Pakistan and India exchange fire as UN calls for ‘maximum restraint’

3 comments

1. After the 1971 war, India and Pakistan signed a peace treaty. This is known as Shimla Agreement. Yesterday, Pakistan, decided to suspend it. But does that mean that we are now technically at war with Pakistan (the continuation of 1971 war)? It would be pretty neat if that’s the case since we wouldn’t even be violating the UN Charter now by attacking Pakistan if we are already at war. (Pakistan was the one who had initiated hostilities in 1971 war)

2. This pretty much sums it up. Over the last few days, there’s been a disturbing level of enthusiasm from some Indian voices. openly fantasizing about turning Pakistan into Gaza, cutting off our water supply, starving millions, and blockading Karachi and Gwadar as if this were some video game scenario. The idea of boarding or sinking foreign-flagged vessels doing lawful trade with Pakistan has been tossed around like it’s a casual flex, not an act of war with global consequences.

   But here’s the reality check: any military action taken by India will not go unanswered. Pakistan will respond. Escalation cuts both ways, and no side holds a monopoly on pain or retaliation. If you’re willing to start something, be prepared for the consequences, because this region doesn’t run on fantasies, it runs on balance, deterrence, and hard truths.

3. Much Ado About Nothing. There will be some border scrimmages as always but I don’t see reasons for uncontrollable escalation. Hindu nationalism is on the raise in last years, but I don’t think it already passed the level of nationalist fervour that would lead into desire for a war.

Comments are closed.