Can we remove both militaries between India-Pakistan border and put UN Council common military force?

Question

Both India and Pakistan stands their military in both side borders. Both countries spend more than 1,00,000 crore rupees for military. If we put a common force in the border the expenses comes to some 1000 crores. So both the countries concentrate with internal growth by using this money.

I thank you for this information to my beloved Guru Arulthanthai Vethathiri Maharishi who written this idea in his book named World peace.

Answer 1

The answer must be and should be NO. There are too great negative drawbacks, political repercussions and military and geo-strategical considerations involved. Read this scenario if ever one day India decides to remove her Army from Kashmir.

The hard truth is India's relations with Pakistan will never be that of a love story. From their tormented political creations, into the atrocities of the Partition and springing into everyday terrorism, the two nations' relations remain forever strained, not to say, scarred.

The focal point of their dispute is the territories of Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir and these latter territories remain a geopolitical and strategic military positions for either country and none will ever renounce to their sovereignties. Neither India can accept Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir's independence claims for fear of a Paskistani military move after on nor can Paskistan afford to understate its military presence in these regions. But refuted or not, Pakistan do militarily support the nationalists militants of Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir. After all, Pakistan would benefit politically and militarily from any steps from India to give these disputed states their independence. So, here on these points of contention, it will be only an endless rat-race and chess game between these two nations, resulting probably in further small-scale wars and enormous international frustrations in the background of an eternal cold war.

On the other hand, there is a plausible political scenario that can well be imagined in the long future:

India is fed up with repeated terrorist attacks from nationalist Sikhs and Muslim militants. These attacks have been more and more violent, resulting in massive deaths toll, uncontrollable communal violence and huge political frustration. Terrorists attacks perpetrated have become more precise, targetting political figures and there has been use of biological and chemical weapons on Indian civilians and military. India choose first to retaliate following strong patriotic pressure and targets massively the nationalists but unfortunately, civilians are also attacked. What follows is huge bloodshed, Kashmiris and nationalist Punjabis into nationalist wave engage historical violence if not war against Indian military. Terrorists attacks gain more momentum and the UN steps into the pot. International pressure forces a ceasefire while Pakistan defends its neutrality but in fact, it was Pakistan who had been fuelling this war, providing logistics, intelligence and military to the nationalist guerilla. Still under pressure, India accepts Punjab's, Jammu and Kashmir's independence...

But newly formed Kashmiri government is unstable. Communist factions make it worse. It is on the verge of collapsing within months of its formation. Kashmiri militants accuse Pakistan of this instability. Some months later, Kashmiri government collapses and Kashmiri communist faction takes power disguised into an interim government. India fears a new civil war in Kashmir and wants UN to take action. A few months later, high ranking Pakistani officials are assasinated and Pakistan suffers a 'supposed' terrorist attack which results into massive civilian loss. Kashimiri militants claim responsibility on the reason they are sending a message to the Paskistani government against their growing political influence in Kashmiri government. Kashmiri government reject such claims. Pakistan, feeling insecure, decides for military intervention following national pressure. Despite UN warnings, Pakistan invades Kashmir and soon takes whole control of it. Afganistan, China and India sees this as a direct threat to their military positions. The UN, taking too much time in discussion, India allies with Afganistan and China to take control of Kashmir. What follows is a bitter war between the two most hardened rivals in the world. The war is violent and hard. Economically it will be a disaster for Pakistan and a severe backlash for Asian economy. India's economy suffers as well. Communal tensions arise and severe rifts between Hindus and Muslims kill many innocents in India. Civil war and state of urgency are declared in Kashmir. The situation become more chaotic when Al Quaeda terrorists join the nationalists' cause. India suffers numerous terrorists attacks. Radical Indian Hindu factions groups retaliate by bombing Pakistan. The situation spurns out of control when officially Pakistan declares war against India. The global community is held on ransom, is on high alert and fears a nuclear war. The UN quickly forms a international alliance and tries to remedy the situation in Kashmir. The USA decides to be neutral despite being an ally of Pakistan. But into the war, India's military is technologically more advanced and combined with her allies, Pakistan is defeated within months. Pakistan retreats but do not accept defeat while India and allies face violent opposition from nationalist guerilla and Al-Quaeda but they are able to control the situation within one year. On the other hand, Pakistani army has suffered a severe backlash and Musharaf's government is severely weakened. Opportunist India orchestrate secret operations to remove Musharaf and RAW agents succesfully negociate a coup d'état to form an interim democratic and India-friendly Pakistani government. India then claims the entire sovereignty of Kashmir, forseeks Tibet to please China and Afganistan receives economic aids and treaties and is happy.

As we can analyze, there is a massive military repercussion in the advent that India removes her Army from Kashmir. The economic aftermaths would be awful, not to say, critical. We cannot count on the UN Security Council to govern Kashmir because of Pakistani opportunism. Look what happened in Somalia! The UN had to flee. But in any situation of war, Pakistan is sure to lick the dust because India is far too technologically advanced, has better military and has more sophisticated intelligence. Pakistan continued negativism on the Kashmiri subject will account for their own failure. I believe that this will be the future unless Pakistan decides to change their attitude and anti-friendly stance.

DISCLAIMER: This whole scenario is purely imaginative and thought from a politically correct point of view. It is impartial, scientific and does not in any way promote anti-Pakistani or anti-Islamic views. If you do not believe my unbiasedness, then surely you must be a radical or fanatic.

Answer 2

What border are you talking about? And what forces?
The Pakistani side hasn't even the full control of all military activities in it's own territory. And where to should they pull back it's regular troops. Pulling back Pakistani troops would most probably look like an aggression against Iran. The alternative - a reduction of its military is improbable because of the obviously strong links between military and government in Pakistan.
And where is that border? Cocerning Kashmir, there are at least three possible borders: the LoC, the Pakistan-IOK border or the India-POK border. Choose one and you will have a lot of people who will disagree aggressively with your choice.

Answer 3

Ideally if we remove forces from both sides we can save those 1000 crores too! That helps both countries to repay their loans much faster.

Answer 4

No.
Not possible.
America will not allow it,as their economy will be affected.
If this idea is workable, why even UN council?
we can do away with it.

Big powers,rich countries(group of seven ) must allow world peace to prosper.
That is not going to happen,as men have not learnt to live in harmony.

Answer 5

UN is controlled by USA a military and economic power. Every country has their own interest. US attacked Iraq for oil wealth. Do you want US to occupy our country and make us their slaves economically?

Answer 6

For one, India still hasn't signed the nuclear non-proliferation act, which doesn't exactly endear them to China, which considers itself one of the three big nuclear powers. There's also the Cino-Indian war, which again isn't great for trust between countries.

Answer 7

are u mad how can u think such as if both forces replaced by UN council military force yes of course india &pak both benifited economicaly but why do u not think about the draw back.

Answer 8

hi brother
does a forginer have a same patriotism as we have towards our country.
does a forginer treats our country as his own and fight back..
first understand the situation.....
pakistan dont have force like we do,they join hands with terrorist for the operation.so,we are fighting against terrorists.
we should rule our land
my salute for all indians
jai hind

Answer 9

can the same folks who ran the oil for food program be trusted to run a sensitive border region?I'd agree that boots on the ground could help,but whose boots?

Answer 10

you can think so but both are capable of doing so and would not even think of .. do you know why a country spends that much on it there is some reason but you are not mature so why let you know.

Answer 11

Moving toward no military at all. Then the growth will be livable.