[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.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Anything that India gets out of Pakistan cannot be trusted

Then the only security solution for India is invading and replacing Pakistan’s government. Anything less is needlessly drawing out the violence out of caution and cowardice. The fact that this is obviously overkill belies that there is room for diplomacy.

Also! Not how diplomacy works! A fundamental fact about international relations is it’s anarchic. If your model of international relations requires trust for diplomacy, you’ve fundamentally missed how geopolitics works.

> It will continue to provoke and attack India as long as their military rules the nation

Look at the history of France and Germany negotiating territory exchanges, including under duress. Or the U.S. and Britain while the two hated each other. Et cetera.

[ivell]

>>Also! Not how diplomacy works! A fundamental fact about international relations is it’s anarchic. If your model of international relations requires trust for diplomacy, you’ve fundamentally missed how geopolitics works.

Actually trust is a significant factor in geopolitical setup. This is why NATO was stable for a long time and Trump's statements are read as a threat to NATO.

Many nations trust the signed agreements are kept. If those are not followed, then there is no point in signing those agreements.

If there is no trust, then there will be military build up to manage the risks. The fact that this does not happen to western countries is due to high degree of trust among them (France will not attack Germany tomorrow).

>>Look at the history of France and Germany negotiating territory exchanges, including under duress.

Significantly different economy, society and government. Hard to negotiate when the whole existence of the government depends on anti-India stance, when the economy is dependent upon aid from IMF, and high levels of illiteracy and radicalization (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization_in_Pakistan)

[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.