The fighting between these former countrymen has become bloody again and despite requests by the international community, there does not seem to be an immediate end in sight. The death toll is difficult to calculate due to the vast difference in what each side is reporting so far. One instance that makes this hard is a claim by senior Indian government officials of an air strike that killed 300 militants, Pakistani officials disputed that number by saying zero were killed.
There are new tactics on display, such as the 14 suicide bombings that targeted Indian paramilitary police in Kashmir, but this war is old, probably as old as any I have ever seen.
When we are speaking of cultures that represent the first examples of civilization, putting your finger on the moment a fight like this started may be impossible but I can see a pattern in world events that looks to be the catalyst for this struggle.
Like most modern wars this seems similar to every region that gained independence after the fall of colonialism and power vacuumed left when the world powers that tied these countries together emptied their treasuries fighting each other during WW2.
This the world in the year 1914, the height of the colonial era.
Compare that map to what global security experts say are the leading hotspots for war currently.
One theme that I see, is a correlation between the distance of an empire's center and its colony leading to these modern conflicts. When I say distance I don't just mean miles on a map, I am of the opinion that the British Empire underestimated the rift between their culture as well as those of India and Pakistan.
This is an explanation of the colonial mindset and the hubris that led our world into this, they believed that not only could they rule a hostile region from thousands of miles away but could unite warring cultures together and change everyone to be like them. They tried to force people with different lifestyles and ideologies, that had trouble getting along beforehand, to not only live under the same flag but their flag as well. It created a third cultural schism in most regions that had enough problems keeping things peaceful between Hindus and Muslims for instance. Oddly enough, telling everyone in Kashmir to just convert to Christianity didn't help the situation much, in my opinion.
When it comes to British rule over the area it seemed doomed to fail if you ask me. Prior to their intrusion it was already dealing with generations of turmoil. The Mughal Empire, (not to be confused with the Moops or the Mongols, even though they claim lineage to Genghis Kahn) had swept through Northern India and took control centuries earlier but imposed their diet, religion and many other aspects of the western culture they had come from.
The British had no problem fanning the flames of rebellion while offering both sides deals and positions in their empire. It didn't take them long to make enough profits from the wars the help start and use it to gain influence so in no time both sides were indebted to the empire and wanted a way out. Handing over rule to a trade organization for petty positions of authority turned out to be a terrible idea and not only was the new colonial ruling class incapable of quelling the friction between the warring societies but went on to prove why trusting distant powers can be disastrous.
The bleeding out of resources from India to Europe began almost immediately despite the push back during The Indian Rebellion and funded their growing hegemony in the world arena perhaps more than any other colony. You really have to wonder how a tiny island like the U.K. not only survived WW1, but won and went on to have the resources to fight WW2 soon enough after.
People like Ghandi had quite a lot to say about it, but I think a picture says a thousand words myself.
I suppose it is a matter of debate whether or not the act Britain ceding control over the area was an act of altruism or just the admission that after generations of control they could not reunite the region and keep the peace from such a distance, that they caused more problems than they solved to say the least. I think their exit had more to do with the empire's coffers running dry and the fact that they bled the country of resources to the point of starvation and overall devastation but that could be my American anti-colony bias talking...
What really matters about all that when it comes to the current situation is the final act of the British Empire when they signed the treaties and agreed to leave. The Indian government, prodded by people like Gandhi, were insisting that the entire region that is now Pakistan go back under their flag so they could be a reunified nation. They were tracing the country's roots to the period before the rule of the Mughal Empire, a time when the entire subcontinent was both Indian and Hindu.
Obviously that would have led to the oppression of those who traced their roots to Iran and were strict Muslim if history has told us anything. Great Britain did not believe the promises of the Indian government to respect religious pluralism, but if you ask me, that argument has proven to be mute considering the situation in Israel/Palestine or anywhere else this method from the time period has been implemented.
Take another look at those maps provided above and see for yourself what I mean, every where a foreign power implemented their will, just to then leave after WW2, did more damage to the region and most of them remain hot spots for war to this day.
It can be said that the decision by British to divide things up so that the two cultures within the nation could have their own countries separated by the borders they drew up. I truly believe that they thought at the time it was the best way for these disparate societies to get along, segregation was world wide phenomenon during that era and was not a product of the U.K. by any means.
I will always argue that it is not the best option available and what should have been done then is extremely relevant in today's conversation. The most famous example of foreign powers thinking it was a wonderful compromise to split a city in two by a massive wall has to be Berlin. Of all the times this failed idea was implemented, it has to be the best publicized for sure.
source
All you have to do to understand what is it like living under these treaties is ask some one who lived under these conditions. The amount of force it takes to wall people in like things reaches brutal depths and will always lead to conflict.
Take another look at the top image of Kashmir and compare it to that of Berlin. For another example of what this segregation mentality looks like when left unchecked, we can also see Jerusalem. I'm sure that you have heard it isn't working out there either, but please see for yourself what enforcing this WW2 era plan is all about.
No matter where it is tried, it seems to me that the people on one side of the wall will always do better than the other and the two societies will inevitably begin to resent each other. If the life of the average citizen in one half of the society becomes markedly worse to the point it can't go unnoticed this resentment grows. This goes beyond a grass is always greener parable, it can get so bad that one side is starving and has no medicine and it seems like conflict could save more lives than it costs. These wars start less out of jealousy but more of a life or death struggle for the people involved of course, the soldiers who storm these walls are seen as heroes if they return with resources, always have and they always will be looked at as saviors as history has told us anyhow.
That is the ultimate flaw in these grand compromises, the people who drew these lines never took account for human nature but I would say tried to subvert it instead. They perhaps believed that they had the power to remake every aspect of how we feel and behave by fiat and we are suffering the ripple effects still.
A big part of why I am bringing this issue up today is that citizens of the U.S.A. are now the entity that supports these ideals whether we like it or not. We made a massive effort to end segregation within our own borders but supply the funds and manpower to keep this way of life working all across the globe in the year 2019.
To be completely clear and honest, this is the mentality most Americans have towards the problem in South Asia and its history. I'm not blaming us, just saying we are paying the lion's share of the tab with our blood and treasure by being caught up in this mess.
Joking aside this a real issue for us here in the states because of how many of our troops are in Pakistan. We were even there at the table in 1947 when this was all decided and have been committed to this ideology ever since I'd say. Our current reason for having active military there is tied to bilateral agreement to help fight terrorism, an initiative we started in the fall of 2001, but considering the political climate of that time, it's hard to know how voluntary this pact really is. The Pakistani government certainly did not seem to be helpful during our years long search for Bin Laden though and that definitely says something about how things really are in my mind.
That's what we should all take away from this before we take sides in the latest war that has started from the new worked order plan. It doesn't seem to matter that the people of America do not want to be in this fight, the people of both India and Pakistan do not appear to want us involved either. The only reason we are there looks to be a contract with an international cabal that should be long dead. None the less, our men and women are in danger over there and even our current president can't bring any troops home, a fact I find alarming indeed.
I really want to hear about what you think of this bad situation in the comments. If you are from the region I would absolutely love to know where you stand on the worlds involvement on what some consider a civil war.
I hope the timeline I provided helps show off how real this issue is and just how human nature responds to outside influence and forced changes to their culture. I mentioned Kashmir, Berlin and Jerusalem but I imagine there dozens of examples cities and even whole nations that a have been split apart by the central planners who want to run the globe. If you know of anymore regions that are being segregated because of these WW2 era treaties please share the knowledge in the comments. With things this complicated there are always more variables to identify and questions to ask so please fell free to add anything you can think of.
One of my biggest questions is what, beyond satisfying archaic treaties and fighting the war on terror as the line goes, are we getting at being over in this region. I've head many rumors and some have pointed to some infuriating conclusions about the real reason we keep ourselves involved over there but until there is some solid proof provided, it is still conjecture I suppose.
After all, we are always being told these people have our best interest at heart,,, right?
source
Thanks you for reading this article, please don't forget to share.