New aggravation of the situation in Kashmir: the Pakistani army opened mortar fire

Once again, India accuses Pakistan of multiple ceasefire violations. The Pakistani army resorted to unprovoked shelling from mortars and small arms weapons on the forward posts of the Indian military and villages in the border areas.

This is reported by The Print, citing official information from the Indian Ministry of Defense.

The shelling took place in the following areas of Jammu and Kashmir State: Rajuri, Punch and Katua. At the same time, there were no reports of significant damage to the Indian side.

A new aggravation of the situation on the contact line in Kashmir occurred on Sunday at about 15:00 local time, when the Pakistani army opened fire from mortars in the Nowshera sector of the Rajuri district. Indian troops returned fire, according to the Indian Defense Ministry.

In addition, the Pakistani army resorted to mortar attacks in the Balakot, Digwar and Kearney sectors along the contact line. Also, Pakistani security forces fired at the area of ​​the Indian border outpost of Gurnam in the Hiranagar sector of the Katua district. The Indians answered. The shooting lasted from about 11 pm Saturday to 1:20 am Sunday. The firefight then resumed on Monday night.

Prior to that, New Delhi announced mortar attacks against the Pakistani army in Kashmir as recently as mid-December last year. Although the ceasefire agreement between India and Pakistan was concluded back in 1999, violations of it still occur.

In turn, Pakistan declares provocations from India, while confirming the use of mortars in Kashmir for its part.

As practice shows, any frozen conflicts are capable of being “unfrozen” at some point easily and suddenly.

Comments

[Poetry]

"-Said, why did you kill my people?"
"-Why are they throwing sand in your eyes?"

[Orange bigg]

I wonder if Pakistan will hang the flags of Azerbaijan and Turkey on the streets of its cities as Azerbaijan did (the flags of Pakistan and Turkey) during the conflict in Karabakh? Maybe it will send its military to Kashmir to help Pakistan? Or is it a one-way only road of assistance?

[Machito]

To achieve peace, the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan need to go to Moscow after Aliyev and Pashinyan. As practice shows, peace can only be reached in Moscow. And the multi-vector policy of India and Pakistan is leading to war. Regularity however.
Even the Taliban held peace talks in Moscow.

[Paul]

How did you decide that Moscow is the real authority for India and Pakistan? For both countries, Russia is just one more player with whom only a joint confrontation to some third party can be in common, and then on a small list of issues. Still, it was the Third Reich who could persuade its allies to move unfavorable for them (for example, as in the case of disputes between Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania). In the first place, Russia never wanted / could not act with its allies the same way as the Germans. China is more likely to be suitable for your proposed role, and we can work as an auxiliary partner in the transaction.

[Orange bigg]

The Soviet Union at one time "persuaded" Germany to give Poland the eastern lands of Germany, the same Silesia and something else. Here's an example of the fact that Russia

could treat her allies just like the Germans

.

China is more likely to be suitable for your proposed role, and we can work as an auxiliary partner in the transaction.

China is Pakistan's main ally and India's enemy or rival is not at all suitable for this role. Russia is more neutral.

[Paul]

The Soviet Union at one time "persuaded" Germany to give Poland the eastern lands of Germany, the same Silesia and something else. Here's an example of the fact that Russia
could treat her allies just like the Germans

We can agree with this.

Russia is more neutral

I agree Russia is more neutral than China, but little depends on it and it is not authoritative enough to be a mediator in negotiations. Still, neutrality alone is not enough otherwise Luxembourg or San Marino would be ideal candidates

[Maikcg]

Russia has more than enough "peacekeeping authority". We can say that the future export product is peace (not in the sense of a planet, but the absence of war).

[Paul]

Perhaps you are right, but there is a question - why are you sure that the world sees us as peacekeepers? Most likely, the Western media are able to form and maintain the image of Russia as an aggressive power. In fact, for a Western man in the street, an invitation as an intermediary for Russia looks like a replacement in the ring of a referee who is trying to take boxers out of the clinch, for, say, a shepherd dog. I am sure that if, instead of a man, a toothy dog ​​pops up into the ring and just starts barking, then the boxers will disperse in no time. Of course, we do not behave like that, but we are presented with bears and vodka. Would you trust the United States in a conflict with Ukraine? I think not, because perhaps you think arrogant and aggressive. But the Americans themselves do not think so about themselves. So it turns out that thinking about yourself well does not automatically mean that everyone also considers us to be crystal honest and fair.

[Maikcg]

Western media is not yet the whole world, to put it simply - in addition to the "golden billion", there are still 6,5 billion people. And here not everything is so obvious, if only because not all of them evaluate Russia's affairs according to CNN reports. And even inside Europe, not everything is so black and white with bears and vodka.

[Odessa Greek]

And you propose the most "authoritative" "peacekeeping" and standard "Democratic" state - the United States. Here they will quickly "help"

[Paul]

Actually, my comment was based on the fact that it is realistic to offer Russia its participation only if it can really influence the participants in the conflict. Russia has less objective influence on the Indians and Pakistanis than China or the United States, but more than Norway or Iran.

[bessmertniy]

Well, India for Azerbaijan is not Karabakh, and not Armenia. Even waving the flag from Pakistan is somehow illogical.

[Civil]

And in which country is the political crisis? That started. The elite of the countries of the 3rd world often uses small wars to solve internal problems.

[bad]

And once they were part of one state.

[V1er]

Religion is different there. In addition, Pakistan has always been closer to the Muslim East than to traditional India.

[Orange bigg]

Quote: V1er

Religion is different there. In addition, Pakistan has always been closer to the Muslim East than to traditional India.

Once upon a time, the Arabs decided to conquer India. The war began. The Arabs were able to conquer only part of India, eventually taught the local population to their faith. So the Arabs on the lands reclaimed from India from the Hindus made the Muslim Hindus, who later became known as Pakistanis. Same story with the western lands of Russia. It was also a long time ago. The Poles, on instructions from the Vatican, decided to conquer Russia, but it turned out not all, but only a part. These are the current lands of Ukraine and Belarus. The truth here is a little different. They sometimes returned to Russia, then again to Poland. Hence the languages ​​Ukrainian and Belarusian are variants of a mixture of Russian and Polish.

[Sergej1972]

Rather, it is part of the same colonial possession of Great Britain.

[Voltsky]

Quote: malo

And once they were part of one state.

it is when ?! Balabola and the populist old man reconsidered ?!

[bad]

Quote: Voletsky

it is when ?! Balabola and the populist old man reconsidered?

Partition of India - the process of the division of the former British colony of British India into independent states, the dominion of Pakistan (August 14, 1947) and the Indian Union (August 15, 1947) - quote from the encyclopedia

[Voltsky]

chago ?!
it's just some kind of zvizdets ...

India is a lot of principalities, but what you wrote ... then the same can be said about Russia after the fall of the great Ulus

[Orange bigg]

India is a lot of principalities, but what you wrote ... then the same can be said about Russia after the fall of the great Ulus

The great Ulus actually included half of the world. In any case, almost all of Asia. And the principalities of India are like the lands of Germany, the voivodeship of Poland, the silts of Turkey. That is, these are the administrative divisions of one ethnic group. Namely, the Indians. In Iran, the administrative units are called stans. these are provinces, not different countries.

[Guru]

malo (Dmitry)

Partition of India - the process of dividing the former British colony of British India into independent states the dominion of Pakistan (August 14, 1947) and the Indian Union (August 15, 1947) - quote from the encyclopedia

To the point.

[Orange bigg]

Quote: Voletsky

Quote: malo

And once they were part of one state.

it is when ?! Balabola and the populist old man reconsidered ?!

Don't you know the history? The state of Pakistan was formed on August 14, 1947 by separating from British India territories inhabited mainly by Muslim Hindus. It consisted of the western (now Pakistan) and eastern parts (now Bangladesh), which were at a distance of 1600 km. apart.

[Voltsky]

Quote: OrangeBigg

from British India

Quote: OrangeBigg

You know bad story

Great Ulus you know what is ?! According to him, China and India with Russia and Persia = one country or not ?!

[Orange bigg]

There used to be one country, but the Chinese, Hindus and Russians are different peoples. And the Hindus of India and the Muslim Hindus of Pakistan are one people, one ethnic group, but religion and the disputes around it divided and divorced one people. It's like we had a war of red and white so the Hindus had a war on religious grounds between the adherents of the traditional faith and the Muslims.

[Voltsky]

Quote: OrangeBigg

There used to be one country, but the Chinese, Hindus and Russians are different peoples. And the Hindus of India and the Muslim Hindus of Pakistan are one people, one ethnic group, but religion and the disputes around it divided and divorced one people. It's like we had a war of red and white so the Hindus had a war on religious grounds between the adherents of the traditional faith and the Muslims.

PPC ... Poles and Russians are also one ethnos, and Czechs, Slovenia, Slavaks, Serbs, Croats, etc. etc.

[Orange bigg]

Poles and Russians are also one ethnos, and Czechs, Slovenia, Slavaks, Serbs, Croats, etc. etc.

Then, according to your logic, the Germans, the French and the British are also one ethnic group. I meant the Indian people, divided because of their faith. And so the Russians and the Poles, despite the presence of common roots, are different peoples.

[Voltsky]

there are plenty of peoples, and dialects too ...

[Guru]

Great Ulus you know what is ?! According to him, China and India with Russia and Persia = one country or not ?!

The answer is definitely NO.
You are confusing - Hot with Round.

[Voltsky]

India is a multinational country. The largest peoples: Hindustans, Telugu, Marathi, Bengalis, Jat, Tamils, Gujarati, Kannara, Punjabis. Hindi is the most widely spoken language in India. Hindi speakers are about 40% of all Indians.

[Guru]

Voletsky (Vinnie)

it is when ?! Balabola and the populist old man reconsidered ?!

And who is Starikov? Professor of History?
Apparently a bad person, if after watching him you are carrying such nonsense.
Learn history, come in handy.

[Blacksmith 55]

It was the British who divided India when they granted it independence in 1947.
Divided specifically so that they would constantly be at enmity. Since then, there has been no peace in this region.
And there are many examples of such divisions in the world, and in Russia, unfortunately, too.

[Voltsky]

it was the British who united multiple Indian principalities, and before them they were united by the Mongols; tell the packs that they are one country with the Indians :)))

[Orange bigg]

Quote: Voletsky

it was the British who united multiple Indian principalities, and before them they were united by the Mongols; tell the packs that they are one country with the Indians :)))

Take note of the entire educational history of Pakistan.

The emergence of Islam

In 710, aggressive campaigns against Pakistan began by the Umayyad troops led by the Arab commander Muhammad ibn Qasim. His troops subdue the province of northern Sindh and southern Punjab. Everywhere, Islam is forcibly implanted, for resistance to a change of faith, a poll tax is prescribed - jiziya. For entry into military service, the Gentiles were freed from jizia, and had the opportunity to receive a salary and the due remuneration.

Beginning in the 1026th century, hiking in the northern regions of India became regular. Until 17, Sultan Mahmud Ghaznevi organized XNUMX predatory raids on the lands of the Indus River Valley and the Ganges River. The Ghaznevin empire included territories from Samarkand and Isfakan, including the city of Lahore. The resettlement of many Muslim communities on the territory along the Indus is taking place, and the development of these lands is gradually proceeding.

1185, the valley territories of the Indus River are part of the Gurid state. Sultan Muiz-ud-din-Muhammad, Islam is implanted in the territories of north-west India, Bengal and Bihar. His successors managed to keep these lands until the advent of Emperor Babur, who ascended the throne in 1526, who became the founder of the Mughal dynasty. The period of the reign of the Sultan Muiz-ud-din-Muhammad, and his followers, is known in history as the period of the Delhi Sultanate, during which representatives of 5 dynasties ruled: court slaves, Khilji, Tughlaki, Sayyida, Lodi. The main government posts were occupied by Muslims, although Hindus also had the opportunity to serve in government posts. Islam established itself and spread throughout India.

The next emperor, Jahangir, returns the policy of imposing Islam, but the attitude towards the Hindus remains tolerant. But his heirs, since 1679, returned the poll tax, destroyed the temples of the Hindus, issue a ban on the construction of new ones. Such actions caused a wave of discontent. At the beginning of the XNUMXth century, a civil war broke out between Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus.

English colonization

Long inter-tribal confrontation did not lead to victory, the British army took advantage of the situation and sent its troops into Indian territories. In 1757, Bengal conquered, in 1843, Sindh province, in 1849, Punjab and further all the territories of the Indian subcontinent. In 1857, the sepoys came out against the British, their uprising was brutally suppressed, and the dynasty of rulers of Mogolistan ceased to exist.

After the complete defeat of the Muslim movement, a new leader of the Muslim "revival" appears, Sayyid Ahmad Shah, who sought peace with the British and put forward demands for the creation of a Western educational system in the country. In 1875, Akhmat Shah opens the first Muslim university. Gradually, he manages to prove to the British that it is necessary to separate the electoral groups for Hindus and Muslims, then separate the adherents of Islam from the Indian National Congress party, formed in 1885. The British are allied with Muslims in the fight against the growing national movement of the Hindus. The disciples and followers of Ahmad Shah, in 1906, advocated the formation of the All India Muslim League, which fought for the secession of Pakistan.

https://www.istmira.com/drugoe-razlichnye-temy/17690-pakistan-kratko-vsja-istorija.html

[Voltsky]

your writing does not contradict what I wrote

[Orange bigg]

The British have always acted on the principle of divide and conquer, to use one side or the other as a counterweight. A united and strong India was of no use to them, if they would not keep it under their rule. What is still going on. India gravitates towards the West, led by the Anglo-Saxons, in many respects to counterbalance China with the help of the United States and focus on the confrontation with Pakistan. This is how the West gains influence and power over India, since at one time it contributed to the division of the Hindus into Hindus in India and Muslim Hindus in Pakistan. If it were not for the division, a strong and united India would not turn to the West.

[Voltsky]

there is no enemy worse than the one you invented yourself <s>

[Machito]

Quote: malo

And once they were part of one state.

Yeah, and this state was the British Empire, which made them friends with its bayonets and plundered them mercilessly for centuries. And now the USA is friends with them. So the war will be forever.

[Eldorado]

Most of modern India and Pakistan were conquered by the Afghan Babur, who founded the empire of the great Mughals (not to be confused with the Mongols!) On the unconquered territory, the Confederation of Maratha principalities was formed, headed by the Delhi Sultanate. Islam was spread on the territory of the empire of the Great Mughals. Then the Europeans came, quarreled with everyone and everything, then quarreled with each other. As a result of the Seven Years War, the entire territory of modern Pakistan and India was ceded to Great Britain, while the local multans retained formal independence.

[Flashpoint]

No drone video - no luck!
PS: the fairy tale is good - start over, and these, too, with Kashmir still won't calm down ...

[Sergej1972]

The former state of Jammu and Kashmir. It was recently divided into two union territories.

[Thrifty]

There you need to look for both the Chinese and the American traces - and for both, the war between India and Pakistan is beneficial for various political and geopolitical reasons.

[bessmertniy]

There are more Chinese watching. Probably, China and Pakistan even coordinate provocations - in Kashmir and Ladakh.

[evgen1221]

Especially easy to defrost after the arrival of tourists from the usa and england

[Dimide]

Pakistan has a strong influence of China, perhaps they decided to "feel India by the udder" from both sides at the same time

[Humpty]

Quote: Voletsky

it is when ?! Balabola and the populist old man reconsidered ?!

I already avoid this person on the screen like Malakhov.
It is a pity that Kashmir does not smell of peace. It is very beautiful there, beyond words. There are several religions and nationalities.

[Narak-zempo]

But it would be nice if smoked smoked - the Chinese on the one hand, the Pakistanis on the other.
And it is interesting to look at the conflict between the nuclear powers from a relatively safe distance.

[Kuzmitsky]

Would you like to observe up close, but not from afar? Close up is more interesting, and understanding comes faster. Perhaps even instantly.