What exactly is the Arunachal Pradesh Conflict between India and China?

Arunachal Pradesh (called South Tibet in China) is a full-fledged state of India. India’s sovereignty over the area is internationally recognized and its residents have not shown any inclination to leave India. The majority of the international maps puts the area in India. China has some historical claims through its ownership of Tibet, but the geography primarily favors India.

The primary controversy is over the ownership of the Tawang tract (northern part of the state) where India’s biggest monastery and an ancient trading town lies.

Arunachal History:

No one knows the ancient history of Arunachal. It borders Assam (a core part of Indian civilization) and has a few old temples. But, it is also influenced by Tibetan, Burmese and Bhutanese cultures.

In the 16th century, the most important heritage of the state – Tawang Monasterywas built. This is one of the most important sites for the Tibetan Buddhists. The area is assumed to have been populated by the Tibetans at that point.

Everyone argues whom it should belong to given the ancient history. The verdict is uncertain. In the ancient times, Indian empires and Tibetan empires were in harmony and the exact border was neither drawn nor enforced. But, things would change.

Modern History:

Until 1912, the border between Tibet and India was not quite delineated. Very few people lived there for it to matter. Neither the Mughals nor the British were controlling the region. Even the Tibetans were not that interested. For instance, here is India’s map of 1909. It puts the state in Tibet.

However, here is a map of China and Tibet in 1892. That sort of puts the state in India/Burma.

In short, both India and Tibet were sort of confused where the borders lied. Britishers initially didn’t bother as they found nothing. Eventually, they discovered the Tawang Monastery and it was time to draw the borders. In 1914, the representatives of Tibet, China and British India sat together to draw the borders. Before going into that, I will give a brief introduction to Tibet.

Tibet History:

For a sizable chunk of history, Tibet was an independent region. However, under the Yuan dynasty (circa 1200 AD) Tibet came under China. Since then China has started claiming Tibet under her rule. In the 18th century, the Chinese grip would be loosened as the Qing dynasty started decaying. By about 1860s, Tibet began to be recognized as a separate country. Here is a 1864 map that shows Tibet as a separate country. China still claimed it was hers.

By 1913, Qing dynasty would completely collapse in China and Tibet would expel all of the remaining Chinese representatives from Tibet.

Simla convention of 1914

In 1914, Tibet was an independent, but weak country. British India negotiated hard and got Tibet to accept that the region of Tawang and the area south of it belonged to India. Everyone was happy except China. Chinese representative in the meeting, withdrew from that and since then China refused to accept the accord resulted out of the meeting.

After the meeting, the border was not fully enforced. Except for Tawang, there was not much interesting going on in the state and it was ignored by everyone. In 1935, a British administrative office would go back to the convention ruling and unearthed the finding. Soon, India would start using the region in her maps.

Who does it belong to?

China never recognized Tibet’s independence nor the 1914 Simla convention. In 1950 China would completely take over Tibet. Thus, according to China, Tawang region belongs to her. China especially wants to hold on to the monastery as that is a leading center of Tibetan Buddhism in India.

According to India, most of the state had ancient Indian influence from Assam and in 1914 Tibetans signed an agreement to give the state to India. Also, from an Indian perspective, keeping the Tawang monastery within India is the best way to protect whatever is remaining of Tibetan culture.

In 1962, India and China warred over the region. But, the geography clearly favors India and China had to pull back from Tawang. Since then India has established complete control over the region. It is now as India as any other part of India.

Look at the map here. The international borders of the state roughly coincide with the high altitude.

The battle for the border
What is the complete history behind the disputes between India, Pakistan and China, over their conflicting national borders?
Why did China invade India in 1962?

By: Balaji Viswanathan

India and Brazil: A brief comparison.

1) Economy: Brazil is by far the biggest South American economy around $1.7 Trillion whereas India the biggest South Asian giant around $2 Trillion. But per capita GDP is by far much better of Brazil and probably will stay ahead for at least 30 more years or even more. But GDP by purchasing power parity India is ahead and will stay ahead for a long forthcoming years, that means in India one can enjoy and survive more for the same amount of money you possess. In short, a millionaire in general will be able to enjoy/buyout more stuff in India than in Brazil. But as a tourists to other nations you would want to be Brazilian over Indian.

2) Politics: They both are very stable Democracy minus a hiccup faced by Brazil now as of May 2016, and it’ll be good for both Brazil and the world to get over this asap. Traditionally these kind of minor (looks major at the time of event) hiccups are common in Indian system too but overall both the countries have very stable democracy.

3) Health: I will give this to Brazil, since lower the population, it’s easier for Brazil to take care of it’s population. Whereas India where the medical is much affordable but still not reachable to every individual of India due to much bigger population. But! you don’t want to visit Hospitals without insurance in Brazil, India is cheap that way. Also in medical research India is booming against Brazil.

4) Sports: Brazilians are crazy for Football(a.k.a soccer), whereas in India Cricket is not just a sport but considered a religion. Rest of the sports for both the countries are pretty much considered non-existent.

5) Education: Brazil, almost every one is literate, India is leaping in literacy rate with time, which is about 75% now, but considering quality of education, technology, research and development, India would be better choice. Brazil’s higher education is expensive especially the private ones, state owned are pretty much broke.

6) Tradition: Brazil enjoys very liberal outlook and culture, whereas India is traditional, a tad conservative outlook. Both the countries agriculture is dominated and development is on the rise.

7) Crime: Any day you’ll pick India, not sure about the crime outlook of India in the world but statistically crime rate in India is lower than U.S.

8) Diversity – India is very diverse ethnic, cultural, linguistic, food, religion wise etc. Brazil is ethnically very diverse, multiple ethnicity survives but follow same culture, an example for the world where racism is non-existent. India is multiple ethnicity and culture basically gives rise to discrimination but overall picture of India is unified, since still everyone believes in Unity in diversity.

9) Orkut: Brazil and India were the only super users of Orkut, Facebook killed it. Useless comparison.

By: Kuldeep Kumar

Read Kuldeep Kumar‘s answer to Is India a better country than Brazil? on Quora

How would a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council affect India?

UNSC Veto.

Every major power runs into issues with the UN. US in Iraq, Russia in Crimea and India in Goa/Kashmir. In those times, it is really important to have the veto on your side. Russia could afford to completely ignore the UN with the security of the veto.

India has so far been spared of the UN, using Russia (USSR) veto. Our buddies in Kremlin always veto anything that comes up against India. That is good, but India needs something more permanent. Also, every veto has its hidden cost. India often undersold its exports and overbought its imports from Russia in exchange of Russia’s veto.

To reduce the cost of an external veto, and also to earn money by “renting” out the veto (like what China does with African nations like Sudan – in exchange for huge economic concessions) India wants one. There is a real price attached to it. Of course, that is the main reason the existing powers block this (veto is a scarce resource and the rent seekers will not easily giveup their monopoly).

By: Balaji Viswanathan

Read Balaji Viswanathan‘s answer to How would a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council affect India? on Quora

What’s the history and implications of Kashmir’s demand for independence?

Kashmir was independent until the October of 1947 when Pakistan decided to forcefully annex it. The invading army took a big chunk of the state and plunged the state into darkness [by cutting the power supply]. After that the monarch of Kashmir invited India to save the country. Indian army entered the state and got rid of the invading group from two-thirds of the state.

Three years later, elections were held in Jammu & Kashmir and people said Yes! to joining India formally. Constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir – A Constitution was written by the Kashmiris and that explicitly said that the state would be a part of the Indian Union.

Kashmiris eagerly waiting to see Nehru on his visit after the people voted to join India.

Since then, multiple elections have taken place as a part of Indian democracy and the people showed little intent of leaving India. Also, not many Kashmiris went out of India as a refugee [if India were an occupying force that would happened]. And most of the separatists are Pakistan funded. Kashmir Militant Extremists

India and Pakistan fought 4 major wars and each time Pakistan believed that the people would rise up against India & welcome the invading forces. Each time, the locals rose up against the invading forces and always tipped the Indian army. What the locals want is peace and the ability to run their own life. They want Pakistan to leave them alone and want their own government to reduce the armed presence created as a reaction to the neighbor’s advancements.

In short, legally the state of Jammu & Kashmir is a part of India – through the monarch’s instrument of accession and morally it is a part of India as most people have voted for it. There should end the story. Other than a few miscreants both in India and outside, people feel they are a part of India.

We have seen the legal and moral aspects. Let’s see the practical aspects:

1. An independent state of J&K would never be left alone by the powers around it. The present condition of the state is way better than any of the adjoining regions. Becoming another Afghanistan is not in the best interests of the more tolerant Kashmiri ethos. The people of the state find it much more safer as a part of India than a part of Pakistan or any of the adjoining countries.
2. Besides the Muslim population, the state also has a large Hindu and Buddhist population. In case of an occupation by Pakistan, those populations would be decimated – similar to what happened in Sindh and Pakistani Punjab in 1947. The wholescale extermination of people is completely unacceptable.

In short, India has a strong moral ground and both Kashmiris and the rest of India find it comfortable with the present status quo. It is also fairly clear from our past experience that India leaving the state would cause more harm to the locals [especially Hindus and Buddhists and to some extent the Kashmiri Muslims as well] than India managing it. Yes, Indian government  has a lot to do for both Kashmiris and rest of Indians – from uninterrupted power to eliminating poverty – but those are socioeconomic issues not geopolitical ones.

The drawback and benefits to India if Kashmir becomes independent state/country again.

In August 1947, Kashmir was an independent state. However, within a month, Pakistan’s armies were closing in Srinagar and the king was left with no option but to join India. The king had no power to stop a major army in its gates.

There lies the problem. Given Kashmir’s location (bordering China, Pakistan, Afghanistan and erstwhile Soviet republic of Tajikistan) it will never be left alone by the powers around it. It is only a third of Afghanistan’s size, making it much easier for the great powers to play the game here just like they did & do in Afghanistan. By adjoining half-dozen troubled provinces in India’s neighbors, the state will become a huge marsh for terrorism to breed. Can India afford to have another instable neighbor?

India’s security goes into a toilet

Jammu & Kashmir borders the prosperous plains of Punjab and fairly accessible to the national capital (~ 6 hours/500km of driving in the plains from New Delhi to the borders of J&K). Thus, controlling the state would give India’s enemies (both nations and terrorist organizations) a direct access to India’s heart. Anyone who wants to put a knife in India’s heart will try to have a camp in that state and the government there will be too weak to prevent this from happening.

Minorities get massacred

There was a time when Afghanistan had plenty of Buddhists and Hindus. Now, it doesn’t. The Buddhist relics at Bamiyan got mercilessly destroyed and the same mercy was shown to the minorities. The same could happen in Kashmir if India vacates the place.

Apart from the valley around Sri Nagar, Jammu & Kashmir is a state with a significant population of Hindus and Buddhists. In the map below, the Muslim dominated parts of the north & west are already with Pakistan. Of the rest, there is a huge region of blue and beige. These two are the primary reasons India wants to cling on to the state.

India’s water access will be at threat

The only connection that India has with the mighty river of Indus (that gave our country its name) is Kashmir. Besides the cultural importance, Indus system is the biggest source of water to India’s northwest. Although we gave up Indus waters (along with Jhelum and Chenab) to Pakistan, we got Pakistan to give us Sutlej, Ravi and Beas instead. Without the access and bargaining power of Indus, India will be left without a lot of water. That means more poverty and famines. Indus also helps us generate useful hydro power.

Poor Economic Links –> Poverty

The state is landlocked and having hostile enemies all around will push the state into economic despair (like Afghanistan). Trade and tourism will suffer. Without India to bankroll, the state would be unable to afford more infrastructure projects. Most of its taxes will be spent guarding its borders and fighting civil wars.

Disturbing balance in rest of India

India is a diverse political union built upon a share culture that has lasted thousands of years. Kashmir is a core part of this culture and any separation would weaken the Indian union. (hattip: Dhruv Pathak). Central Europe and Central Asia have been through such separations and it takes decades for such regions to settle down after a major separation.

Benefits

For the sake of completeness, I will also include the benefits to J&K as an independent nation:

1. The citizens of the state will have a better say on their own affairs (assuming no one else occupies after India leaves).
2. The state gets to have the main say on how Indus waters will be used. This could help in building more hydroelectric projects.
3. Kashmiris don’t need to stand in queue along with rest of India when it comes to US Greencard and other permanent residencies (faster visas/greencards).
4. There will be better international recognition for the region  –> all the world nations will have embassies in Sri Nagar. Kashmir gets a seat at the UN and many other international bodies.
5. Rest of India benefits by not having to bankroll a troubled state and spending less on security (assuming Kashmir keeps its independence). Relationship with Pakistan might improve.

These benefits are substantially less than the mayhem that will come from the separation.

In short, making Kashmir an independent nation would be a terrible thing for everyone living in Kashmir and rest of India. Thus, you can be guaranteed that India will not cede an extra inch of land in that state regardless of whatever threats it is put into.

By: Balaji Viswanathan

Read Balaji Viswanathan‘s answer to Kashmir Conflict: What are the benefits and drawbacks to India in letting Kashmir be an independent state/country? on Quora

Read Balaji Viswanathan‘s answer to Why doesn’t India give Kashmir independence? on Quora

How would you explain Syrian crisis to a layman?

Historical background. Syria has been ruled by dictators for dozens of years – first by Assad the father (Hafez al-Assad), then by Assad the son (Bashar al-Assad). The Assads belonged to a branch of the Ba’ath Party which also ruled Iraq under Saddam Hussein. The House of Assad is mostly secular, but represents a minority Muslim sect called the Alawis that populate an area along the Mediterranean coast, while most of Syria does not belong to this sect. Hence the popular uprising a few years ago during the Arab Spring when the people of several Muslim countries threw away unpopular governments. Clearly, Assad’s claims to have been elected by an overwhelming majority were false, and the elections were not legitimate, as asserted by the Gulf Cooperation Council, the EU, the US, and UN’s Secretary General.

Foreign involvement. Syria would have gone the same way as other Arab spring countries (Egypt, Tunisia, Libya) if not for Russia and Iran (a Shiite Muslim country), which supported Assad with weapons, ammunition, military advisors and troops. Nevertheless, the insurgency (supported by the Gulf Monarchies, dominated by Sunni Muslims, and partially by the US) managed to grind down the Syrian military. Syria’s immediate neighbors are trying to stay out of the conflict, although Jordan is hosting training camps for some opposition groups. Turkey and Israel have strong militaries capable of resolving the conflict, but would not be welcome by Arabs in Syria or elsewhere. Also, Turkey is not on good terms with Syrian Kurds that control areas adjacent to the Turkish border, because Turkish Kurds have been defying the government for a very long time. Turkey is a NATO country, and is backed up by NATO members – the US, the UK, France, Canada and the Netherlands. Other key players in the region – Saudi Arabia, Israel and Jordan (smaller, but has a significant border with Syria) – are close US allies. Keep in mind that India is not taking sides, due to its long tradition of being non-aligned in world conflicts. China is not taking sides because it rarely shows keen interest in conflicts far away from East and Southeast Asia.

Parties to the conflict. Given that Syria has many religions and sects, the insurgency consists of many groups that aren’t friends or allies. Syrian Kurds in the North are strong and control their territory, but don’t try to expand (they are supported by the US, but have complicated relations with Turkey). The Free Syrian Army is considered moderate and aims for Syria’s key population centers, it is supported by the Gulf monarchies and partially by the US. Jaysh al-Islam is a large and fairly successful umbrella group with support from Saudi Arabia.  The al-Nusra Front is part of Al Qaeda and considered terrorist. Some groups are condemned by Al Qaeda for their cruelty and disregard for human life, they are viewed by most as pure eveil (they execute hostages, rape and enslave women of different faith, force men to fight against their will, etc). They are called the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) or Daeish, are Sunni, are most successful in the battlefield, control sparsely populated areas and operate oil wells. The US has been reluctant to send advanced weapons to moderate fighters, fearing the weapons could end up with ISIS. Russia (where most Muslims are Sunni) and Iran (Shia) support only the Syrian government, claim to attack ISIS, but in reality do not make a distinction between ISIS and other insurgent groups.

All countries are officially against ISIS, but ISIS seems to draw support from some shadowy foreign forces and managed to attract thousands of Muslim fighters from all of the world – about 1700 from Russia (by Russian estimates), several times more from Western Europe, and even more from nearby countries. At some point, ISIS extended the fight into Iraq and overrun Iraqi army in Mosul, capturing US-supplied tanks and armored vehicles. In response, the US helped reorganize the Iraqi government and military, supplied military instructors and helped with airstrikes. Most of the captured hardware is now destroyed by US, French, Canadian, Australian, Saudi and Jordanian airstrikea, putting ISIS on the defensive in Iraq and Syria. Iran helped Iraq and Syria a lot with ground forces and training (which is not surprising, given a long shared border and a common dominant religion – Shia Islam, whereas ISIS is Sunni).

Recent developments. The Syrian government does not control most of the territory and lost some major population centers. Russia’s and Iran’s past support were not enough, as government forces lost strategic military bases, and Russia could not reliably base its troops in Syria. So, Russia built a new air force base in Latakia with barracks for 2K troops (Assad asked Russia to do that). It recently stationed 30-40 airplanes there, along with helicopters, and 500 marines as guards. It also sent irregulars (some with experience from E.Ukraine) to a remote Syrian airbase that has been surrounded by the insurgents for a long time. Apparently, the short-term plan is for Russia to bomb insurgent strongholds and provide close air support to Syrian troops and Iranian “helpers”, who will try to clean up as much area as possible in a few months. While Russia claims to bomb ISIS, just like the US, Canada and France, in reality initial attacks hit areas controlled by other insurgents in many cases.

The recent news from Syria primarily involve Russia one way or another, and this probably prompted the question in the first place. Given that most of the Middle East, including the Gulf Monarchies, Egypt and Israel, are against Assad, Russia is ruining its Middle East policy in the long term. In particular, Jaish al-Islam declared war on Russians fighting in Syria, and there are bounties for Russian pilots. In comparison, the West, Turkey and the Gulf Monarchies are being more careful (and Israel is staying as far from the warring parties and publicity as possible, while retaining the Golan heights as a buffer). Few countries in the Middle East take Syrian refugees -Turkey, Jordan, and most of all Lebanon (up to a third of its population in 2015). Russia has been taking Syrian refugees for a long time, about 12K total as of September 2015. The EU countries recently took a large number of Syrian refugees and promised to take more. The US announced a large program to settle Syrian refugees.

In response to Russia’s bombardment of moderate opposition groups, the US and the Saudis started supplying those groups with new weapons, and this had significant effect on the battlefield: U.S.-Made Weaponry Is Turning Syrian Conflict Into Proxy War With Russia.

Analysis. Why is Russia, unlike others, spending precious resources on this and staking its political credibility? First, it apparently hopes to keep its new airbase near the Mediterranean to support future naval operations in the region. As long as Assad controls even a small part of Syrian territory, Russian presence their is more legal than the airstrikes by the US, Canada and France (even though there are dozens of countries that support Western airstrikes).

Russia’s long-term objective in Syria is to block Saudi pipelines that might cross Syria into Turkey to deliver cheap oil and natural gas to Europe (most of Russia’s oil is sold in Europe, so it’s a matter of competition). Russia can’t succeed in the long term by supporting an unpopular government hated by the Syrian people and neighbor countries, but every extra year of involvement keeps oil prices higher than what they could have been, and also delays Saudi pipelines – an investment that is paying off.

Forecast. In the long term, the Gulf monarchies and perhaps Turkey will likely achieve their goals in the region. When that happens, the West will have more access to the region through trade. Russia may retain their airbase in Latakia (or not), whereas Iran might be the biggest loser at the end because their proxy Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon will lose its supply routes through Syria and may be unable to continue its current strength where it controls a fraction of the Lebanese parliament.

By: Igor Markov

Read Igor Markov‘s answer to How would you explain Syrian crisis to a layman? on Quora

Why can’t India and Pakistan make peace?

As of October 2016, The future of Indo-Pak relations is a grim one indeed. Its only going to get worse from here.

This is because the locus of control over the peace process between India and Pakistan has become caught up in the greater global struggle between

1. The Traditional Hegemony of the NATO Nations and their Non-European allies (Australia, Japan, Israel etc)

2. The Rising Powers in the East signified by the SCO-EEU Nations that are headed by Russia and China and consist of the Central Asian States, some Eastern European states, Pakistan and possibly Iran in the near future.

On the periphery of this increasingly tense struggle are Medium level Power Blocs like the GCC, ASEAN etc that are increasingly up for grabs.

This rivalry between the NATO factions and the SCO-EEU factions is heating up in tense zones like the South China Sea, Ukraine, Syria, Libya and Yemen. And in this backdrop, Nation States like Pakistan and India, are having to decide which new or old alliances they will develop and which side will they find themselves on.

Even the member states of the traditional power blocks of NATO and the SCO are drifting towards new power cores. Turkey seems to be drifiting out of NATO and into SCO-EEU.

The Case of India

India under PM Modi is drifting out of the BRICS and Asian alliance structure with its satellite states (Bhutan, Nepal, Bangladesh etc) increasingly into the NATO sphere of influence that is headed by the United States. This is evident from the growing ties between the United States and India, Israel and India, Western Europe and India, Japan and India and what not. At the same time, relations with China are cooling while relations with Russia are civil but nowhere near the closeness enjoyed during the Cold War.

So one can safely say that India is increasingly aligned with the Western, NATO lead block in 2016 than it is with the SCO block.

There are strong indicators of this trend:

1. The recent Logistics agreement between the US and India allowing US vessels use of naval bases in the Indian Ocean that are controlled by India
2. The US is the top immigration destination for Indian students
3. The US-Indian nuclear deal
4. The Indian -French Deal for Rafael fighters
5. The Indian- Israeli Arms deals

And so on.

The Case of Pakistan.

Pakistan Meanwhile is firmly in the SCO-EEU camp. This has been paralleled by Pakistan drifting out of the NATO camp with sharp decline in ties with the US over Afghanistan, nuclear arms control etc.

NATO-aligned blocs like the GCC have also experienced similar cooling of relations with Pakistan over the Pak refusal to send troops to Yemen, Saudi bankruptcy meaning less Pakistani workers in the KSA, Pak anger over Saudi funding of Salafi madaris that churn out jihadists and growing Pak-Iran economic ties.

The 2016 period has seen several strong indicators of this new changing dynamic which is pushing Pakistan into the SCO-EEU:

1. Pakistan was accepted into the SCO with full membership accomplished by 2017
2. Pakistan joined the Chinese lead anti-terror military coalition alongside several Central Asian states to stabilize Central Asia
3. Pakistan played host to close Russian Ally, Belarus on 4th Oct 2016
4. Pakistan hosted Russian military contingents for exercises
5. Pakistan , faced with a curtailment of military supplies from the US symbolized by the failed 8 F-16 deal, is increasingly turning to the SCO suppliers for Arms and armaments such as Chinese submarines and Russian helicopters.
6. Pakistan joined the SCO Economic Project spearheaded by China called the “One Belt, One Road” project when it initiated the CPEC project.

The new Global Alignments and their impact on Indo-Pak tensions.

Now the Question arises: How does the post-Cold War swing in international relations, defined by the shift in Global power balances, affect Indo-Pak relations?

Well, India and Pakistan, once again find themselves in opposing camps in a large, Global struggle over Ideology, Economics, Military and forms of Government.

We are back to the Cold War era when Pakistan was in the NATO Camp of Nations and India was in the Non-Aligned Movement but was VERY close with the USSR.

Except this time, the new struggle is between the SCO-EEU and the NATO lead camp of nations. Pakistan is firmly in the SCO-EEU camp and India is increasingly in the NATO lead camp.

Implications of Pakistan and India being on opposing camps?

West Germany, France and the UK all became close allies after the end of World War 2, during the Cold War, because they were all in the same camp during the Cold War struggle.

The United States pushed for close ties between those nations. Economic Integration deals were encouraged that eventually formed the prototype of the EU. Joint exercises and close cooperation was almost made mandatory by both Super Power pressure and the necessities of the circumstances facing those nations.

All of this combined, turned France, West Germany and the UK into close allies. They were all on the same side in a struggle against an aggressive and threatening foe (the USSR).

And it wasn’t easy either! Few light is shed on this fact but early leaders of Western Europe like Charles De Gaule etc were quiet suspicious of Germany and there was significant lack of trust between the NATO nations in their early days that dissipated mostly in the 1970s. Almost 25 years after the end of World War 2! So it was in no way easy despite the pressing circumstances.

NOTE! East Germany never formed such close ties with the UK, France and Germany because it was in the opposite camp: The USSR camp. Of course, the USSR exerted strong influence to keep it that way (the crushing of the Hungarian uprising is a good example) but mostly all the USSR had to do was empower militant communists in the East German areas who were Germans themselves and let them occupy top leadership positions. The East Germans proved quite opposed to Western Europe that way. It closely parallels the empowering of certain anti-Indian elements in the Pakistani establishment, sometimes by foreign powers, to ensure the state of hostility remains between the two nations.

Let consider the Musharraf lead peace process in 2005–2006 in a bit more detail. Why was that peace process somewhat successful? Why did it make progress when other peace talks had failed?

I would venture that the global climate was quiet conducive to that peace effort: Pakistan was a firm US ally and designated officially as a Major Non-Nato Ally and India was beginning its embrace of the US lead world order with the Indo-US nuclear deal being penned and the beginnings of a close military alliance between the two emerging.

Indo-Chinese tensions were quiet muted as well back then. Both countries were boosting trade, forming BRICS and discussing the formation of the AIIB. So Chinese pressure on Pakistan to accommodate India and resolve the Kashmir dispute caused Pakistan (and the Pakistan Army in particular which receives quiet a bit of guns from the PLA) to initiate a serious peace process with India.

Both nations were deep in the NATO lead camp of nations and the US would have loved nothing more than to enlist India as an ally while retaining Pakistan away from China. And at the same time, India was being wooed by China with Pakistan already in the SCO camp so the peace process progressed in that aspect as well.

It was not to last though: The Musharraf Government collapsed, the PPP government saw a resurgence of anti-Indian army officers under Kayani, relations with the US took a nose dive pushing Pakistan out of the NATO camp and investments + support from China (and a warming of relations with Russia) drove the Pak nations deep into the SCO-EEU group of countries.

India too face similar changes. The warming of relations with the US after the NSG deal, the chilling of relations with China over the UNSC permanent seat and NSG group admittance issues, growing competition over Africa and Central Asia, tensions over neighboring countries of India like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka being wooed by China.

All of these pushed India and Pakistan in opposing directions: India into the arms of the current NATO dominated world order. Pakistan into the rising challenge posed by the SCO-EEU nations.

Thought Exercise

Imagine for a moment the following scenario: China, for some reason, rejects Pak territorial concessions in Kashmir back in the 1960s and a full fledged invasion of both PoK and IoK by Chinese forces begins. Millions of Chinese troops backed by aircraft and what not, make strong pushes against both Indian and Pak forces pushing them back significantly.

Do you really thing, in the face of such an aggressive and active common foe, the Pak and Indian leaderships would still be hostile to each other? Of course not. When their national existence is at stake, they would make amends and unite to defeat their common aggressor.

Conclusion

The current cold war between India and Pakistan suits some nations just fine actually. Ofcourse, no one wants a nuclear war between the two, but limited conflict and constant state of hostility suits some just fine:

1. The US is a big beneficiary here if such Indo-Pak hostility pushes India out of BRICs and the SCO-EEU orbit and into the arms of the NATO sphere. This is actually happening already. The Indians are miffed by the Chinese support for Pakistan and are prepping for conflict with both China AND Pakistan. This is much to the delight of the US which definitely wants to check the growing power of China and considers the SCO-EEU coalition a threat to its hegemony. The US would be the biggest loser of an Indo-Pak rapprochement because that rapprochement will also lead to an Indo-China rapprochement, thus frustrating US plans to use India as a counterweight to China and the SCO-EEU group of nations.
2. China too would be a bit of a loser in any Indo-Pak peace process because India is increasingly becoming an economic competitor to China in Africa and Central Asia. More on this here: Usama’s answer to If India and Pakistan have had good relations and open borders, who would be at loss?

Other important points:

• The Tense relations between India and Pakistan are quiet beneficial to some very important nations.
• Now that the two countries are in opposing camps, the relations between the two countries do not have a supporting global environment that existed back in 2005–2006.
• Pakistan’s increasing dependence on China (and the GCC but that’s reducing after the Yemeni crises) makes it look more like a satellite of China than an independent state with its own foreign policy (like Romania in the USSR). Some more details on that: Usama’s answer to Pakistan: How dependent is Pakistan on America?

A New Cold War is starting between the NATO and Major Non-NATO allies on one side (with Pakistan excluded):

And the SCO-EEU Nations on the other side (with India increasingly excluded):

And with Cold Wars, unfortunately, come Iron Curtains. And a new Iron curtain is falling between India and Pakistan. One, not formed by mutual disagreements between the two nations, but one formed in the increasingly loud storm of the New Cold War between the current hegemony of NATO and the rising challenge from the East in the form of the SCO-EEU faction.

By: Suhail Mohammad 

Read Usama‘s answer to Why can’t India and Pakistan make peace? on Quora