India-Pakistan Conflict Mega-Thread

[kbone]

The problem is that the region lived as an integrated whole for thousands of years until the partition in '48. Sure, there have always been attitudinal differences, but they were worked out as communities, again, have done for thousands of years. The division along geographical lines were mangled and of course that was turned into an all out 'reason' to hate and be bitter towards one another. Now, there's religious fervor and strong tools for psychological manipulation on populations still struggling with varying degrees of basic survival and upward mobility.

We have a far-right BJP, heavily influenced by the Hindutva, firmly in power in India, and a Pakistan bordered by a war-ravaged and failed state of Afghanistan and an Iran with a religio-political leadership that seems bent of antagonism of anyone they can. Then, there is the one border crossing with China, who is now all but given up on its 'investment' in Pakistan due to the current turmoil. That said, they likely won't pass on creating difficulties with India as they still have border disputes to contend with there, as well. None of this, really, has a lot to do with the people of those countries, some of which ate the coolest, most down-to-earth and most memorable I've ever met (that goes for India and Pakistan, as well).

The type of Islam that prevails in Pakistan has nothing to do with Wahhabism. I think you would know that. Other than in areas closer to the border with Afghanistan up near and north of Pashtun/Khyber/Peshawar and in the Balochistan  (also bordering Iran), 80% of the people I met were mostly quite moderate, and were not all that impressed by such deeply fundamental sects like Wahhabism, even considering them 'foreign' to them. While the corruption at the top of political life allows for extremist elements and ideological thinking/activity, there will always be a need for a public enemy that can be used to rally support and blind the masses. Most of this recent blow up is based on scoring political points and may/likely pushes the region to more ongoing brinkmanship that a MASSIVE majority of people on both sides will suffer from. Meanwhile, the corruption, human rights abuses, and blame run free... perhaps will small incremental changes toward 'better'. India is the most powerful country in that sub-continental region, but they tend to squander the power in expressions of mite, rather than lead by example. That's likely because in recent decades, India has started to come into their own, yet have not quite found their footing as leaders. That is, I do think that Indian leaders could be a better force for the 'good' than what they have shown the world thus far. It's complex stuff, to be sure.

Having spent 5-6 years in South Asia, that's my 2 rupees on the situation. Jai Ram and Insh'Allah it works out. I love that region of the world, and wouldn't mind even retiring there someday. It will always have a place in my heart.

[BlueOak]

22 hours ago, kbone said:

The problem is that the region lived as an integrated whole for thousands of years until the partition in '48. Sure, there have always been attitudinal differences, but they were worked out as communities, again, have done for thousands of years. The division along geographical lines were mangled and of course that was turned into an all out 'reason' to hate and be bitter towards one another. Now, there's religious fervor and strong tools for psychological manipulation on populations still struggling with varying degrees of basic survival and upward mobility.

There are a few things here.

Have you seen how fractured europe is, and how they are not constantly fighting each other? I mean there is one region in the Balkans where Russia likes to stoke trouble, and some localized issues each country faces, but for the most part we don't resort to violence. So the argument that a border on a map makes people violent never sits well with me, it's an excuse and a poor one. The people there are adults, they need to act like it, take responsibility for their own actions and stop looking 70+ years into the past if they ever want to move forward.

Then we get people saying let's dissolve borders, which while it can work, its as arbitrary a solution as making the border in the first place. Its avoiding the pressures causing the issues, the usual looking at the symptom (or a factor here) not the cause. I'm just going to say it and not sugarcoat it for all BRICS members or supporters. I don't go to my neighbour when he's doing something I don't like and tell him that we don't need this boundary or kick in his door, I wouldn't do that even if there were no police looking over my shoulder. I work it out or I live with it. Boundaries always exist, they'd exist even if we dissolved the map line, and although the expressions of violence would lessen in magnitude (a good argument), the pressures causing these issues would not disappear.

Now people will come back with all the difficulties, and i'll say YES. Its not easy. But war isn't the answer either. This goes for Russia, America, India, Pakistan, and anyone else who picks the path of a large mobilization or military action. I am not a pacifist either, and don't say violence isn't an option, but airstrikes or missile strikes over the border on a neighbouring nuclear power would be bottom of the list of things I'd be doing. - It all comes about because once again, people have been socially engineered to be authoritarian, right wing and frankly bloodthirsty, so they need large-scale scale overt 'solutions' that all they do is make these problems WORSE not better unless taken to absurd extremes.

Edited May 15 by BlueOak

[Ajay0]

16 hours ago, BlueOak said:

There are a few things here.

Have you seen how fractured europe is, and how they are not constantly fighting each other? I mean there is one region in the Balkans where Russia likes to stoke trouble, and some localized issues each country faces, but for the most part we don't resort to violence. 

Europe has seen large number of wars fought on artistocratic, nationalistic and imperialistic reasons.

The two world wars in the twentieth century originated in europe killing over a hundred million people and based on competition over colonies and expansion. 

The Slav genocide perpetrated by the western nazi europeans in eastern europe including present day ukraine killed over a 25 million slav population over there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

A positive that came out of the ferocious infighting between the european colonial powers is that they were weakened to the point that they could not hold on militarily or economically to their colonies in Asia, Africa and latin america resulting in their independence.

Even in the latter half of the twentieth century they saw the cold war and wars in serbia, bosnia, Georgian-Ossetian conflict, turkish invasion of cyprus, unrest in Kosovo, war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and many smaller conflicts too long to be listed here.

 

[BlueOak]

1 hour ago, Ajay0 said:

Europe has seen large number of wars fought on artistocratic, nationalistic and imperialistic reasons.

The two world wars in the twentieth century originated in europe killing over a hundred million people and based on competition over colonies and expansion. 

The Slav genocide perpetrated by the western nazi europeans in eastern europe including present day ukraine killed over a 25 million slav population over there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

A positive that came out of the ferocious infighting between the european colonial powers is that they were weakened to the point that they could not hold on militarily or economically to their colonies in Asia, Africa and latin america resulting in their independence.

Even in the latter half of the twentieth century they saw the cold war and wars in serbia, bosnia, Georgian-Ossetian conflict, turkish invasion of cyprus, unrest in Kosovo, war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and many smaller conflicts too long to be listed here.

 

There are 44 countries in Europe. With well over 100 borders, with diverse cultures and people and yet nearly all of them are amiable. All the examples you are talking about are either not in Europe (Turkey) or funded and armed by Russia. The last parts are literally half in Asia.

For WW2. As I said before, its a poor example to cite things over 70 years ago and then use that as a basis to live by, it's just one more excuse as to why things can't be improved now. We didn't, we took what happened and improved life for everyone here. BRICS countries are stuck in the past, constantly. Even though Russia's efforts to push governments into being militaristic and rightwing have had some effect, there is still nobody here looking to fight each other over borders inside Europe. 

Edited May 16 by BlueOak

[Ajay0]

41 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

There are 44 countries in Europe. With well over 100 borders, with diverse cultures and people and yet nearly all of them are amiable.

All this amiability came up because they have been heavily traumatised by the two world wars that came up in their midst and noted for its sheer brutality and mind-numbing violence, and they just don't have the stomach for a new war amongst them.

Also european population is ageing and reducing while that of immigrants from asia and africa are increasing leading to greater heterogeneity and multi-culturalism as well, dissipating the conflict-prone conditioning of a homogenous society.

As Eckhart Tolle remarked, "If you live only in one culture for the first 20 years of your life, you become conditioned without knowing it." 

Quote

For WW2. As I said before, its a poor example to cite things over 70 years ago and then use that as a basis to live by, it's just one more excuse as to why things can't be improved now. We didn't, we took what happened and improved life for everyone here.

Both India and China were ancient civilizations that enjoyed peace for very longer periods of their national existence and this is why they have a billion plus population which europe in its totality never achieved (and probably never will) due to its frequent wars and violence including the present ukraine one. 

The two world wars 70 years back cannot be dismissed just like that and what has happened obviously stems to spiritual, cultural and sociological deficiencies in the western thought process that must have its consequences.

[BlueOak]

38 minutes ago, Ajay0 said:

All this amiability came up because they have been heavily traumatised by the two world wars that came up in their midst and noted for its sheer brutality and mind-numbing violence, and they just don't have the stomach for a new war amongst them.

Also european population is ageing and reducing while that of immigrants from asia and africa are increasing leading to greater heterogeneity and multi-culturalism as well, dissipating the conflict-prone conditioning of a homogenous society.

As Eckhart Tolle remarked, "If you live only in one culture for the first 20 years of your life, you become conditioned without knowing it." 

Both India and China were ancient civilizations that enjoyed peace for very longer periods of their national existence and this is why they have a billion plus population which europe in its totality never achieved (and probably never will) due to its frequent wars and violence including the present ukraine one. 

The two world wars 70 years back cannot be dismissed just like that and what has happened obviously stems to spiritual, cultural and sociological deficiencies in the western thought process that must have its consequences.

War is not a prerequisite for respect. It's a fallacy to suggest that nations only learn through conflict, it dismisses diplomacy, institutions, education, and hard lessons in human suffering. None of which necessitate repeating the exact same cycles that others have done.

You are advocating for suffering as a teacher rather than empathy, strategic leadership, and wisdom.

India and Pakistan don't need another decade of conflict to honor a line on a map. They need leaders who can see beyond the past, organisations and institutions that foster cooperation, and citizens educated to demand the accountability of their governments, not educated to look to conflict as the preferred solution.

If you really wanted to heal that area of the world, that is what you'd be advocating for, because it'd be required if a line were there or not. (And by your own advice, more movement over the borders)

You are severely glazing over India's and China's history if you are calling them peaceful. To the point i'm just going to say refer to google or wookieepedia, because we'll be here all day going over the details. Humans are humans the world over, all countries have fought wars, and suffered through violence done to them

Edited May 16 by BlueOak

[Ajay0]

28 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

War is not a prerequisite for respect. It's a fallacy to suggest that nations only learn through conflict, it dismisses diplomacy, institutions, education, and hard lessons in human suffering.

In a demonstration of its highly regarded diplomatic prowess and capabilities, India has patched up its relationship with China in recent times leading to pulling back of troops from border regions and easing of relations. 

Indian and Chinese leaders were seen interacting well in the recent BRICS summit in Kazan and the G20 summit in Brazil on November 18-19.

In the recent conflict with Pakistan, India , along with a military victory won a diplomatic victory as well after agreeing to a ceasefire.

On the other hand, the war in UKraine is still raging with the potential of a nuclear holocaust that can end the nation states of US, Europe and Russia on a permanent note. The war has also increased economic stress on the average global citizen due to inflation and higher prices.

So most of the mischief over here is done by the west who seems not to have learnt from the two world wars that came up in their midst, and is now going to foolishly blow themselves up to the amusement of the world around them. 

Quote

You are severely glazing over India's and China's history if you are calling them peaceful. To the point i'm just going to say refer to google or wookieepedia, because we'll be here all day going over the details. Humans are humans the world over, all countries have fought wars, and suffered through violence done to them

Both India and China are ancient civilizations which has spent the vast majority of their time in peace and enjoyed good relations.

It was only in the latter half of the last century that they saw limited battles for the first time with few casualties (compared to the european ones) .

Europe which is of recent civilizational origin and was living in a barbaric state for long periods when the Indians and Chinese were living in an advanced civilizational state, has not yet known large periods of peace and is compelled by the momentum of its conflict-prone past to pick up new fights and conflicts so as to assert  its perpetually threatened and insecure collective ego.

Quote

 

“Built into the very structure of the egoic self is a need to oppose, resist, and exclude to maintain the sense of separateness on which its continued survival depends. So there is “me” against the “other,” “us” against “them.”

The ego needs to be in conflict with something or someone. That explains why you are looking for peace and joy and love but cannot tolerate them for very long. You say you want happiness but are addicted to your unhappiness. Your unhappiness ultimately arises not from the circumstances of your life but from the conditioning of your mind.”  ~ Eckhart Tolle, Stillness Speaks

 

 

Edited May 16 by Ajay0

[PurpleTree]

3 hours ago, Ajay0 said:

Europe has seen large number of wars fought on artistocratic, nationalistic and imperialistic reasons.

The two world wars in the twentieth century originated in europe killing over a hundred million people and based on competition over colonies and expansion. 

The Slav genocide perpetrated by the western nazi europeans in eastern europe including present day ukraine killed over a 25 million slav population over there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

A positive that came out of the ferocious infighting between the european colonial powers is that they were weakened to the point that they could not hold on militarily or economically to their colonies in Asia, Africa and latin america resulting in their independence.

Even in the latter half of the twentieth century they saw the cold war and wars in serbia, bosnia, Georgian-Ossetian conflict, turkish invasion of cyprus, unrest in Kosovo, war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and many smaller conflicts too long to be listed here.

 

A 100 million were killed in China during the great leap forward and cultural revolution. China and India just never really had the technology to kill each other like the Europeans had 70 years ago, China and India are just now catching up barely. I mean China is India not.

[BlueOak]

51 minutes ago, Ajay0 said:

In a demonstration of its highly regarded diplomatic prowess and capabilities, India has patched up its relationship with China in recent times leading to pulling back of troops from border regions and easing of relations. 

Indian and Chinese leaders were seen interacting well in the recent BRICS summit in Kazan and the G20 summit in Brazil on November 18-19.

In the recent conflict with Pakistan, India , along with a military victory won a diplomatic victory as well after agreeing to a ceasefire.

On the other hand, the war in UKraine is still raging with the potential of a nuclear holocaust that can end the nation states of US, Europe and Russia on a permanent note. The war has also increased economic stress on the average global citizen due to inflation and higher prices.

So most of the mischief over here is done by the west who seems not to have learnt from the two world wars that came up in their midst, and is now going to foolishly blow themselves up to the amusement of the world around them. 

Both India and China are ancient civilizations which has spent the vast majority of their time in peace and enjoyed good relations.

It was only in the latter half of the last century that they saw limited battles for the first time with few casualties (compared to the european ones) .

Europe which is of recent civilizational origin and was living in a barbaric state for long periods when the Indians and Chinese were living in an advanced civilizational state, has not yet known large periods of peace and is compelled by the momentum of its conflict-prone past to pick up new fights and conflicts so as to assert  its perpetually threatened and insecure collective ego.

 

Yes its a historical perspective you quote, but there's a critical disconnect here. Pointing fingers at other regions while glossing over the present actions of the nations involved is not helpful. Conflict is not unique to any one region. Europe, BRICS, South Asia, America, every region has war and violence in its past. The question is what is being done now to prevent the cycle from repeating? Otherwise we just repeat repeat repeat because you are focused on the past, and we already know the past.

Yes, Europe learned the hard way, but it wasn’t war that taught respect for borders because people can repeat war forever; it was the aftermath that brought respect. Institutions like the EU, linking their economies together, and diplomatic agreements or treaties created cooperation despite those tensions and pressures you describe. This isn't about one region being more moral, better or advanced; it was a conscious shift of focus toward prevention rather than escalation.

India and Pakistan get the same choice now. They either go through a decade of bloodshed, or invest in a similar framework that changed Europe. Dialogue, Cooperation, and linking their economies together. Strategy not ideology or idealism. If people want that border gone, it starts with that.

Deflecting to conflicts in Ukraine or the past wars Europe avoids the core issue: Why is a shared border still a reason for conflict between India and Pakistan? Until we focus on the real root causes of a conflict it just persists. Here mistrust, yes some historical focus germane to the local area, integration, and political brinkmanship, the cycle will persist. That’s a failure of leadership, accountability, and vision to create something better.

Edited May 16 by BlueOak

[PurpleTree]

22 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

.

Yes, Europe learned the hard way, but it wasn’t war that taught respect for borders because people can repeat war forever; it was the aftermath that brought respect. Institutions like the EU, linking their economies together, and diplomatic agreements or treaties created cooperation despite those tensions and pressures you describe. This isn't about one region being more moral, better or advanced; it was a conscious shift of focus toward prevention rather than escalation.

 

And especially and most importantly. The Eurovision song contest. 

[kbone]

@BlueOak

 

Well, to be clear, I wasn't saying the border itself is the 'reason' people fight, but that the process and subsequent use of religious and identity (us vs them) to promote more psychological division was.

As for trying to nail down the specifics of why certain cultures and/or regions tend toward  violence or cooperation, it's a complicated one. Having spent years teaching international language, intercultural communication, and cultural dimensions as a study, I do have a decent sense for the nuances at play. The comparisons of contexts do not typically line up in very linear ways, to be sure. Just to get a sense of it, I typically refer folks to Hofstede's cultural dimensions as it is usually one that people can grasp more immediately. Then you have to look at education, historical context, outside influences, individual agencies acting within the given power structure, social 'level of consciousness', geographic size, and all the rest. Even beginning to have a closer look at the size, enormity, regional differences, social stratification, massive diversity, etc within India almost immediately begins to boggle the mind. 

As I have spent a majority of my own time  in the north, and mostly in the Himalayas (mountain folks are quite different than the plains folks), I do not have a strong feel for the mind of Southern Indians, whom I have found myself living amongst here where I am now (mostly software professionals living abroad). From what they have told me of changes in India in the last decade or so alone, it is almost as if the India that I experienced in the 1990s and early 2000s no longer 'really' exists.

Anyway, back to the main point, but with this latest aspect as an example of the upheavals at play. I'm not condoning them or giving them credence in their own right, but just acknowledging potential nuances. In India, there has always been a flavor for diversity, perhaps due to centuries and centuries of a culture founded upon the pantheon of Hindu gods (much like Ancient Greeks would have experienced) along with waves and centuries of Muslim, Buddhist, Jain, Christian, etc thought and influence. The area now known as Pakistan would have been quite similar in that regard prior to 1948. The area is home to Indus Valley civilization, the Gupta Empire, Merghar, Kashmir Shaivism, Gandharan Buddhist culture, etc, so it's quite easy to see that. I saw the the relics everywhere, some even defaced, whether it be centuries ago by a wave of humanity prevailing at the time, or since the Partition with the advent of a predominantly Islamic form of government. But, the fact remains that monotheistic religions have a very different flavor or social cohesion, regardless of how different the sects may be within the branches of that religion. For example, the codes of law written 'typically' carry more weight and there is a stronger adherence to core principles that 'bind identity'. In a way, the Hindutva arm of the BJP sees a potential for implementing and establishing a similar exclusive mentality under the banner of a 'Hindu nation', which seeks to promote and enshrine the leadership based on that identity (which is historically at odds with and has been subjugated by a Muslim leadership in the past for hundreds of years). Way too many details to go into here, and with many shades of grey.

I'm not going to go on and on, but it is a fascinating region and time in history for the people of the region. Unfortunately, many of the points you and others here have alluded to in your posts are playing out as the complex, almost quagmire-like phase the region is in due to the forces at play in modern governance (see global far-right movements, market share mentalities of religions, military industrial complex, collapsing educational systems, the use of AI and the impacts it will have on labor markets, etc).

We do live in interesting times. Very very interesting, indeed.

Edited May 16 by kbone

[kbone]

2 hours ago, Ajay0 said:

In a demonstration of its highly regarded diplomatic prowess and capabilities, India has patched up its relationship with China in recent times leading to pulling back of troops from border regions and easing of relations. 

Indian and Chinese leaders were seen interacting well in the recent BRICS summit in Kazan and the G20 summit in Brazil on November 18-19.

In the recent conflict with Pakistan, India , along with a military victory won a diplomatic victory as well after agreeing to a ceasefire.

On the other hand, the war in UKraine is still raging with the potential of a nuclear holocaust that can end the nation states of US, Europe and Russia on a permanent note. The war has also increased economic stress on the average global citizen due to inflation and higher prices.

So most of the mischief over here is done by the west who seems not to have learnt from the two world wars that came up in their midst, and is now going to foolishly blow themselves up to the amusement of the world around them. 

Both India and China are ancient civilizations which has spent the vast majority of their time in peace and enjoyed good relations.

It was only in the latter half of the last century that they saw limited battles for the first time with few casualties (compared to the european ones) .

Europe which is of recent civilizational origin and was living in a barbaric state for long periods when the Indians and Chinese were living in an advanced civilizational state, has not yet known large periods of peace and is compelled by the momentum of its conflict-prone past to pick up new fights and conflicts so as to assert  its perpetually threatened and insecure collective ego.

 

Most of the 'peace' between India and China can be attributed to that relatively very VERY MASSIVE mountainous region that separates them. This is larger macro version of the 'disputes' you might see from one simpler valley culture to another throughout history. There's a degree of 'peace' between the two countries for now, sure, but it has its potentials when it comes to water and ideology. On that latter note, there is a rather massive difference between the two regions on opposite sides of the Himalayas, which has always been kind of a cool set of comparisons and contrasts to tinker with. An interesting case in point might be the Tibetan culture that has been slowly decimated on one side, while thriving in communities/regions on the other.

Furthermore, such 'peace' is not for the smaller cultures that have attempted to coexist with the larger more monolithic enterprises of the Han Chinese or the now-flexing right-wing Hindus. Many of them have either collapsed or are struggling to maintain themselves. Most of this is identity-based stuff mixed with empire/war that has been going on for millennia, and not necessarily of speerchal search stuff that is expressed here on this board... that generally gravitates toward WHY people feel the need to subjugate and/or fight perceived otherness.

Indian leadership has the potential to emerge as a balanced, leading force in the region. I hope they can rise to the occasion, but there are many stumbling blocks on the path now. One of those stumbling blocks could include whether or not to support and/or align with Putin/Russia via oil&gas and military kit sales and/or cooperation. The world will be watching, regardless of however much its own citizens have come to believe in and support the measures for national security.

Edited May 16 by kbone

[Ajay0]

32 minutes ago, kbone said:

Most of the 'peace' between India and China can be attributed to that relatively very VERY MASSIVE mountainous region that separates them.

Not really, there was extensive trade relations between India and China through the sea routes as well, and the Chinese offered their technology of chinese fishing nets to southern India which can be still seen now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_fishing_nets

[Ajay0]

2 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

A 100 million were killed in China during the great leap forward and cultural revolution.

This happened when communism with its nihilistic elements originated in europe came to china creating unprecedented class warfare.  Even then the deaths were mainly due to lop sided policies leading to famine and not actual war, and figures range to a maximum of 50 million deaths , and nowhere near hundred million.

Quote

 

China and India just never really had the technology to kill each other like the Europeans had 70 years ago,

 

Yes, weapons of mass destruction were developed to very high level in the west which lead to the high death rates. Over a hundred million people died in the two world wars which originated in europe.

This was compounded by superficial philosophies related to nihilism, scientific materialism that reduced the human being to mere soul-less body of matter, and racial superiority.

Millions of Ukrainians were raped, tortured and killed in a short span of time when the Europeans Nazis advanced through Ukraine to Russia, mainly due to the dehumanising influence of such lopsided philosophies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

Quote

China and India are just now catching up barely. I mean China is India not.

India has developed a nuclear triad of launching nuclear weapons through aircraft, nuclear submarines and ballistic missiles.

However, due to moral and humanitarian considerations, it has adopted a no first strike policy considering the heavy damage such weapons can do to humanity. So has the chinese.

However the Americans, UK, French and Russians have pre-emptive nuclear first strike policies ignoring the great harm they can to their own population and humanity. Hence don't be surprised if the americans, europeans and russians cease to exist one fine day due to a foolish flare-out. 

They have my sympathies though.  

Edited May 16 by Ajay0

[kbone]

@Ajay0

You can introduce all the anecdotal evidence to support any argument you want. I've seen those nets in use throughout SE Asia since time immemorial. Plus, if finding fishing nets in southern India is indicative of some 'extensive trade relations' that could counter the ideological and cultural differences of the two civilizations, I'd be impressed. Most of India and China's relationship and 'alignment' is based on the expeditious and mutual need for partners in trade, and that's fine and dandy.... it's basically strategic competition. But, you cannot deny that their mutual relations are mostly periodic, at best.

[Ajay0]

15 minutes ago, kbone said:

@Ajay0

You can introduce all the anecdotal evidence to support any argument you want. I've seen those nets in use throughout SE Asia since time immemorial. Plus, if finding fishing nets in southern India is indicative of some 'extensive trade relations' that could counter the ideological and cultural differences of the two civilizations, I'd be impressed. Most of India and China's relationship and 'alignment' is based on the expeditious and mutual need for partners in trade, and that's fine and dandy.... it's basically strategic competition. But, you cannot deny that their mutual relations are mostly periodic, at best.

It is hard for Europe and US  to understand such a relationship between these two ancient civilizations.

This is because most european nations , other than the greeks, are of recent origin and does not have much of a history to speak of. 

The US as a nation is just over two centuries old.  Consequently they are bound to look with so called strategic interests and machiavelian outlooks.

Former president and Nobel peace prize winner Jimmy Carter lamented the fact that the US has seen more years of war than peace in its existence.

https://jordantimes.com/opinion/hasan-abu-nimah/america-and-its-perpetual-wars

Quote

 

While China stayed at peace with its neighbours and the world, the US "stayed at war."

By comparison, Carter observed, the US "has been at peace for only 16 out of its 242 years as a nation", trying to force the world to "adopt our American principles".

China, the former president said, has made enormous progress because it has spent its wealth on building infrastructure, including 29,000km of high-speed rail.

Meanwhile, the US squandered $3 trillion dollars on the military. According to the Watson Institute at Brown University, the United States has accrued more than $6 trillion in costs for its wars on Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and other nations just since the 9/11 attacks in 2001.

This includes not just the direct costs of the war, but the future costs Americans will pay in interest medical care and disability benefits for veterans.

It is no wonder then that poll after poll shows that around the world, people consistently view the United States as the greatest threat to world peace, a far cry from the American self-image as a beacon of freedom and democracy.

Brett Wilkins, who reported Carter's words in Common Dreams (April 18, 2019), observed that "the US also invaded dozens of countries and supported "every single right-wing dictatorship in the world since the end of World War II".

 

 

Edited May 16 by Ajay0

[kbone]

@Ajay0

It might be best to approach these convos with a less defensive and/or more balanced perspectives. After all, it's pretty easy to point out the bloodshed, injustice, and utter failures that have happened on every continent and in every country, India included. It's great that India is rising and taking a more active role on the world stage, but it also needs its citizens to hold its leaders more accountable. I am not saying you are wrong in every way per se, but as a general overall critique of your posts, you seem to be quite biased and quick to deflect.

There are many reasons India is rising, and with more power comes more responsibility. Case in point, if India wants to start a war with Pakistan, put ALL the blame it can muster on that one country and its people, push the region to an ongoing state of brinkmanship (with military forces indoctrinated with the hope of destroying each other, and billions and billions of rupees being spent on military rather than providing water, education, social support, etc, welp, India and its people will have to take responsibility for that strategy.

[Ajay0]

3 minutes ago, kbone said:

@Ajay0

It might be best to approach these convos with a less defensive and/or more balanced perspectives. After all, it's pretty easy to point out the bloodshed, injustice, and utter failures that have happened on every continent and in every country, India included. It's great that India is rising and taking a more active role on the world stage, but it also needs its citizens to hold its leaders more accountable. I am not saying you are wrong in every way per se, but as a general overall critique of your posts, you seem to be quite biased and quick to deflect.

There are many reasons India is rising, and with more power comes more responsibility. Case in point, if India wants to start a war with Pakistan, put ALL the blame it can muster on that one country and its people, push the region to an ongoing state of brinkmanship (with military forces indoctrinated with the hope of destroying each other, and billions and billions of rupees being spent on military rather than providing water, education, social support, etc, welp, India and its people will have to take responsibility for that strategy.

India is going well now and I am sure it will take care of its post-conflict issues with pakistan with the necessary tact and diplomacy.

However there is no post-conflict phase in ukraine yet, and the eventuality of a nuclear war and holocaust still remains.

There is no guarantee that you or the other westerners here will be alive the next moment. 

Without such a base of stability and certainty, and their past history of colonialism, incessant wars and world wars,  it would obviously be hypocritical on their part to advise the rest of the world. 

[kbone]

10 minutes ago, Ajay0 said:

It is hard for Europe and US  to understand such a relationship between these two ancient civilizations.

This is because most european nations , other than the greeks, are of recent origin and does not have much of a history to speak of. 

The US as a nation is just over two centuries old.  Consequently they are bound to look with so called strategic interests and machiavelian outlooks.

Former president and Nobel peace prize winner Jimmy Carter lamented the fact that the US has seen more years of war than peace in its existence.

https://jordantimes.com/opinion/hasan-abu-nimah/america-and-its-perpetual-wars

 

That's fair. Having lived in various parts of Asia for over two decades, I agree that most Europeans and Americans have a hard time understanding the mindsets and cultures of what's at play. Without interacting with others with different mindsets and world views, it is very hard to put oneself into their shoes... much less walk a mile in them.

The rest of it is fair to say also. It is the ongoing convo that world democracies should be involved in, more honest about, and more transparent with. If we look back and truly see the outcomes and events of last 50-100 years, what can we change about our present states of mind that will bring about a greater potential... I try not to oversimplify, nor get too 'lost in the weeds' of every detail. There's always a sense of futility to it, but forward we must go.

[kbone]

14 minutes ago, Ajay0 said:

India is going well now and I am sure it will take care of its post-conflict issues with pakistan with the necessary tact and diplomacy.

However there is no post-conflict phase in ukraine yet, and the eventuality of a nuclear war and holocaust still remains.

There is no guarantee that you or the other westerners here will be alive the next moment. 

Without such a base of stability and certainty, and their past history of colonialism, incessant wars and world wars,  it would obviously be hypocritical on their part to advise the rest of the world. 

Okey dokey. But do not think for a second that India's ₹1.5 lakh crore sent to Russia and India's formal neutral stance toward the war are not contributing to that war. Yes, I understand that India 'needs' the oil and gas for its billion+ population and wants to maintain a reputable military, but do not claim that India is simply above it all. It's very shortsighted.

"There is no guarantee that you or the other westerners ANYONE here will be alive the next moment."

"it would obviously be hypocritical on their part to advise the rest of the world" - Yes, hypocrisy is a weird one, and often comes back to bite one in the ass. Irony is funny that way. But, it is also possible that people can learn from past mistakes, remain somewhat balanced, and be in a position to potentially share words of wisdom, at least in theory.

Edited May 16 by kbone