46
Kashmir crisis: India missile attack kills eight; Pakistan official says two Indian jets shot down
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 07 May 2025
46 points (97.9% liked)
World News
2707 readers
108 users here now
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Two very important points to consider while assessing the current nuclear threat in the ongoing India–Pakistan conflict are, first, that unlike India, Pakistan does not subscribe to the No-First-Use policy. This makes it more likely that Pakistan could initiate a nuclear attack, especially since it cannot match India’s strength in conventional warfare.
Second, India, unlike Pakistan, has a robust nuclear defense system that holds the capability to deter a nuclear attack by air, land, and sea. Strategically, therefore, it would not be a sound decision for a country like Pakistan to engage in nuclear warfare. And considering the current geopolitical world order, both China and Russia would likely ensure that restraint is exercised by both India and China, and that the situation is de-escalated. While India would prefer to avoid a direct conflict with China, the odds are disproportionately stacked against Pakistan. Pakistan simply cannot afford to engage in a full-scale war with India.
Now, turning to the Kashmir issue and terrorism, it is an extremely complicated matter, and it would be naive to take sides based on binaries. What truly matters is the current condition of the people living there. Since the abrogation of Kashmir’s special status, the Indian portion of the state has experienced a semblance of democracy, albeit under heavy surveillance by the central government. Economic conditions had slowly begun to improve, and tourism had grown. The state's economy was projected to see ~7% increase in 2024–25, but after the Pahalgam attack, the situation regressed significantly. However, terrorism is not a new phenomenon in the region. Kashmir has long been disputed and has experienced consistent turmoil since its inception. With periodic armed attacks, ordinary people have found themselves trapped in a persistent political quagmire.
India and Pakistan have been in conflict for decades, but the stakes became significantly higher after both countries acquired nuclear armaments. Since then, Pakistan has been engaging with India through the proxy of terrorist organizations like Lashkar-e-Taiba. India has been subjected to a series of terrorist attacks masterminded by those organizations based in Pakistan. After the most recent attack, Pakistan’s Defense Minister Khawaja Asif even confessed on Sky News to Pakistan’s role in fostering terrorist groups. What was once an open secret has now been publicly acknowledged, leaving little room to deny Pakistan’s involvement in terrorism.
But is Modi going to take meaningful action beyond surgical strikes like Operation Sindoor? Most likely, no. This article offers a thoughtful assessment and critique of Prime Minister Modi’s foreign policy approach.
There is no doubt that right-wing sentiment is growing in India, mostly targeting Islam. However, the rapid radicalization and weaponization of economically disadvantaged Muslims across the country does not help the Muslim cause. This is very much a class issue, and the class disparity in India is enormous. Religious education of all kinds should be prohibited so that children can grow up with a more scientific temperament. For the country to thrive, religious exploitation, whether through Hindutva politics or Islamic fundamentalism, needs to be stopped.
Both-sidesing this deserves the deepest eye roll. As a marxist you already should know GDP increase in a capitalist economy does not indicate who is being uplifted here. Kashmir is effectively an open air prison where Indian solidiers do wanton crimes against humanity, while privileged Indian citizens can do their tourism.
Reciting bourgoisie laws as if the elite will abide them again receives further eye rolls. Capital rules not what they purport to everyone else.
Pakistani military has long been an extension of defacto US foreign policy / dollar capital power but then so is the majority of Indian bourgeoisie apparatus from government to media.
Why not subsitute the word Hindu in there? There is a clear power dynamic between the ruling capital and the majority of the 200 million muslims in India. The violence of the oppressed class has never in the history of humanity equivalent to the violence of oppressors.
If possible, could you make a post with your thoughts regarding India and Pakistan?
There are plenty of people that will love to read an in depth analysis of this topic. It will be highly appreciated.
First of all, I am not a Marxist, so our political ideologies might differ. Although I draw a great deal of inspiration from Marx’s work, I am more of an advocate for Social Democracy. Therefore, my views might appear more centrist to you.
I did mention in my comment that the state is under heavy central surveillance, and I also agree that the people there have been subjected to military abuses on multiple occasions. However, the majority of Kashmiris do not support Pakistani occupation of the territory. They want peace and prosperity, something that, unfortunately, neither Pakistan can give, nor the Indian government seems able to provide under the current border issues. Don’t forget that the greatest casualties in the cross-border conflicts have been Kashmiri Muslims, both literally and figuratively.
Yes, so what about it? What are you trying to suggest?
Did you even read what I wrote? I mentioned both Hindutva politics and Islamic fundamentalism as problems. I’m an atheist and a positivist, so I’m equally opposed to both. India is an extremely complicated country, with discrimination operating on multiple levels. Even within the majority religion, there is discrimination. Like I said, it is a class issue.
You are being very charitable to India here. What Kashmir has cannot be sincerely called a democracy if you have to mention that it is heavily controlled by the centre. The deep Islamophobia is not a class issue. Union government has even tried to alter the ethnic and religious makeup of the region with policies like the settlement of Kashmiri pandits.
I think you misunderstood my comment. I never said that Kashmir has complete democracy. My personal belief is that the whole region should be fully autonomous, but we all know that's not possible. Even if India were to relinquish its part of the region, Pakistan would likely move quickly to take over the rest, and that's something a significant portion of the population there does not want.
India, as a country, is an anomaly; it shouldn't exist in its current form, but it does, and colonial rule is to be blamed for that. It is culturally, linguistically, and ideologically fragmented, and the inherent differences between its regions make it all the more surprising that India has survived this long. However, under the current leadership, social cohesion is at risk. Cracks are already visible in the southern part of the country, and similar tensions could emerge in the east as well.
So, if a region of Kashmir is to be integrated into India, it’s only fair that it follows the same laws as the rest of the states. Whether it concerns the resettlement of Kashmiri Pandits or land acquisition by non-Muslims, the same rules should apply uniformly across the country. The concept of India is based on complicated, and often flawed, decisions. Let me remind you that the socio-economic landscape of the eastern region deteriorated significantly after the introduction of the Freight Equalization Policy in the 1950s under Prime Minister Nehru’s socialist government. Still, at the time, it was seen as necessary to ensure national integration.
In my opinion, Kashmir will never see complete peace, much like Gaza. Even if Pakistan were to gain full control over the region, its fragile economy and political instability would prevent any meaningful resolution. The conflict will persist, and that is truly unfortunate for Kashmir.
I did not correlate class with Islamophobia. Islamophobia exists across all strata of society. What I said was that it is easier to radicalize and weaponize individuals, both Hindu and Muslim, from more disadvantaged backgrounds, and this is happening at the grassroots level.
What points are you trying to make exactly? Your responses look very chatgptesque. There are a lot of words but very little conviction.
That’s because you’re trying to find definitive, binary answers to a problem that is much more complex. I’ve replied to all your questions, but if you’re still unclear about my stance or thoughts, feel free to ask specific questions and I’ll clarify.
Edit: Also, what the fuck am I supposed to do if I talk/write like that? I was born before ChatGPT, so maybe ChatGPT is wreckministeresque.
I am not trying to find binaries or anything like that because I just don't know what you are getting at. Like
What are you trying to say here? Sending Hindu settlers to Kashmir is following "the same laws as the rest of the states"? Or the opposite? Your line of reasoning does not make sense to me.
Not actively sending Hindus, but keeping the option open for people of any religion to buy property in India-administered Kashmir, just as it functions in every other Indian state. Since Article 370 has been abrogated, it is only fair that Kashmir be treated like any other Indian state. Of course, this raises concerns about gentrification, but that is an inevitable phenomenon in our capitalistic reality. As I mentioned earlier, an autonomous Kashmir would be the ideal scenario for the region. However, historically, Kashmir’s autonomy has often served as a means for Pakistan to pursue its expansionist ambitions.
Source
Pakistan has always been a theistic nation with expansionist ambitions; however, it lacks the might and resources to fulfill them. The 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War was a clear example of its aggressive stance; it was denied a united Islamic nation by the very Muslims of Bangladesh. A similar form of aggression has been experienced by the Kashmiri Muslims for decades. There’s a reason why the Kashmiris chose to elect a pro-India government in the 2024 election, even after the abrogation of Article 370.
Moreover, Kashmir has never been a Muslim-only region. The Mughal invasion, like the arrival of Islam, was a relatively recent development in the context of Kashmir’s long and rich history. I'm not sure if you're already familiar with the region's history, but in case you're not, I recommend the following articles:
A detailed account of the annexation of Kashmir by the Mughal rulers by Khalid Bashir Ahmad, a Kashmiri author.
An article on the original inhabitants of Kashmir.
Hindus have always been part of Kashmir’s demographic fabric, and they remain so to this day. However, there have been efforts by Islamic fundamentalists to alter that balance, leading to the exodus of the Kashmiri Pandits, the most persecuted non-Muslim community in the region. Therefore, claiming that the government is trying to change the region’s ethnic makeup seems somewhat misguided. And to be clear, this is not a statement about Muslims being bad or Hindus being good; that's a reductive and pointless debate. This is ultimately a matter of power structures.
Ah yes. A Hindu nationalist party stuffing a significantly muslim state with hindus is doing it for the benign reason of restoring the original ethnic constitution.
Please keep this nonsense to yourself. There is a lot of middle ground between a fully autonomous Kashmir and turning it into a tyrannical police state. A kinder India would have been able to manage this better but fascists gonna fascism.
I don't think such a thing exists.
Nuclear deterrents exist, but one cannot say for certain how effective they are until a nuclear attack occurs. India’s DRDO has a program called the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system, which has been developing deterrents as part of a holistic defensive strategy.
A deterrent is a means of getting the other side not to nuke you in the first place. If an attack occurs, that means your deterrent has failed.
A defense system is a means of intercepting nukes once the attack has started. I don't think any country on the planet can do that reliably. And the reliability has to be extremely high to be worth anything at all, because even one nuke getting through can mean an entire metro area is leveled.
That’s not how missile defense systems work. Missile deterrents are surface vehicles equipped with radar and their own missile systems. The radar detects, within its range, incoming missiles, drones, or jets and launches a missile to neutralize the target.
India is currently using the Russian-made S-400 which has a range of ~450km.
Edit: Sorry, I misread your comment because I’m quite sleepy. We’re talking about the same systems. Missile defense systems are also known as deterrents, as they deter incoming missiles from hitting their intended targets.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
I found YouTube links in your comment. Here are links to the same videos on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Link 1:
Link 2: