Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by screye | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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.

View on HN

> 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.

> 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

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

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

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.

You're right. I guess I should not have extrapolated it. I meant in Northern India mostly. I have heard also in South there is little communal violence comparatively.

> 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.

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

That almost made me laugh.

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....

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com