Good question.Do you have any influence on it? If not, then it’s pointless to make you worry about it because “crap happens”…
Perhaps the only thing you can do is what you are already doing: showing that you are concerned.Whether it has a lot of influence I don’t know. You are not the only one who thinks so.
And can it cause a World war?Well, what is a World war, actually? Wikipedia describes it as a World War is a war that is not limited to a country, region or world part but world-wide, over a large part of the Earth, is fought out.Remember that definition and think for a moment if we are already in that situation?
Several countries in Africa already have internal conflicts and are dealing with terrorism.In the Middle East It is also restless with IS, the Kurds and the Syrian rebels. Saudi Arabia is also not quite friendly to dealing with its neighbours. India and Pakistan have been having problems for a long time now, and that is a little further. China is also arguing in the search with its neighbours and with North Korea it is also a moment to wait. In addition, there is Russia against Ukraine and the US is looking for conflicts all over the world. (And then it is still questionable whether the Democrats and Republicans will ever become really slain with each other in a new civil war.) In South America aast Argentina still on the Falkland Islands and Venezuela is also not good. In Europe, it is also a bit of a wait to see what Brexit is going to cause, but that will not soon run out of war. But perhaps to disturbances in the UK. In addition, there are a lot of terrorists active worldwide…
So as far as I’m concerned, WW3 started when 9/11 4 passenger planes were abused as flying bombs…
But yes, some think that we are actually going to face the fourth or Fifth World War.We have only started counting since the Great War of 1914 -1918. And the question is whether nuclear weapons will be deployed in the next war. This depends mainly on the reasons behind this war.
Between India and Pakistan it is about the Kashmir region, which is shared by both countries and where many terrorists and militants are active.These conduct terrorist actions in both countries after which the terrorists cross the border flights outside the reach of the authorities. India has now violated the border to tackle these terrorists and Pakistan has responded. This yields some official protests but both countries know what is going on.
My expectation is that the conflict will expand a little further so that both countries comb out the Kashmir area and tackle terrorists on their own side while also testing each other how far the other is going to protect the area.It is not in their interest to make it a large-scale war because, therefore, various other countries will be involved in this conflict. For instance, China will not be satisfied if these two neighbouring countries are at war. The rest of the world will react to it, but because India is the first to cross the border, many will choose Pakistan.
No, for the following reasons:
1 in particular, India is a country that responds to provocations of India and China in a controlled manner.
Both countries have nuclear weapons for about 20 years.As you can commemorate maybe, a maritime attack of Pakistani terrorists took place in Mumbai in 2008. The terrorists occupy a hotel, and a fire fight took place in the hotel with hundreds of deaths, in the hotel ASL due to the gunfight and attacks in other parts of the city.
Despite this, the response of the Indian government and the Indian population was controlled.There was never a serious plan to attack Pakistan. One important reason for this is that in my opinion the Indian military establihsment is doing a great deal of effort in retaliatory actions to prevent innocent civilians from being killed. What also plays is that since 1954 Pakistan has signed a military treaty with the United States, and India does not want to run the risk of chasing the US against itself. India has itself signed a freezing agreement with the Soviet Union in 1970, whose legal obligations have been taken over by Russia, but I do not think Russia will be willing to be sucked into a conflict in which they come to the US are. Indian response to this type of provocations often consists of economic sanctions, strict visa requirements for Pakistani visitors, sports boycotts (especially in cricket), and sometimes, targeted attacks on training camps where there is suspicion that terrorists Be trained
Other examples of Indian managefulness:
1 during the first Indian Pakistani war, between 1947 and 1948, Indian soldiers had the opportunity to cross Pakistan’s unfinalized bandits, which crossed the border with Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh (the correct name for the India-controlled part of the Disputed region) all the way back and expel from the entire county, if they were willing to fight longer by.Our then Prime Minister, however, was an idealist, who had a great deal of respect for the international legal order, and therefore asked for a UN-monitored truce. If India had long been through, the country had completely expel Pakistan from Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh. As a sign of this, Pakistan has been controlling about one third of the region since 1948.
2 during the second and third Indian-Pakistani wars, in 1965 and 1971, the Indian Army had been able to try to bombard the second city of Pakistan, Lahore, with tanks trying to cross the border into the Punjab province, or with tanks the city of Lahore inside To fall (the city is only 40 kilometers away from the border).These manoevres would as an afleidingsmanoevre for the invasion of Pakistan in 1965 in the India-controlled part of Kashmir, or during the War of 1971, when India supported Guerilliastriders in Bangladesh in their freedom struggle against the Pakistani army, have been able to serve. In both wars, India chose not to bombard the Lahore, and not to invade the Lahore tanks. (Well, with tanks, India has overshated the border near Lahore as a distrorder to force Pakistani soldiers to remove themselves from Kashmir for the purposes of the city). Finally, in the Wars in 1947 and 1965 East Pakistan, which would later form the unfainable Bangladesh, India did not anninate, while they could have done so, that there were few Pakistani troops stationed.
These are, in my opinion, good examples of the managefulness of the Indian military and political summit.
To be honest, the Pakistani military leadership was also somewhat controlled before both countries had a nuclear weapon.They were also likely to have been able to deploy tanks or planes in 1965 in other parts of the border area than Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh. They have chosen not to do so, which she advocates.
There are two reasons why Pakistan sometimes undertakes military or terrorist actions against India, mostly in Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh.In the first place, the Pakistani military leadership wants to put the case of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh on the international agenda. The international community adopted a UN resolution in 1948, which talks about a referndum in the area.
There are some problems with UN resolutions:
1 in the first place, the resolutions only provide for the possibility for the whole area to join India or Pakistan.There is, however, a large part of the irrigation that independence wants. This option does not include the resolution.
2 in the second place, the resolutions do not take account of the different subregios (I believe there are 8) within the region.This is vital because the needs of each region vary considerably
A Kashmir valley and other in majority Muslim territories will go to all probabilities for annclosure at Pakistan or independence
b The Regions Jammu and Ladakh will in all probability opt for the expansion of India as separate provinces, or independence.Pakistan is unacceptable to them, as Pakistan has committed large-scale actions of ethnic cleansing for 2 times during the division of British indie after independence in 1947 and the war in Bangladesh in 1971. As a result, between 85 and 90 percent of all non Muslims in 1947 are fleeing from Pakistan, and 70 percent of the Hindus residing in 1971 in Bangladesh. As a result, affiliation with Pakistan for Hindus and Budhsists would be perceived as an exisitential threat. In 1947, there were an estimated 2 million deaths, and 17 million Mesne fled. This was one of the greatest, if not greatest, examples of ethnic cleansing and forced mass vershizing of messes. In 1971, 10 million people from Bangladesh fled to India due to large-scale human rights schendinge of the Pakistani army.
Since India is a secular country, with, on paper at least, freedom of religion and respect for religious diversity, India will never abandon the non-msolims in the region.The Indian government has gone so far that it requests from Hindus and Buddha to separate the regions Jammu and Ladakh from the India-occupied part of the region, and as separate provinces to join India, refused with the promise that Jammu , Kashmir and Ladakh is an integral part of India, which means that India will never respond to the resolution asking for a referndum, that the religious minorities do not have to worry, and that the Indian Army will always Protect.
For the sake of completeness: In 1947, between 20 to 25 percent of Muslims who lived in India then fled to Pakistan, as a result of revenge actions on ethnic cleansing in Pakistan.Pakistan then consisted of West Pakistan, which is now known as Pakistan, because in 1971 the then East Pakistan, which is the current Bangladesh, separated itself after a war of independence from Pakistan and formed the independent country Bangladesh.
Finally, I would like to talk about the reason why India thinks that the region is an integral part of India.
One of the conditions of the transfer of the sovereignty of Great Britain to India, Pakistan and princes who ruled on behalf of Great Britain India (there were so’s 500), was that the princes, irrespective of the desire of the population in their principalities, Ultimate right to decide at Wlek land they wanted to join.This was particularly detrimental to India, because by far the majority of the principalities were Islamic principalities, the monarch of which wanted to join Pakistan on the basis of his faith, with a majority of the population that was not islamitic, As a result, the majority would prefer to join India, because India is a secular country (contrary to what many people think, and supporters of the Hindu party the BJP, and Pakistani and Bangladeshi think, sometimes not Indiers Like to believe, India is not a Hindu, but a seclier country. As a result, Hinduism, in tegnestelling to Nepal, has no privileged position in the Constitution. In Pakistan, Islam does have a privileged position), with a majority of the Hindu population. In addition, these kingdoms were surrounded by areas which were not Muslims by majority and were directly governed by the British, so that the principalities, in choices for Pakistan, would be surrounded by areas that were Would have to belong to India.
Moreover, in Pakistan there was also a principality that did not wish to belong to Pakistan but wanted to remain independent.The principality was in the current province of Baluchistan.
As a result of the fiet that both the Indian and Pakistani governments wanted the British to depart quickly, both the Indian ASL Pakistani government have signed conditions for transfer to sovereignty, with the condition that the monarchists For their principalities they could decide at Wlek land they wanted to join, keeping in mind the idea that after the Retarke of the British, both governments with a mixture of promised privileges (such as a large allowance, free electricity and preservation of Jachtprivleges), and read this did not work, with a threat of a military invasion forcing the principalities to become part of India and Pakistan.In India, the majority of the population rightly thinks this, because accepting the wishes of the princes for eventual affiliation with Pakistan would be undemocratic.
As a result, India has 2 Islamic principalities within Indian Territory, Hyderabad and Junagadh, whose princes wanted to join Pakistan (the remainder was in most cases bribed with those privileges), pressured to To join India, in the case of Hyderabad, India has even invaded the Principality (this took place between the independence date of August 15, 1947, and the beginning of the first Indo Pakistani war in October 1947).
Pakistan’s justification for the raid in Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh is that since India has used military resources in the case of Hyderabad to force a kingdom to join India, which is contrary to the Treaty M. B. T transfer of Sovereignty, Pakistan also does not have to feel bound to the treaty, and a raid in the majority Muslim Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh is being made, regardless of any wishes of the monarch of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh, who was a Hindu.
Oveirgens were all Princes puppets in the hands of the British, who made a policy of raising principalities with a monarch with a different background of faith than the majority of the population, thereby making the legitimacy of the Princes To reduce the chances of an increase.
The vost of Jammu sat with a big dilemma.For personal reasons, and for the fear of treating religious minorities by Pakistani soldiers, he did not want to choose Pakistan, which, however, was contrary to the wishes of the plurality of the population. (Incidentally, apart from liberating religious companions, the fact that all the rivers flowing through Pakistan first flowed through Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh was also a very important reason why Pakistan wanted to embed the province. As a result, the war between both countries in 1947 was one of the first wars that was partly fought for water.
(Another example of managefulness of both Landenis that in 1965 the end of the second Indo Pakistani war, both countries have concluded a water sharing agreement, which is still respected by both countries.India could tindens conflicts the supply can shutting as a penalty measure, but chooses not to do it, because the harvests of innocent Pakistani farmers will fail. The Indian estblishment does not want to cause unnecessary suffering to the Paksitan people).
As a result of the dilemma of the Prince of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh, he could not choose between India or Pakistan.When Pathanic Bandits invaded India as an unofficial army from Pakistani territory, the monarch asked India for help. India see that they would do this only under the condition that the king would transfer sovereignty to India. Since the monarch had no choice, he signed a so-called Intrument of Accession, with which the transfer of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh, which includes both the part controlled by India and Pakistan, was transferred to the Indian government, in exchange for Military support by India, and asylum for him and his family.
On this basis, India believes that a legally valid transfer of sovereignty has taken place from the king to the Indian overness, that Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh is simply an indictly part of India, as do all the other provinces and Union territories (These are areas that are too small to have a prvoncial government, and as a result are governed directly by New Delhi), and that on the grounds that any call for separation from India is unconstitutional, potential Separation of India from any province or parts of Provicnes whatsoever.would be contrary to the Indian Constitution. This is not unique for India. Many western democracies foresee or are not in a possibility of separation, or have included clauses in which secessionist movements, irrespective of whether they are peaceful or not, are by definition unconstitutively declared. That does not mean that this is a very controversial clause, especially in multi-ethnic states. India has no message to the opinion of the internaional community
The public opinion in Pakistan very pro connection of Kashmir to Paksitan is because they see this as a case of a Muslim brother people, suppressed by a bully.Average Pakistani people are unaware of the fact that some 35 percent of the population is not Islamic. In the valley of Kashmir is more than 90 percent Muslim. However, that does not cover the whole area. However, the figure of 90% is what is used in the Pakistani media. Pakistani irrigation is also frightened by the eventual closure of dams in the Indian part of the region, which would cause their water supply to be squeezed off. So far, India has not done so.
Finally, I would like to say that the Pakistani army has an interest in keeping the conflict alive, because it allows itself to create the opportunity to sketch Zixhzlef as the guardian of Pakistani independence, and ultimately to make great defence Expenditure (40% of the government budget), interference in the Paksitan business, and a close cooperation with America to justify.The Pakistani army is attempting to purify the Indian part of the region ethnically by taking on Hindu villages with artillery, and to stimulate terrorists to cross the line of control, which is the line-up, and To commit attacks against the Indian Army, and temples of Hindus and Budhists. Google but aanhoses on Amarnath pilgrimage in Kashmir
Sorry for the length of my reply.It is complex matter, which I could not have answered shorter.
You need nothing.