India’s Hindutva President, Narendra Modi, has used the Kashmir terrorism incident to abrogate the 1960s Indus Waters Treaty – a longstanding goal of Modi. The Indian version of the “terrorist attack”, most of whose victims were Muslim, has largely been accepted by Western governments without evidence.
False flags abound nowadays. You may recall that we were told that the most deadly rocket ever fired by Hamas killed only Palestinians in a hospital compound, while the most deadly rocket ever fired by Hezbollah killed only Druze children. I have at present an open mind about what occurred in Kashmir.
It is however certain that tearing up the Indus Waters Treaty is a long term Modi goal. The Indus supplies 80% of Pakistan’s agricultural water, and the supply is already insufficient, with disastrous salination of the lower reaches of the river as the sea creeps into the areas once occupied by the mighty flow. I visited the area of lower Sind five years ago and witnessed the fields encrusted with white salt.
India controls the upstream flow into Pakistan of approximately 70% of the total water of the Indus, about 55% of all of Pakistan’s agricultural water.
In September 2016 in response to earlier violence in Kashmir, Modi initiated his slogan “Blood and water cannot flow together” and threatened to cut the Indus supply. He increased India’s out-take from the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej tributaries and restarted the Tulbul canal project. In both 2019 and 2022 while campaigning in Haryana, Modi made strong speeches threatening to cut off the water “wasted on Pakistan”.
In 2023 Modi issued formal notice to Pakistan of India’s desire to renegotiate the Indus Waters Treaty and repeated this in 2024 when Pakistan did not respond. On both occasions India cited “counter-terrorism” as one of three reasons for review (the others being environmental protection and hydro-electric generation). As counter-terrorism can scarcely be linked to agricultural water allocation, this illustrates Modi’s grandstanding approach.
Modi does not have the physical power to stop the Indus, but does have the ability short term to divert more of the river to Indian irrigation and storage, sufficient to cause some immediate distress in Pakistan. Indian media are already thrilled with the idea. But long term major rebalancing of the river water allocation would require substantive new infrastructure in India. Such projects however would be both economically viable and likely wildly popular with Modi’s Hindutva base both for promoting Indian development and for damaging Pakistan.
In 2019, Modi revoked Article 370 of the Indian constitution which gave special autonomous status to Jammu and Kashmir, incorporating them into India proper. He did this despite the Constitution stating it could only be done with the support of the “Constituent Assembly of the State”. That body no longer existed, having been replaced by a “Legislative Assembly”. Modi used another Constitutional provision to replace “Constituent Assembly” with “Legislative Assembly”, which seems fair enough. But having suspended the Legislative Assembly, he then claimed that its powers were now vested in the Governor, a Modi appointee.
Modi then agreed with himself to remove the autonomy of Indian Kashmir – a move that had no significant support among its 97% Muslim inhabitants and was accompanied by a ferocious crackdown – indeed, lockdown – and the destruction of its once thriving tourism industry. He simultaneously repealed another provision preventing non-Kashmiris from buying property in the region. Modi himself is therefore very much the cause of heightened ethnic, political and religious tension in Kashmir.
It is generally recognised that the situation of Kashmir, partly in India and partly in Pakistan with a small portion in China, and the Indian part occupied by deeply dissatisfied Muslims, is a result of the disastrous British partition of India in 1947. But in fact British responsibility for the disaster of modern Kashmir goes back a hundred years further than that, to 1846.
Kashmir was part of the Durrani Afghan Empire from 1758 until 1819, when it was captured by the Sikh Empire of Maharajah Ranjit Singh. Singh was always careful to place Muslim Governors over Muslim lands, including from the Durrani family itself. He allied with the British during the First Afghan War, and sent troops, including Kashmiri levies, to aid the British invasion in 1839. However after Ranjit Singh’s death and civil war over the succession, the British attacked the Sikh Empire to “restore stability”. Following the Battle of Sobraon, the British annexed the land between the Beas and Ravi rivers, while by the Treaty of Amritsar of 1846 the British sold Jammu and Kashmir to the former Sikh wazir, Gulab Singh, for 50 lakhs of rupees.
Gulab Singh was a particularly murderous character who had played an extraordinarily Machiavellian role in the Sikh court of Ranjit Singh and his immediate successors, and had of course looted from the Sikh treasury the money he paid to the British. So he paid the British with stolen money for land the British had just stolen.
This is how the extraordinary situation arose that the Muslim territories of Kashmir and Jammu had a Hindu ruler (Gulab Singh was a Hindu Dogra). That anomaly was the direct cause of the disastrous division of the territory by the British in the Partition 100 years later.
It is extremely frequent that today’s conflicts are caused by the actions of the British Empire reverberating down and continuing their evil over generations. It is equally frequent that it is very hard to find analyses that explain the truth behind the conflicts.
———————————
My reporting and advocacy work has no source of finance at all other than your contributions to keep us going. We get nothing from any state nor any billionaire.
Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse, including in translation.
Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up new methods of payment including a Patreon account and a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.
Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
“the disastrous British partition of India of 1947”. Bollocks. The partition was the work of the Hindus and Moslems in the face of British opposition. In the end all the British could do was ratify what the two sides had agreed and march off.
Why was Jinnah so keen on a separate Pakistan? Amongst other reasons, because one of the Hindu politicians (Nehru, perhaps?) had told him that Congress’s sweet words about the treatment of Moslems in a united India were intended to be forgotten the moment independence was achieved.
It’s a strangely racist cast of mind that allows no agency to the Moslems and Hindus of India and claims that the partition was “British”. Get a grip, man! Brown fellas weren’t mere children.
Co-pilot to Murray’s defence.
“The claim that the Kashmir conflict stems from the British partition of India in 1947 is widely discussed in historical and political analyses. Several sources provide evidence supporting this perspective:
– Britannica explains that the partition of British India led to massive population transfers and communal violence, shaping the geopolitical tensions that persist today, including the Kashmir dispute.
– JSTOR highlights how the partition left Kashmir in a precarious position, with its ruler initially seeking independence before acceding to India, triggering conflict with Pakistan.
– Springer discusses how the partition led to the migration of Kashmiri Muslim refugees, reinforcing the argument that the division of British India had lasting consequences for the region”.
I do not know if the views on partition are bollocks or not but I would like to see more evidence for the assertion that “in the end all the British could do was ratify what the two sides had agreed and march off”. Defending the British Empire down to the last Imperialist was the line usually taken.
@Crispa: Could you provide sources? JSTOR is an aggregator, not a publisher. It’s like saying: “Google highlights that….”. Springer publishes over 3,000 journals. Specifics please. Moreover, because something is published doesn’t mean it’s true.
There were no population movements in Kashmir in 1947 (the Pathan onslaught on the Valley was an armed invasion, not a population movement).
I’m sure if you were in charge in 1947, then the predominantly Muslims regions would never be allowed to become independent, and everyone would be happy and lived in peace to this day, right?
The source is Co-Pilot (Microsoft A1) from asking is there evidence to support “It is generally recognised that the situation of Kashmir, partly in India and partly in Pakistan with a small portion in China, and the Indian part occupied by deeply dissatisfied Muslims, is a result of the disastrous British partition of India in 1947”? No deep dive on my part following.
Re imperialism, Britain held on to India as long as it could resisting independence and quelling one movement after another, latterly under Churchill for example in 1942 – 43 and with millions dying from the British induced Bengal famine in 1943. As late as 1945 it was still putting down a revolt by its own “Royal Indian Navy”.
World War 2 was the main cause of Imperialist Britain’s having to let go of its India prize facilitated by the election of the Attlee Labour which made the best of a job that should have been done years before.
All those references undoubtedly support the point that the Partition was a humanitarian disaster, but none of them the point that it was a humanitarian disaster caused by the British administration. Nor are opposing Partition and “defending the British Empire down to the last Imperialist” mutually exclusive. There were plenty of Indians who blamed Ghandi for Partition.
@Crispa: Apologies for my unnecessarily snarky tone, but I agree with @dearieme here – deprivation of agency aside, claiming that the 1940s British policies are at the root of tensions between India and Pakistan is a huge simplification. It ignores the well-attested fact that Muslim separatism in India was a reaction to the rise of Hindutva fundamentalism in the 1920s and 1930s, which in turn was aligned with and inspired by (but not created by) European (and to a smaller degree Far Eastern) nationalisms of the times. The deteriorating communal relations in the 1930s and especially the 1940s weren’t at all the work of the British who had hoped to keep the Empire intact until the very last moment.
That decisions taken in the 1940s have effects today – well, so does the Norman conquest.
“The deteriorating communal relations in the 1930s and especially the 1940s weren’t at all the work of the British who had hoped to keep the Empire intact until the very last moment”. Exactly, British Imperialism thrived on divide and rule in order to keep the British Empire intact until the very last moment. (See also my previous reply).
It has become fashionable to blame the British Empire for all the ills affecting its former possessions even decades after it effectively ceased to exist.
Richard Hough’s biography of Mountbatten, the last Viceroy, makes it clear that partition wasn’t the British plan, it was head of the Muslim League Mohammed Ali Jinnah, described as being ‘cold, arrogant, vain and inflexible’, who insisted on a separate state for Muslims. Muslim/Hindu riots and massacres were happening before independence, particularly in the Punjab.
One point is missing. The massacre on the day of Vance’s visit bears an uncanny resemblance to the 2000 Chittisinghpora massacre, which occurred on the eve of Clinton’s visit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2000_Chittisinghpura_massacre&oldid=1219625808 (deliberately an older version as the article recently got a lot of whitewash).
A “previously unknown group claiming responsibility” is a classic telltale sign that it was done by a new actor here, to avoid denials from established groups. I’m quite certain it was the Indian security establishment, or certain factions within it. It is hardly the case that random people in Kashmir can easily access weapons, ammunition, and military training — let alone have the necessary planning skills. Everything appears to have been designed to provoke maximum outrage within India and to provide Modi with a convenient argument for Vance, just as it was the case in 2000.
As an aside, it is worth noting that the principal sources of income in Kashmir are the export of agricultural produce to India and inbound tourism from India. All genuine local militant groups are careful not to damage these interests, as doing so would result in a loss of crucial community support. Their attacks are almost exclusively directed at the Indian Army, the Border Police, and, most commonly, the Indian paramilitary forces, who are present in the Valley in vastly greater numbers than Indian tourists and have been ruling the region with an iron fist since 1990.
See the film ‘Kashmir Files’ and update your knowledge about terrorism in Kashmir It is not just a film but real story and the main actor himself is a Kashmiri whose family underwent the horror.
ROTFL! Do you get all your knowledge from fiction films? Here, by the most Hindu nationalistic of Bollywood directors? Thank you, but no, thank you.
I prefer to rely on what I saw and learned during my two years lived in Kashmir.
“most deadly rocket ever fired by Hamas killed only Palestinians in a hospital compound, while the most deadly rocket ever fired by Hezbollah killed only Druze children”
Is the first that hospital in Gaza City on 17th Oct 2023? Al-Ahli hospital. It seems that both sides were firing rockets over by the hospital just prior. The Palestinian authorities seem to have exaggerated the likely fatalities by about five-fold or ten-fold. But then never showed the shrapnel that should have been present.
The second one must be the football field in the Golan Heights, 6 miles from a Lebanon launch site. Wth an Israeli base inbetween, too close for Iron Dome to work for that launch site. Israel apparently doesn’t defend some settlements as much as others. They showed photos of the shrapnel, a rocket of the type Lebanese were firing. But not independently verified for some reason.
Re: ‘most of whose victims were Muslim’
According to multiple sources, all but one of the victims were Hindu. This checks out, as most of them seemingly came from majority Hindu states in India. After initially claiming responsibility, ‘The Resistance Front’ (reportedly an offshoot of Lashkar-e-Taiba) now deny it, which is what tends to happen when small terrorist groups realise that, to quote Admiral Yamamoto, all they’ve done is to awaken a sleeping giant. I’m going with the attack being genuine*.
P.S. It’s Article 370, not 270, that gave special status to J&K.
* Assuming you haven’t already, anyone who would like to read about a (very likely) false flag attack can do so here:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/forums/topic/the-salisbury-poisonings-episode-was-all-staged/page/6/#post-103404
Maybe Modi has a hatred of the Muslims – the way, Erdogan has of the Kurds.
https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2025/04/07/745712/waqf-bill-attack-indian-muslims-also-indian-constitution-mp
https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2025/04/04/745547/India-parliament-passes-Waqf-bill-opposed-Muslims-Gandhi-Shah
Thae actions of Modi are to be weighed up with the actions the west has granted Netanyahu.
His alliance with Israel and his actions is clearly reflected on what he is now putting on Kashmiris. He has seen that international laws and agreements can be ignored and bypassed with constitutional rigmarole. He is trying to put Kashmir into the Gaza framework where he has seen western ignorance to genocide overule international law.
I detest Modis racial and religious bias, as well as his fascist actions against his own people who suffer from massive environmental damage, as well as his hyst on Kashmir.
Thanks to Craig for another great article on a current issues and false flag event.
Your article on Kashmir and Indus is partial. Down the History Kahmir was part of India and of Hindu tradition. There were many Hindu scholars in Kashmir, and it was a seat of Knowledge, Hindu philosophy and literature. Saint Shankaracharya visited Kashmir, and even now there is temple in Kashmir for him. In those days not a single Muslim was there in this region. Please go through the history of Kashmir (not a British version) and update your knowledge.
That is an Israeli style argument for claiming land based on the position of peoples a very long time ago. Of course nearly all of the subcontinents Muslims were Hindus or Buddhists, or local religions, before Islam came to the sub continent..
@Craig, the guy can’t even tell history from mythology… For him, where a mythical sage is believed to have visited, must be India. Because what else. I doubt he’ll understand it when told that Kashmir was never part of India. It wasn’t part of British India either. It wasn’t part of anything before that. A Westphalian state named “India” came to existence only recently anyway – the sovereign state called India exists for barely 78 years and is one of the younger countries in the world.
@Ramadoss – Don’t you think that it’s because Kashmir was a seat of knowledge that its inhabitants decided to switch religions? Well, they held on for almost two centuries after the last philosophical treatise of Kashmir Shaivism was written. The Hindu priests and their rites must have been so boring that when one day a Muslim mystic Mir Sayyid Ali Hamadani came to the Valley, most people soon converted to Islam.
Whilst debating the pros and cons of these two sh*thole countries let’s not forget Imran Khan and remember integration, diversity and equality is not something these people want, regardless of what the wokerati in the UK would have us believe.
Just sayin’
For a sensitive impression of the depths to which the once idyllic and peaceful region of Kashmir has been brought down, primarily by outside forces, I recommend Salman Rushdie’s Shalimar the Clown (2005). Rushdie is himself of Kashmiri Muslim origin, as is the fictional character Shalimar, symbolically a tight-rope walker.
Meanwhile…
https://apnews.com/article/north-korea-south-korea-russia-ukraine-war-34716db67af6176d0d5e0ebf1b887881
Of course, nobody serious ever thought Russia wouldn’t ask for foreign help. But it’s significant that it be formally acknowledged…
State borders are unfortunately a flexible notion. We may experience this again when Vladimir and Donald sign their deal about Ukraine.
Yet waiting for the cuckoo clock!
More than a bit embarrassing for those who have been consistently denying it.
Putin has declared a three day ceasefire for next week. I’d bet my pension on it not holding.
Pears Morgaine
You can’t expect one side (Russia) to uphold a ceasefire, when the other side (Ukraine) doesn’t – and the Neo-Nazi dictator Zelensky has recently proven that he can’t abide by the the rules of a ceasefire.
I suppose not abiding by a ceasefire – runs down the backbones (if they have any) of Nazi/Zio-Monsters – the IOF broke one as well.
That’s if you believe Putin is serious about the ceasefire in the first place. He claims to be doing it for ‘humanitarian’ reasons but if he were really concerned he wouldn’t be directing attacks at civilians in the first place.
Do you get a bonus for every time you use the word ‘Nazi’?
Pears Morgaine
You know fine well – that the Neo-Nazi’s/Nato meet in civilian buildings to do their military business, by doing this they are endangering their own citizens lives – its entirely legitimate to strike such military targets.
On human rights.
“The European Court of Human Rights has found the Ukrainian government guilty of committing human rights violations during the May 2, 2014 Odessa massacre, in which dozens of Russian-speaking demonstrators were forced into the city’s Trade Unions House and burned alive by ultranationalist thugs.”
https://thegrayzone.com/2025/03/24/ukraine-guilty-violations-union-massacre-court/
I know full that the presence of NATO/Ukrainian officers is often invented to excuse strikes on civilian buildings. If you believe such sources so many senior NATO officers have been killed or captured that there can’t be many left. Repeated attempts to knock out Ukraine’s power grid is directed at civilians. The military have their own resources.
The Grayzone is hardly unbiased but the occupants of the Trades Union building were dropping petrol bombs on the crowd below. It was one of these that most probably started the fire.
From the ECHR report:-
―――――
At 4.10 p.m., the first victim, Mr Ivanov…., a pro-unity activist, was shot in the stomach. He was taken to hospital but died during surgery. There is video footage showing a pro-Russian activist wearing a balaclava standing by the police and firing numerous shots from a Kalashnikov-type assault rifle, with no reaction from the police….
At around 5.45 p.m., numerous shots were fired towards anti-Maidan activists from a hunting gun by someone standing on a nearby balcony. It was around that time that Mr Zhulkov, Mr Yavorskyy and Mr Petrov were killed.
Anti-Maidan protesters took refuge in the Trade Union Building, a five-storey building facing the square. They barricaded themselves inside the building using wooden pallets from the tent camp and wooden and plastic furniture found in the building.
They took with them a fuel-powered electric generator, boxes containing Molotov cocktails and the products needed to make them.
Maidan activists started setting fire to the tents. A group of pro-Russian protesters on the roof of the Trade Union Building threw Molotov cocktails at the crowd below; pro-unity activists retaliated by throwing Molotov cocktails at the building. Gunshots were reportedly fired from both sides. Despite numerous calls to the fire brigade, which was less than 1 km away, the fire service regional head instructed his staff not to send any fire engines to Kulykove Pole without his explicit order. At 7.45 p.m., a fire broke out in the Trade Union Building. The fire extinguishers in the building did not work. The police called the fire brigade, to no avail. Some of the people in the building…. tried to escape by jumping from the upper windows.
A number of people fell to their deaths, Video footage shows pro-unity protesters making makeshift ladders and platforms from a stage in the square and using them to rescue people trapped in the building. Other video footage shows pro-unity protesters attacking people who had jumped or had fallen.
――――――
The ECHR ruling is critical of the authorities only for their apparent lack of adequate response.
“More than a bit embarrassing for those who have been consistently denying it.”
Quoting a lack of evidence as a basis for scepticism is not a denial. Whilst those who like to support their arguments with evidence-free assertions, don’t have a problem with the total lack of anything resembling proof,most people want more than a bit of Gell-Mann amnesia to make up their minds about something reported in the media.
Who was denying it? Everyone sane was saying NK has observers and maybe some groups of troops in second and third line miles away from fighting learning modern war. A few companies worth of troops, maybe. The Ukronazi delusions of there being 50.000 malnourished NK subhuman orks of which heroic Azov Aryans easily killed 300.000* is still utter male bovine droppings. No amount of pretending weak polite acknowledgement is some sort of gotcha will make it so because to this day, Banderastan failed to provide a SINGLE corpse of NK soldier or even video of them being engaged in combat to support their fantasies. Period.
*no, seriously, these clowns routinely announce shooting down of 100 drones out of 20 launched even though 10-15 targets were still hit to hide 5-10% intercept rate of best NATO air defence to not make it laughing stock of whole planet even though the world can easily see how many launchers Russia used and how many targets were hit…
North Korea and Russia denied the presence of NK combat troops for months. something the useful idiots were content to repeat.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/29/north-korean-troops-in-russia-how-will-it-impact-the-ukraine-war
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKNhchtq0Mo
Melrose.
Ah, AP news.
Creating the news seems about right.
“Associated Press (AP) is a “non-profit” news agency headquartered in New York City. Together with Reuters and AFP, it is one of three agencies that creates the majority of news distributed in all other corporate media.”
“In 2022, AP assigned more than two dozen journalists to cover climate issues, in the news organization’s largest single expansion paid for through “philanthropic” grants, from the Rockefeller Foundation and four other foundations, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Quadrivium, and the Walton Family Foundation to “help them achieve their goals”. ”
https://www.wikispooks.com/wiki/Associated_Press
Congrats on your very astute scrutiny.
Did you know that AP News has this nickname in the business “KingdomofAmerica”
But they are almost banned from the Press Room in the White House. Vanitas vanitatum…
Melrose.
My apologies, I found another source – and now agree with you, that NK troops did help Russia in Kursk.
“Of course nearly all of the subcontinents Muslims were Hindus or Buddhists, or local religions, before Islam came to the sub continent.”
“Came to the sub continent” is a rather anodyne way of putting it. Islam “came to” India in the same way as the Nazis “came to” Eastern Europe and the Spanish “came to” South and Central America. They weren’t tourists.
“Islam “came to” India in the same way as the Nazis “came to” Eastern Europe and the Spanish “came to” South and Central America. ”
I think you mean “Muslims “came to” India …, however, that’s not what Craig wrote. Invaders may bring a new religion along with them, but beliefs are not responsible for the people that believe in them. Neither Judaism nor Islam are responsible for what is going in in West Asia at the moment, that is the responsibility of Jews or Muslims or both, depending on your point of view.
Pete
Muslim rulers took political control in precisely the same way as Hindu kings did, by conquering an empire. It was the way things were done at the time. The important point is how quickly in many regions, former hindus abandoned their religion and took up Islam. It was a liberation from the oppressive character of the caste system. everybody got to be equal, and wives didn’t have to commit suttee.
This could end up being a war over water, everything else is probably background noise to hide the fact its a war over water resources. It wont be the last. Water is going to become a battle ground for a large portion of the worlds population soon, of course every excuse will be given to deny its a water grab.
Water is going to become the most valuable resource any country can have relatively soon.
I read many years ago, that wars in the future would be over water.
Thanks for providing this detailed historical context, predictab!y ignored by ruling-class media. I see you’ve upset a few empire loyalists/ western chauvinists. Confirms you’ve penned another good un.
Try reading some history. Nothing to do with loyalty to an entity which no longer exists.
https://www.asianstudies.org/publications/eaa/archives/the-man-who-divided-india-an-insight-into-jinnahs-leadership-and-its-aftermath-2/
Of course, nobody could accuse you of being an apologist for western imperialism.
The link takes you to a review of a book evidently very popular at the time and pitched at undergraduate level The last bit in brackets in this quote seems to be the important point for understanding the effect of British imperialist policy.
“He (Jinnah) constantly hammered into the minds of Muslims that Gandhi and the Congress party represented the interest of Hindus and that a Hindu Raj (rule) would replace the British Raj and Muslims would be reduced to slavery. This was the plank on which he raised the bogy of ‘Islam in danger’ if the Muslims did not act to demand a separate state of Pakistan. This was also the basis for his Two-Nation Theory, which stated that Hindus and Muslims were two different nations and that they could never live together as one (totally negating the fact that they had lived together for over a thousand years before the advent of British rule)”.
China, Iran and Saudi Arabia, have offered to step in and try and defuse the situation between India and Pakistan – and to host talks between them, in the hope of reaching a peaceful agreement.
Neither of them will be able to do much. Too much money, too many careers, too many political programmes depend on the militarisation of Kashmir that no Indian leader or military commander will willingly agree to any sort of reduction. A million troops? It’s a money-making machine on an unimaginable scale.
What you mean is its your opinion, that none of the three can do anything.
The terrorists in Kashmir mainly singled out Hindu men for murder by shooting. They were Islamist terrorists based in Pakistan or POK. Modi has sworn retribution. The houses of suspects are being demolished. Pakistani citizens in India have been given notice to leave, and the manipulation of the Indus is evidently being considered. This only the beginning.
As for partition, one of the causes may have been something I read about in the UK Sunday papers many years ago: Edwina Mountbatten was dynamic in Nehru’s presence, but shrivelled when Jinnah was around. Jealousy on his part wouldn’t have helped the situation.
“India security forces have been going round Indian Occupied Kashmir and demolishing houses of anyone suspected of being a militant!
So far more than 20 houses have been demolished and the families thrown into the streets just because of some of the male members have left the country and cannot be contacted!
This is creating an atmosphere of fear among the Muslims in Kashmir as they have been at the end of the abuse by the Indian Army since the abrogation of Article 370 that remove the special status of Kashmir as a autonomous self-governing state.”
https://nitter.poast.org/IndiaToday/status/1916523034015576310#m
I think you need to get better sources on when the abuse started.
Hint: it was the late 1970s. The removal of Article 370 in 2023 changed nothing.
I hope you don’t claim that the persecution of Palestinians started in 2024.
Kacper.
And here’s me thinking it went further back than the 70’s – silly me, I’m sure you’ll post a excellent and reputable source on it.
Anyway, here’s a link on it.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/11/6/the-forgotten-massacre-that-ignited-the-kashmir-dispute
As for the 70 odd years, ongoing murder and genocide of the Palestinian people – I think I’ve got that one covered.
Cui bono ?
“Experts warn that the only beneficiaries of this conflict will be the arms manufacturers, Pentagon lobbyists, and Wall Street investors. Their motives are clear: keep the dollar strong, prop up the struggling US economy, and importantly, maintain tension between India and China.
Equally concerning are the growing defense ties between India and Israel,”
“As tensions between India and Pakistan escalate, the true beneficiaries may not be the countries directly involved, but the external powers with vested interests in the region. The US, Israel, and other global actors stand to profit from prolonging instability ”
https://thecradle.co/articles/india-pakistan-standoff-who-is-fanning-nuclear-flames
Craig, get yoor facts straight. Almost all the people killed were Hindus, mostly men, plus a few christians. The gunmen checked directly with each person before killing only the Hindus and sparkng the Muslims, sometimes even checking their foreskin! … In yoor first paragraph yoo say it was mostly muslims killed. Even a quick glance at Wikipedia would have revealed that that is a lie. What propaganda are yoo listening to?