Can India & Pakistan come out of the spiral of mutual destruction ?

[satyamev]

seeing the destruction in Europe and the never ending animosity between our 2 countries, I was wondering whether the lessons of Europe can result in our 2 countries overcoming fixed positions, like Pakistan's kashmir only policy , and aim for normal relations between us ?
Why I mention kashmir is because India has no such single condition for normalcy.
We are just wasting the resources of 2 impoverished countries on a arms race .

 

[Khan vilatey]

seeing the destruction in Europe and the never ending animosity between our 2 countries, I was wondering whether the lessons of Europe can result in our 2 countries overcoming fixed positions, like Pakistan's kashmir only policy , and aim for normal relations between us ?
Why I mention kashmir is because India has no such single condition for normalcy.
We are just wasting the resources of 2 impoverished countries on a arms race .

They probably can’t till disputed territories are settled and india leaves Kashmir. So in its current form India and Paksitan can never be friends

If india disintegrated we could be friends with a lot of the new states

K

 

[Wood]

This is not possible for the foreseeable future. I'll resist from saying 'never' because no one could predict the future. Neither India nor Pakistan is guaranteed to exist forever.

South Asian population is as religiously polarized. This will not easily allow for peace between the two countries.

 

[coffee_cup]

For that to happen, the first thing india must do is to stop the cross-border terrorism into Pakistan.

That would be the first step in the right direction. unfortunately for us and for the region, Indian establishment is hijacked by hindu extremists who wont settle of anything less than a total destruction in the region, :-(

 

[.King.]

The issue is fundamental. India believes that the entire basis for the formation of pakistan, the idea that muslims can not live together with other religions, is a flawed idea. For pakistan, giving up on this is not a choice - Doing so would mean balkanisation of the country. For India, accepting the flawed idea is not possible - Its own experience and the existence of India as an undivided nation shows that Muslims can, and have lived with other religions. Other issues like pakistani terror, Kashmir, the difference in structure of Indian and pakistani administration etc only aggravate the issue.

 

[Joe Shearer]

This is not possible for the foreseeable future. I'll resist from saying 'never' because no one could predict the future. Neither India nor Pakistan is guaranteed to exist forever.

South Asian population is as religiously polarized. This will not easily allow for peace between the two countries.

Disagree.

We are polarised between bigoted and anti-national politicians on one side, and a totally politicised military on the other.

India believes that the entire basis for the formation of pakistan, the idea that muslims can not live together with other religions, is a flawed idea.

This is what a lunatic fringe thinks, not any responsible Indian.

Not the 17% Muslim population, not the 20% Dalit population - they have their own battles. So that make 37% indifferent to this idea. Straightaway to assert that even 67% of the population, without exception, still thinks that Pakistan is a bad idea is a frightfully short-sighted assessment.

 

[.King.]

This is what a lunatic fringe thinks, not any responsible Indian.

No, that is everyone, from the british, to nehru, gandhi, patel, and every sensible thinker believed in. The essence of the idea is not "Akhand Bharat", it is that the pakistani idea on which it was based, is faulty- And unless the pakistani state takes steps to change its identity, peaceful coexistence with India is unlikely.

Note that peace is not the absence of conflict - it includes a feeling of mutual goodwill too. That is the fundamental issue here.

 

[Paro_Peagus]

10 years.

Not because the enmity between both is going to reduce but because the smaller one is going to figure out its not economically viable to afford enmity with the bigger one.

 

[Wood]

Disagree.

We are polarised between bigoted and anti-national politicians on one side, and a totally politicised military on the other.

In my view, the India - Pakistan conflict is simply the modern day incarnation of Hindu-Muslim conflict that has been ongoing in the subcontinent for many centuries now. Both sides have exchanged power over this period. Neither side will give up in defeat in the near future. The population as a whole cannot easily evolve beyond the stark cultural influences that religions tend to impose upon them.


Just my opinion.

 

[Maula Jatt]

Nope, not seeing anything for another 2-3 decades

In my view, the India - Pakistan conflict is simply the modern day incarnation of Hindu-Muslim conflict that has been ongoing in the subcontinent for many years now. Both sides have exchanged power over this period. Neither side will give up in defeat in the near future. The population as a whole cannot easily evolve beyond the stark cultural influences that religions tend to impose upon them.


Just my opinion.

Ethno-nationalism counters it but than that's a process towards balkanization

 

[Joe Shearer]

India believes that the entire basis for the formation of pakistan, the idea that muslims can not live together with other religions, is a flawed idea.

This is what a lunatic fringe thinks, not any responsible Indian.

No, that is everyone, from the british, to nehru, gandhi, patel, and every sensible thinker believed in. The essence of the idea is not "Akhand Bharat", it is that the pakistani idea on which it was based, is faulty-

Oh, I seem to have got it back to front. Yes, it was faulty, and still is. How does that concern us? Let us assume that in terms of conceptualising what a country is for they can't work their way out of a paper bag. How does it concern us?

 

[Menace2Society]

 

[Shehryar Ashraf]

it took 2 world wars ,a level of destruction never seen before and the castration of Germany for there to be peace in Europe.
It took a war that reached its final conclusion and the raising of the Soviet flag in Berlin for there to be peace.
this spiral of mutual destruction either ends with one side to emerge victorious in a decisive war, or both blown away into an unrecognizable states for there to be peace.

 

[Wood]

Ethno-nationalism counters it but than that's a process towards balkanization

I've not seen much of ethno-nationalism in India. The Punjabis, Tamils and some NE states are known to have harbored secessionist demands in the past. This is not the case anymore.

For your idea to be accepted, I would expect Hindus and Muslims to be united in provinces that have more than 20% of minority population in it. Anything less than that is not a significant show to ethno-nationalism. The state of Kerala (in India) could technically qualify, but they do not have a strong ethnic political orientation that I know of.

 

[Maula Jatt]

I've not seen much of ethno-nationalism in India. The Punjabis, Tamils and some NE states are known to have harbored secessionist demands in the past. This is not the case anymore.

For your idea to be accepted, I would expect Hindus and Muslims to be united in provinces that have more than 20% of minority population in it. Anything less than that is not a significant show to ethno-nationalism. The state of Kerala (in India) could technically qualify, but they do not have a strong ethnic political orientation that I know of.

Ethno-nationalism does not exactly mean secessionist movement - its more about ethnic pride, culture etc
which means for you your blood, common culture comes before religion, political view etc

I dont know much about India but I guess something similar to west-Bengal or something
Punjabis were not ethno-nationalist too connected with Ganges plate to be ethno-nats
but more of a religious terrorism movement