Pahalgam Tourists Attack

Indians should not fall into the trap of feeling superior over Pakistan and how we could crush Pakistan in a war.

War is not good for India and its economy and the supply chain for billions of Indians will come to its knees in no time.

Pakistan can't afford a war either.

So this is not a moment of reflection of who is superior in combat. It is more of, why this happened and who instigated. This was a pre-planed attack and those who were behind it knew exactly what would happen. Everything went by the book including the ceasefire.

Why is India still reliant on foreign weapons while china builds its own.

How can India weaken the terrorism without direct confrontation with Pakistan.

But on a deeper level, The roles of Israel and China needs to be watched carefully ( along with the ambitions of the World Economic Forum, which if it comes to happen will be devastating to India and with India's population we will have food shortage and calamity in huge scales).

With Covid the world was shutdown when it did not need to be as its creators watched how vulnerable the world was that it danced to the tunes of a selected few.

Israel holds the ambition of bringing the entire world under it and its blue star flag. World Economic Forum will be the perfect way to make it happen.

What would be a next world wide debacle outside of such wars. Imagine if the internet is shut down for a few weeks and how business to regular life will come to its knees that we will dance to the tunes of its perpetrators.

This India Pakistan war, is it an experiment much like how covid was so the next level plans are put in place.

We often hear that the deep states ambitions are beyond America.

Sure, these sound like conspiracy theories, until it happens.

Getting to the why is important.

 

While it is disheartening, it appears that terrorism continues to benefit certain political interests in Pakistan, making it unrealistic to expect a complete dismantling of such networks purely in the interest of global peace. This is an unfortunate reality we must acknowledge.

In contrast, when the US launched its military operations following the 9/11 attacks, the threat to its domestic security remained relatively low. The countries it engaged with, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, were geographically distant, and the U.S. had the means to safeguard its territory against potential retaliation.

However, the dynamics are starkly different when conflicts arise between neighbouring countries, such as the ongoing wars between Russia and Ukraine or Israel and Palestine.
While Ukraine may be significantly smaller and less powerful than Russia, the conflict persists. A similar situation is seen in Palestine, where despite facing immense hardship and a severe humanitarian crisis, resistance against Israel’s military superiority continues.

In the case of India and Pakistan, when both parties are geographically close and possess significant military capabilities, especially nuclear weapons, the stakes and potential consequences are dramatically higher.

Wars are rarely confined to the nations directly involved. They are deeply influenced by the positions and interests of powerful allies, often global superpowers like the United States, Russia, and China. Ultimately, the continuation or resolution of such conflicts often depends less on the immediate parties and more on whether these influential actors choose to support peace or allow the war to endure.

Countries like Syria and Lebanon were once far more stable and prosperous before the onset of war. Today, their conditions have deteriorated dramatically. Similarly, in the 1970s, Sri Lanka was seen as a model nation, so much so that Singapore’s leadership once aspired to make Singapore another Sri Lanka. However, the outbreak of civil war changed the country’s trajectory.

The economic devastation caused by war is profound, and recovery is neither quick nor easy. In many cases, it can take an entire generation or longer for a developing country to rebuild and regain lost ground.

In the case of India and Pakistan, the danger is particularly acute. If tensions escalate beyond a certain threshold, there’s a real risk that Pakistan, feeling militarily overwhelmed, could resort to its nuclear arsenal. In such a scenario, not only India but neighbouring regions could face catastrophic consequences. Moreover, there remains the possibility that the act could be deflected by attributing it to extremist elements within Pakistan, allowing the state to distance itself and frame itself as a victim on the international stage. One can only hope such a scenario never unfolds.

That said, Pakistan is currently facing significant internal challenges, most notably the ongoing unrest and calls for independence in Balochistan, the country’s largest province. It is possible that these internal issues may demand greater attention and divert focus from Pakistan's external military agendas such as "Operation Suhag Raat.”

Let us hope for continued restraint, internal resolution, and a focus on peace in the region.

 

Excellent articulation of dangers of this kind of conflicts among the neighboring countries. You are right about the involvement of advanced countries in such wars to promote their own agenda including testing of their weaponaries. Unfortunately, the people of both countries would suffer because of such hostilities. I am glad this war ended through ceasefire.

To a large extent, the rootcause of terrorism is not necessarily territorial and/or religious (they create a facade as though it is territorial or religious), it is the economic condition that motivates people to get involved in terrorism. A good education, stable job opportunities, a florishing economy, and prosperity will help the mindset of people who are likely to be radicalized. That is always my view. Ajmal Kasab (the terrorist who was captured in India during Mumbai attack) explained the motivation in his confession in the court.

 

Dear @Viswamitra sir

You are absolutely right.
Exposure to the real world can profoundly change the mindset of young people drawn toward terrorism.
Sri Lanka stands as a powerful example.
Before the 2001 ceasefire, many youth from the Northern and Eastern regions had a singular focus: achieving Tamil Eelam, no matter the cost. This ideology was deeply ingrained from childhood, and many were even willing to sacrifice their lives for what they believed to be a noble cause.
However, the ceasefire opened up access to the rest of the country. It gave these young people a chance to experience life beyond war. Access to education, economic opportunities, and the pleasures of a normal, happy life caught their attention.
When the ceasefire broke down a few years later, the LTTE struggled to recruit new fighters. They resorted to forced recruitment, but many of those recruits either fled or surrendered to government forces. Which eventually led to their defeat.

Ultimately, a stable life: one that offers physical comfort, psychological stability, and spiritual balance can steer youth away from extremist ideologies.
Most of these radicalized individuals come from regions where not just the economy, but the entire social fabric has collapsed.

This begs deeper questions: Who is responsible for such destruction? And more importantly, who will take the responsibility to rebuild and offer hope?