Toward Understanding Why India wants Pakistan

[Haldorss]

It doesn't come out of nothing that they want the region..... so no one can really hate them for trying. This is what Anglosaxons took from them.

 

[Meengla]

No matter what the Indians say, the land access to the relatively lower populated but often resource rich region north of Pakistan can become a big prize/gain. Free flow of goods and people via highways year around still wins over sea or air routes.

 

[Maula Jatt]

Shut the f*** up Zoomalian
you don't know ANYTHING about the region, that's like me talking about Horn of africa and bringing 3000 y/o maps to make a point

 

[epebble]

It doesn't come out of nothing that they want the region..... so no one can really hate them for trying. This is what Anglosaxons took from them.

View attachment 958181View attachment 958182

So, you just discovered internet has all this fun stuff?

 

[El Sidd]

It's a religious obsession

 

[Krptonite]

No matter what the Indians say, the land access to the relatively lower populated but often resource rich region north of Pakistan can become a big prize/gain. Free flow of goods and people via highways year around still wins over sea or air routes.

Respectfully, trade routes to where?

Land routes cannot match naval ones in volume or price point.

Not one country bordering Pakistan or central east are big export markets for Indian products, there's no incentive big enough to justify the costs involved war would bring

Our export destinations are western markets, as such land routes through Pakistan could not compete with naval ones.

The other point being resources inherent to Pakistan, I still fail to see which natural resources are there that cannot be bought cheaper from the global market. Why engage in war when buying is cheaper?

I dont understand the premise of your point.

 

[Chandragupt Maurya]

It doesn't come out of nothing that they want the region..... so no one can really hate them for trying. This is what Anglosaxons took from them.

View attachment 958181View attachment 958182

I don't believe India is interested in reestablishing the boundaries of the empires centered around Pataliputra (modern-day Patna). It's important to remember that territory is inseparable from its population. Both Pakistan and Bangladesh have experienced challenges related to Islamic radicalization in their populations. India already has a sizable Muslim population that is radicalized and mentally retarded.

 

[Clutch]

It doesn't come out of nothing that they want the region..... so no one can really hate them for trying. This is what Anglosaxons took from them.

View attachment 958181View attachment 958182

But India was never a united republic though out it's history. It was always a region of independent princely states often at war with each other.

 

[Chandragupt Maurya]

But India was never a united republic though out it's history. It was always a region of independent princely states often at war with each other.

India encompassed a much larger territory in terms of area during the times of the empires centered around Pataliputra, as illustrated on the map.

 

[Maula Jatt]

I don't believe India is interested in reestablishing the boundaries of the empires centered around Pataliputra (modern-day Patna). It's important to remember that territory is inseparable from its population. Both Pakistan and Bangladesh have experienced challenges related to Islamic radicalization

https://twitter.com/x/status/1685211997930188800

in their populations. India already has a sizable Muslim population that is radicalized and mentally retarded.

Average Indian IQ level 76 is only 3,4 Points above what's considered retarted in China

 

[Meengla]

Respectfully, trade routes to where?

Land routes cannot match naval ones in volume or price point.

Not one country bordering Pakistan or central east are big export markets for Indian products, there's no incentive big enough to justify the costs involved war would bring

Our export destinations are western markets, as such land routes through Pakistan could not compete with naval ones.

The other point being resources inherent to Pakistan, I still fail to see which natural resources are there that cannot be bought cheaper from the global market. Why engage in war when buying is cheaper?

I dont understand the premise of your point.

Firstly, I don't 'buy' this argument that naval or aerial routes are better. Whenever possible, countries try roads or trains. With borders becoming very easy, there is a dynamics of human population moving and with that comes the creation and movements of resources. The EU and the North American trade are but one example.

Also, the region to the north of Pakistan are also less prone to the climate change/warming. Vast land is available --including much arable land--and relatively smaller populations. Not to mention some have great natural resources. Then there is the potentials of tourism. Who the hell likes flying when you can drive to places or get on high speed trains.

I have seen Indians condemning their luck of not able to reach to the region north of Pakistan. You seem to be different. That's fine. I can't 'prove' anything to you. You are thinking about today--I am thinking about decades later. Time will tell.

 

[Krptonite]

Firstly, I don't 'buy' this argument that naval or aerial routes are better. Whenever possible, countries try roads or trains. With borders becoming very easy, there is a dynamics of human population moving and with that comes the creation and movements of resources. The EU and the North American trade are but one example.

Also, the region to the north of Pakistan are also less prone to the climate change/warming. Vast land is available --including much arable land--and relatively smaller populations. Not to mention some have great natural resources. Then there is the potentials of tourism. Who the hell likes flying when you can drive to places or get on high speed trains.

I have seen Indians condemning their luck of not able to reach to the region north of Pakistan. You seem to be different. That's fine. I can't 'prove' anything to you. You are thinking about today--I am thinking about decades later. Time will tell.

Its simple arithmacy, a ship can transport hundreds of tons of cargo in one go, whereas a train tens of tons and a truck a fraction. Scale of economics favours ships anyday. You divide the total fuel spent by the total cargo and theres no comparison between the two.

Dynamic borders and formation of central economic clusters like the EU are predicated by economic factors that drive their formation, this region has no strong factors to do so.

Some regions are naturally less prone to flooding, but arable land? It is incredibly cheaper and benefitial for making friends to purchase food on the global market than to make war and try to sieze land for cultivation. Current advancements in agriculture have made that argument redundant. If its cheaper to purchase than to grow yourself, thats your money that can be better spent elsewhere. Why make war and enemies in such a scenario

The north of Pakistan is uniquely beautiful, there no two opinions about it, but are you really suggesting that it is singular?
We do possess some of our own and the argument that war to catch tourism potential is ridiculously weak.

 

[Bilal9]

It doesn't come out of nothing that they want the region..... so no one can really hate them for trying. This is what Anglosaxons took from them.

View attachment 958181View attachment 958182

What you are showing is largely conjectural and based on the area surrounding the area of influence of all the city states (i.e. Mahajanapadas shown).

Maha=Mega
Jana=People
Pada=Place or conglomeration

There was zero tax collection from the shaded areas unless these were completely weak, backward areas with no one ruling them (given that some of these were BIMARU states even then, quite likely that they were backward then like they are today i.e, Bihar/Mithila, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh areas). Agriculturally and financially backward with low GDP per capita today as well as before Mughal dynasty.

To Bhakts, all this "historifying" - is an attempt to recoup "lost glory" and re-write history so that they could revive the prestige and glory of "lost" Hindutva.

But there was little glory to speak of in any case and how can one "re-gain" prestige for something "lost" which did not exist ? Other than storybooks and colorful anecdotes.

 

[Bilal9]

Both Pakistan and Bangladesh have experienced challenges related to Islamic radicalization in their populations.

Definitely less than that of Indian situation nowadays.

Most Godi Media propaganda about radicalization in these two countries is to legitimize Hindu radicalization in India.

Enough said.

 

[Cheepek]

India does not want Pakistan, only Kashmir. We can't handle so many cavemen amongst us. These ~200M have our hands full already.