Pakistan-India Conflict 2025: News Updates and Discussion

[Watandar]

This is hugely embarrassing if true.

 

[Be dazzled]

 

[hasn2009]

Indians, so obsessed of Pakistan that the word 'Pakistan' is the 6th most spoken word on Indian media.

 

[Corax]

Indians, so obsessed of Pakistan that the word 'Pakistan' is the 6th most spoken word on Indian media.

Their inferiority complex compels them to infest this place like rats with multiple IDs.

 

[maxpane]

Indians, so obsessed of Pakistan that the word 'Pakistan' is the 6th most spoken word on Indian media.

lo and behold he is still talking about Pakistan while crticizing other who talk about Pakistan..isnt it crazy?

 

[Mighty_Dragon_Strike]

Indians, so obsessed of Pakistan that the word 'Pakistan' is the 6th most spoken word on Indian media.

This is not irrational ; this appears to be well designed so that these two countries remain perpetually at odds, while a 3rd party puts them against one another to advance its own financial interests.

In other words, one side has been deliberately cast as the other’s opponent. The entire arrangement appears engineered to favor third party!

Indians are independent to think big but practically it is impossible, so they have set an 'optimum' target for them!

in a designer's mind, more diverse opponent will always be favored but this favor will come when one party will show the desire and greed to serve them well, for long!


its an asymmetric deal, we can only set/negotiate terms, once designer has set the parameters for the bigger episode!

 

[Jungle Book]

This is not irrational ; this appears to be well designed so that these two countries remain perpetually at odds, while a 3rd party puts them against one another to advance its own financial interests.

In other words, one side has been deliberately cast as the other’s opponent. The entire arrangement appears engineered to favor third party!

Indians are independent to think big but practically it is impossible, so they have set an 'optimum' target for them!

in a designer's mind, more diverse opponent will always be favored but this favor will come when one party will show the desire and greed to serve them well, for long!


its an asymmetric deal, we can only set/negotiate terms, once designer has set the parameters for the bigger episode!

But who exactly is this mysterious “third party” benefiting from the conflict? Russia and France by selling weapons to India? China and the United States by selling weapons to Pakistan? If so, the theory immediately becomes difficult to sustain.

Pakistan's entire military budget is relatively small compared with the major powers—about $11.9 billion in 2025 according to SIPRI. And around 80% of Pakistan's major arms imports in 2021–25 came from China, not the US. Pakistan also remains heavily dependent on external financial support.

The India–Pakistan conflict is fundamentally an ideological conflict between the Hindu and Muslim identities that shaped the two nations, and it cannot be reduced to a mere territorial dispute. Its roots lie in the Hindu–Muslim divide and the ideology that led to the Partition of 1947, when Pakistan was created as a separate homeland for Muslims. The conflict has therefore involved not only territory and security, but competing ideas of national identity and the place of religion in society.

Both India and Pakistan need to acknowledge this ideological dimension if they are serious about making concrete and lasting decisions about their relationship. Denying the Hindu–Muslim dimension of the conflict does not make it disappear; it simply prevents an honest understanding of why the conflict has persisted.

 

[Mighty_Dragon_Strike]

But who exactly is this mysterious “third party” benefiting from the conflict? Russia and France by selling weapons to India? China and the United States by selling weapons to Pakistan? If so, the theory immediately becomes difficult to sustain.

Pakistan's entire military budget is relatively small compared with the major powers—about $11.9 billion in 2025 according to SIPRI. And around 80% of Pakistan's major arms imports in 2021–25 came from China, not the US. Pakistan also remains heavily dependent on external financial support.

The India–Pakistan conflict is fundamentally an ideological conflict between the Hindu and Muslim identities that shaped the two nations, and it cannot be reduced to a mere territorial dispute. Its roots lie in the Hindu–Muslim divide and the ideology that led to the Partition of 1947, when Pakistan was created as a separate homeland for Muslims. The conflict has therefore involved not only territory and security, but competing ideas of national identity and the place of religion in society.

Both India and Pakistan need to acknowledge this ideological dimension if they are serious about making concrete and lasting decisions about their relationship. Denying the Hindu–Muslim dimension of the conflict does not make it disappear; it simply prevents an honest understanding of why the conflict has persisted.

I dont want to be banned, but, its pretty clear, who 3p is...

one which 'liberated' many nations and carved boundaries across the continents.

 

[Jungle Book]

I dont want to be banned, but, its pretty clear, who 3p is...

one which 'liberated' many nations and carved boundaries across the continents.

You should ask yourself one honest question: what fundamentally differentiates India and Pakistan? The simplest answer is their religious majorities—Pakistan is Muslim-majority, while India is Hindu-majority. That religious difference has historically influenced their national identities, politics, culture, and competing visions of the state.

other differences between the two countries flow from that fundamental divergence. there is no mysterious third party perpetuating the conflict

 

[Master Chief]

But who exactly is this mysterious “third party” benefiting from the conflict? Russia and France by selling weapons to India? China and the United States by selling weapons to Pakistan? If so, the theory immediately becomes difficult to sustain.

Pakistan's entire military budget is relatively small compared with the major powers—about $11.9 billion in 2025 according to SIPRI. And around 80% of Pakistan's major arms imports in 2021–25 came from China, not the US. Pakistan also remains heavily dependent on external financial support.

The India–Pakistan conflict is fundamentally an ideological conflict between the Hindu and Muslim identities that shaped the two nations, and it cannot be reduced to a mere territorial dispute. Its roots lie in the Hindu–Muslim divide and the ideology that led to the Partition of 1947, when Pakistan was created as a separate homeland for Muslims. The conflict has therefore involved not only territory and security, but competing ideas of national identity and the place of religion in society.

Both India and Pakistan need to acknowledge this ideological dimension if they are serious about making concrete and lasting decisions about their relationship. Denying the Hindu–Muslim dimension of the conflict does not make it disappear; it simply prevents an honest understanding of why the conflict has persisted.

Plenty can indeed be "acknowledged" about the events of 1947 and prior.

For example, you insist on defining Pakistan as a "homeland for Muslims", (a welcome ministep away from your earlier ululations), however you still fail to acknowledge why a separate homeland might have been necessary in this half-truth summary.

We can go on.

There was no "partition" per se, only the creation of multiple sovereign independent nation states from an abandoned imperial posession under the terms decided, ultimately, by that imperial posessor (some would even include Burma as well as the multiple nation states born in 1947, although they did split away in the 1930s). Various parties influenced that design of course.

We can go further and elaborate on this "ideology" that led to these events. You and I would probably differ on which ideology was the catalyst in this context.

Your final paragraph approaches a rational basis for ongoing discussion, better served in any one of numerous threads that already exist and are explicitly dedicated to this topic.

 

[Mighty_Dragon_Strike]

You should ask yourself one honest question: what fundamentally differentiates India and Pakistan? The simplest answer is their religious majorities—Pakistan is Muslim-majority, while India is Hindu-majority. That religious difference has historically influenced their national identities, politics, culture, and competing visions of the state.

other differences between the two countries flow from that fundamental divergence. there is no mysterious third party perpetuating the conflict

it is a very deep philosophical debate, i could go on to give many examples.

A cat falls in a particular fashion because its very wiring has been fashioned for survivalfor the instincts of a predator. Our tragedy is rather different, we never designed our own wiring, it was designed for us.

The Pakistani thinking circles around, “Islam will prevail,” while the Indian answers, “Bharat Mata”, and both inherited programming for destiny.

no more posts on that!

 

[Jungle Book]

Plenty can indeed be "acknowledged" about the events of 1947 and prior.

For example, you insist on defining Pakistan as a "homeland for Muslims", (a welcome ministep away from your earlier ululations), however you still fail to acknowledge why a separate homeland might have been necessary in this half-truth summary.

We can go on.

There was no "partition" per se, only the creation of multiple sovereign independent nation states from an abandoned imperial posession under the terms decided, ultimately, by that imperial posessor (some would even include Burma as well as the multiple nation states born in 1947, although they did split away in the 1930s). Various parties influenced that design of course.

We can go further and elaborate on this "ideology" that led to these events. You and I would probably differ on which ideology was the catalyst in this context.

Your final paragraph approaches a rational basis for ongoing discussion, better served in any one of numerous threads that already exist and are explicitly dedicated to this topic.

Acknowledging the historical reasons behind the demand for Pakistan does not require pretending that Partition was something other than Partition. The 1947 transfer of power involved the division of British India and the creation of India and Pakistan as two separate dominions. Whatever terminology you prefer, the political result was a territorial and demographic division accompanied by one of the largest mass migrations in modern history.

And yes, there were multiple political forces behind it. But that does not erase the central ideological question: the Muslim League's demand for Pakistan was fundamentally connected to the argument that Muslims constituted a distinct political nation whose interests could not be adequately secured within a Hindu-majority India. That is not a controversial interpretation invented after 1947; it was central to the politics surrounding the Pakistan demand.

You can debate whether that demand was justified, what alternatives existed, and which political actors were responsible for its emergence. But changing the terminology from “Partition” to “the creation of sovereign states” doesn't change the historical reality or the ideological basis of the dispute.

And that is precisely the point: if we are discussing the roots of India–Pakistan relations, we cannot pretend religion and competing national identities were incidental details. They were central to the political process that produced the two states.