAC). Be it China or Pakistan, India has never been the one to escalate first. When engaging with nations that want peace, India has been able to resolve complex border issues. Eg: Srilanka[1] and Bangladesh [2].

Russia and China do not want peace because they are invading past their effective borders into lands they do not control.

All wars are not defensive. All countries are not the same. Each war is different, and it is fair to impose different judgements on the participants of each war.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katchatheevu

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Bangladesh_encla...

[hayst4ck]

> Peace implies disengagement by maintaining long-standing borders.

Before I write a novel of a response, can you rigorously define "long-standing borders", as well as the implied words of "nation", "country", and "state"? How far back in history is "long standing" valid for? Some of these things are matters of history, how do you deal with historians disagreeing on the ground truth? What happens when someone strongly asserts something that is factually untrue?

All wars are defensive in that the combatants are told they are defending, not attacking. Russians in Ukraine don't think they are attacking, they think they are defending Russia from NATO or de-nazifying Ukraine, or at least that is their national narrative.

Mostly I think your post proved my overall point, which is that peace is not a meaningful word because its meaning is relative to its speakers beliefs rather than in reference to a universalize-able moral framework describing about what justice is.

[SetTheorist]

In what possible sense can you possible mean that "all wars are defensive"?

And it is absurd to claim that Russia wants peace. It can literally have peace anytime it wants by simply pulling its troops out of Ukrainian territory and ceasing the launching of missiles and drones on the populace.

The US threats on Canada and Greenland are not made with "peace" in mind.

[cogman10]

OP's point is warhawks and propaganda can easily weaponize their position as the aggressors as being "peace seeking".

The best example of this is the Iraq war. The US invaded another country and sold it as a peace keeping mission because "They are building weapons of mass destruction!".

In fact, the US has decades of history doing such actions (see: banana republics and the CIA's anti-communism efforts).

[JumpCrisscross]

> In what possible sense can you possible mean that "all wars are defensive"?

I think the argument is all wars can be defensively spun. Russia apologists falling for the imminent-Ukraine-membership lie, MAGAs falling for the idea that we’re defending our Arctic interests by invading Greenland, Hitler’s argument that the Nazis were defending against a jealous Jewry and Europe, et cetera. The justifications for war are always, in part, however flimsily, couched in terms of defence (in modern times).

[ignoramous]

> You have to be careful with that word, peace, because all [offensive] wars are defensive

The jingoists won't ever be ... as Orwell predicted, they'll use Orwellian terms fit for their grandeur and inline with their delusion.

[coryfklein]

I’m sorry, but this is getting really out of hand, we can’t even use the word “peace” now?

[matheusmoreira]

Common street robbers want peace too. They want to rob you of your property as peacefully as possible. They very much want you to just surrender and let it happen.

Violence is usually conditional. It comes with instructions on how to avoid it. Let the criminal take your things and he won't shoot you. Let us take this territory and you won't be killed. If you surrender and submit to our rule, you will have your peace. It's just that the cost is your land, your economy, your freedom, your secuity, your dignity, your pride, your self-determination

The key fact about violence is nobody actually wants it. Everybody wants peace. At the same time, everybody also wants scarce resources that others are unwilling to just hand over to them. So they use the threat of violence to get what they want. Actual violence is risky and all bets are off once it escalates. Without the threat of violence though, why negotiate when you can just take?

So there's a lot of nuance to "peace". India cannot claim to want peace and then suspend a treaty that provides vital water resources to Pakistan. Pakistan cannot claim to want peace and at the same time support insurgency against India. All of these things will obviously escalate the situtation until it erupts into war.

[infecto]

I didn’t read it that way. I read it more that saying India is a peaceful nation is probably not the full truth. As a third party I always had the impression this was one of those tit for tat forever wars. Each attack there is usually an antagonist but over the whole course it’s muddy.

[rfrey]

Every country wants peace, as long as it's on their terms.

[JumpCrisscross]

> India wants peace

Not really. There are options for a negotiated peace that involves swapping land, specifically, ceding Muslim-dominant territory to Pakistan and setting borders along rivers. That's anathema in India because there is broad-based antipathy towards Islamabad, historically, and Muslims, recently.

[screye]

> ceding Muslim-dominant territory to Pakistan

Why would India do that? Why would a unilateral surrender of land be considered valid terms for peace?

> swapping land

In a fair swap, what land would Pakistan offer in exchange?

> Muslims, recently

Pakistan doesn't have a stellar reputation for treatment of its Muslim minorities (Ahmediyyas, Ismailis) and non-Punjabi muslims (Balochis, Pasthuns, once-Pakistani-Bengalis). I'm inclined to consider India a safer nation for most muslim denominations.

____

Note: Pakistan's historic terror attacks have been deep in India soil (Mumbai, Delh). There is no indication that they'd maintain peace with India if they gained control over Kashmir.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Why would a unilateral surrender of land be considered valid terms for peace?

Because you trade it for more than it's worth to you. America gave up the Philippines, for example. Every decolonisation effort could accurately be described as "a unilateral surrender of land."

> what land would Pakistan offer in exchange?

You'd probably need China to participate. Maybe Siachen or even areas of Sindh? It's a long shot. One of the elements would almost certainly be co-ordinated anti-terrorist policing. Maybe guaranteed by China.

> I'm inclined to consider India a safer nation for most muslim denominations

I am, too. But let's be honest, neither side is concerned with the wellbeing of anyone in Kashmir.

[ignoramous]

> decolonisation effort

Kashmiris on the Indian side are citizens (unlike in "colonies"). AFSPA must be phased out but Kashmir isn't the only Indian state that's subject to it.

> neither side is concerned with the wellbeing of anyone in Kashmir

Yeah, the issue is too good to give up for (religion-based) politics and (military-industrial) businesses, on both sides of the border.

Reminds of me this Bollywood movie dialogue: https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/RJAJdYw3ctw

[JumpCrisscross]

> Kashmiris on the Indian side are citizens (unlike in "colonies")

Since when has that prevented any government from negotiating borders?

> the issue is too good to give up for (religion-based) politics and (military-industrial) businesses, on both sides of the border

Yup. I’d add that the citizens of both countries legitimately despise each other. Not genocidally, for the most part, but dismissively to each others’ humanity. So it’s not like you have to go full manufactured consent to develop jingoism.

[ignoramous]

> I'd add that the citizens of both countries legitimately despise each other

I've been to towns on both sides throughout the years and this isn't the case everywhere. Though, disagreements do run deep, as contrasting narratives are in fact mainstream talking points.

Hopefully, in my lifetime, the countries resolve their differences & cast aside the hateful fringe like they should.

> negotiating borders

That's a very different thing to "decolonisation".

> manufactured consent to develop jingoism

They have to. A widow survivor of the Pahalgam Attack called for peace and the jingoists lost their collective minds: https://x.com/RahulSeeker/status/1919771002013118540

India is 1.6bn people and even if 7% disagree, that's a 100mn people (and the number is far greater than 7%). Not everyone is a right-wing nationalist, though, the ruling parties and the now-compromised MSMs are.

[aprilthird2021]

> I'm inclined to consider India a safer nation for most muslim denominations.

Come on. You can't live in India and think this seriously.

Anyways, the Kashmir issue is contentious but Kashmiris never got to say whether they should be part of India or not, unlike most states and people during partition. I am very aware the full history of the region is murky and that the removal of Kashmiri Pandits from the region led to the current broad swath of support for Kashmiri independence (or becoming a part of Pakistan, either way being separate from India), but the current situation is what it is, and until that is resolved it will continue to be an issue in India.

> Pakistan's historic terror attacks have been deep in India soil

India is said to sponsor Balochistan separatism as well, those groups have also made attacks deep into Pakistan, so again, no indication that either side will remain peaceful if the Kashmiri conflict ended.

[unmole]

> You can't live in India and think this seriously.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Ahmadis_(Pakist...

> unlike most states and people during partition

This is complete nonsense. Nobody got a say, Kashmir wasn't any different.

[leosanchez]

> Come on. You can't live in India and think this seriously.

I don't know where you live. There are states in India where minorities are absolutely safe.

[aprilthird2021]

I lived in Gujarat and Rajasthan, so point taken. My uncle had to flee Surat during communal violence concealed in an ambulance

[leosanchez]

You can't extrapolate that to entire India though can you? I live in Southern part of India where there is very little communal violence.

[monkey_monkey]

> I'm inclined to consider India a safer nation for most muslim denominations.

That almost made me laugh.

[ignoramous]

That's the peace / piece Pakistan wants.

No one asks what the Kashmiris of the Valley want, which, for the most part, seems like they want to be left alone: https://www.quora.com/What-do-Jammu-and-Kashmirs-people-thin....

[barrkel]

One moment you say India wants peace, the next you question why India would make compromises that might lead to peace.

You know how this looks from a position outside the conflict, right? Can you imagine a Paskistani perspective? Put yourself on the other side. Imagine what it would take for peace from that point of view.

[alephnerd]

> involves swapping land, specifically, ceding Muslim-dominant territory to Pakistan

The sectors on the Indian side where fighting is happening right now in Jammu Division are 50-50 Muslim-Hindu/Sikh. What you are advocating would lead to Yugoslav style ethnic cleansing.

> setting borders along rivers

It already is that on the LoC, or mountain faces where rivers are not existent.

[JumpCrisscross]

> What you are advocating would lead to Yugoslav style ethnic cleansing

Yes. When you have a sectarian conflict, the only lasting solution is moving people around. Hateful people don’t learn to stop hating each other. Particularly not when you’re dealing with the levels of education in J&K.

> It already is that on the LoC, or mountain faces where rivers are not existent

And. Having a river with a sectarian cross isn’t useful.

This stuff is hard and controversial. It takes work. My point is nobody is particularly interested in that work versus leaving the region in a low simmer.

[alephnerd]

> Yes. When you have a sectarian conflict, the only lasting solution is moving people around. Hateful people don’t learn to stop hating each other.

Jammu Division is an entirely separate ethnic community (Pahari) from that in Kashmir Division (Koshur).

Even during the worst of the partition and the Indo-Pak Wars, the mountain areas where active fighting was occurring never saw the same kind of religious violence you'd see in neighboring Kashmir or Punjabi speaking areas like Jammu City or Mirpur City.

This would be solving a non-existent problem, as the leadership making decisions for conflicts on or around the LoC are not from these regions.

And btw, the Indian and Pakistani army did attempt that when my grandmother was a child, but it didn't stick and people from one side or the other would just cross back - and this was the norm until the 1980s.

---------------

There are ways to resolve the problem longer term, and that requires forcing professionalization of the Pakistani Armed Forces and cajoling India back to the negotiating table using the carrot and the stick. Similar precedent already exists with the Israel-Egypt peace accords under Sadat, and would have happened under Bajwa, Nawaz Sharif, or Musharraf if they weren't undermined.

[JumpCrisscross]

> leadership making decisions for conflicts on or around the LoC are not from these regions

The people in the region are pretty much irrelevant, one can successfuly model the conflict as a proxy war between New Delhi and Islamabad. Their interests are particular to the borders in the region, namely, access to waterm, China and the other side's Kashmir.

> ways to resolve the problem longer term, and that requires forcing professionalization of the Pakistani Armed Forces and cajoling India back to the negotiating table using the carrot and the stick. Similar precedent already exists with the Israel-Egypt peace accords under Sadat

This is a solution from a different era. The current borders are unstable and thus unsustainable. Between proxy forces and the militarisation of the South China Sea, we're kicking the can down the road until someone acts decisively.

The game theory is that kicking the can down the road works for both sides. There isn't a pressing need for peace between India and Pakistan, just not nuclear conflict. And that's achieved with a Korean Peninsula-esque stalemate. The problem is either side gaining an advantage resolves the issue, and the later that happens the more destructive the resolution would be. (Think: Pakistan gaining top-of-the-line Sino-Russian missile defence.) And both sides know that ex ante. So we have a prisoner's dilemma without the common enemy (and common ally) that animated Tel Aviv and Cairo.

[saagarjha]

> Yes. When you have a sectarian conflict, the only lasting solution is moving people around. Hateful people don’t learn to stop hating each other. Particularly not when you’re dealing with the levels of education in J&K.

"We should do my poorly thought out plan because they're too dumb to stop killing each other" is not a reasonable way to discuss geopolitics.

[kumarvvr]

> There are options for a negotiated peace that involves swapping land, specifically, ceding Muslim-dominant territory to Pakistan and setting borders along rivers.

Sorry, why would that be done? When Pakistan was split from India, because of the Muslims voting against their own land that they have been living in for centuries, the lines are set and done.

Why should India cede more land?

Pakistan is on one of the most resource rich, fertile lands in the Indian subcontinent.

[JumpCrisscross]

> When Pakistan was split from India, because of the Muslims voting against their own land that they have been living in for centuries, the lines are set and done

Lines are never "set and done for." We had a short period of global consensus around the unacceptability of taking territory by force. But between the superpowers' proxy wars, America's invasion of Iraq, China's annexation of Tibet and threats on Taiwan, and Russia's invasion of Ukraine, that precedent was always tenuous at best and, now, has certainly passed.

> Why should India cede more land?

Because New Delhi expects something of greater value in return. For example, one could see a China-mediated truce trading territory in J&K for settling boundaries in Andra Pradesh and/or a deployment of Chinese troops on anti-terrorist missions in Pakistan.

Nobody is saying India just give land to Pakistan for feelsies. It's engaging in a negotiation where that's on the table.

> Pakistan is on one of the most resource rich, fertile lands in the Indian subcontinent

Geopolitics isn't fair? (Also, India is richer than Pakistan. Both in population and GDP per capital.)

That said, this argument represents the pathos in India. India broadly isn't interested in peace if it comes at the cost of territory. It expresses a preference for certain things above peace.

[pkd]

This is a weird line of reasoning. By this logic the aggressors will always win because the other side should always concede territory for peace.

Even if Kashmir is ceded to Pakistan, there is no reason why they'd be done aggressing for more territory.

[JumpCrisscross]

> By this logic the aggressors will always win because the other side should always concede territory for peace

Nope. It’s just being realistic about the priorities at play. And there isn’t a clear aggressor in this conflict, it is as old as both states.

(Also, countries have bought and sold territories for ages. That doesn’t invite aggression or strike me as wrong.)

> if Kashmir is ceded to Pakistan, there is no reason why they'd be done aggressing for more territory

They wouldn’t. New Delhi would have to get something that is worth more than that territory in return.

[ivell]

>They wouldn’t. New Delhi would have to get something that is worth more than that territory in return.

What would that be? Pakistan and India had an agreement to peacefully resolve issues already in 1972 Simla agreement. But they continue to send terrorists to murder indian civilians on indian soil. They never followed the agreement. They invaded twice after that agreement.

Anything that India gets out of Pakistan cannot be trusted. They have been claiming that Osama was not in Pakistan, while taking money from the US to support its war in terror.

I don't think Pakistan has any trustability remaining.

It will continue to provoke and attack India as long as their military rules the nation. Their military's existence is the anti-India stance it propagates.

[geekasm]

> And there isn’t a clear aggressor in this conflict yes, there is. it is paxtan. They are sponsoring terror bases which commit terror acts within India.

[sbmthakur]

I know that's just an example but any kind of third party arbitrator has to be trusted by India. As far its territorial integrity is concerned India doesn't trust China or even the US, and this is true across party lines.

[kumarvvr]

One does not negotiate with terrorist supporting military dictatorships.

[saagarjha]

Pakistan is not a military dictatorship, at least not in its current form. Terrorist supporting, maaaaybe. But a lot of countries are terrorist supporting, and the world is happy to negotiate with them.

[ivell]

>Pakistan is not a military dictatorship

I think here we are looking into a textbook style definition. But for all practical purposes, military rules Pakistan. It is well understood by its own citizens, especially post-Imran Khan.

>But a lot of countries are terrorist supporting, and the world is happy to negotiate with them.

Would like to understand which countries you mean. No one is negotiating with Iran nowadays. India also was willing to negotiate in the past, not anymore it seems.

Support for terrorism as a state policy is to put pressure without major impact to the aggressor nation. The aggressor is in an advantageous position. Terrorism is low cost high impact (non material, but psychological). There is not much leverage for the suffering country here. So negotiations are not long lasting.

[sbmthakur]

Under no circumstances India is ceding any territory to a military run state that has sponsored terrorism in India. If Pakistan is serious they can start by putting PoK on the table and halt all anti Indian activities in their country. That would be a good start.

[boruto]

There is no guarantee that ceding land would result in peace.

[alephnerd]

> A peaceful India threatens Pakistan's entire existence as a military state

Pakistani Military leadership has attempted to negotiate normalized relations as well. The issue is someone in their lower ranks or on the political front tries to take advantage of normalization attempts to overthrow the previous leader. I documented a number of cases that happened this past decade below.