India and Pakistan exchange fire in Kashmir just days after deadly attack

The cauldron of Kashmir, that perennial flashpoint of Indo-Pakistani enmity, has once again erupted into violence. Troops from Pakistan and India have exchanged fire along the Line of Control (LOC), the de facto border that slices through this disputed region. This latest conflagration comes mere days after the United Nations, in its customary tone of impotent diplomacy, urged these nuclear-armed rivals to exercise "maximum restraint" following a grotesque attack that left 26 dead at a tourist hotspot in Pahalgam. 

Restraint, it seems, is a commodity in short supply.

Relations between New Delhi and Islamabad have plummeted to their nadir, with India accusing Pakistan of orchestrating "cross-border terrorism." The charge is not new, but the ferocity of India’s rhetoric is. 

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, never one to mince words, declared, "I say to the whole world: India will identify, track and punish every terrorist and their backer. We will pursue them to the ends of the Earth." This is not the language of de-escalation; it is the lexicon of retribution. Pakistan, predictably, denies any complicity, dismissing India’s accusations as "frivolous" and vowing to meet any aggression with "firm reciprocal measures in all domains." The stage is set for a dangerous escalation.

The facts, as they stand, are grim. Syed Ashfaq Gilani, a Pakistani official in their slice of Kashmir, told AFP that the exchange of fire occurred along the LOC, though he insisted, "There was no firing on the civilian population." India’s army, for its part, confirmed "limited firing of small arms" initiated by Pakistan, to which it "effectively responded." 

No casualties were reported—a small mercy in a region where blood is shed with appalling regularity. Yet the absence of immediate fatalities does little to quell the sense that a larger reckoning looms.

The spark for this latest crisis was the Pahalgam attack, a brazen assault that Indian police attribute to three gunmen from the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, a group designated as terrorists by the United Nations. A bounty of two million rupees ($36,701) has been placed on each fugitive’s head, and Indian security forces have escalated their manhunt, blowing up homes and circulating wanted posters with sketches of the suspects. Two of the named gunmen are Pakistani nationals, a detail that fuels India’s narrative of Islamabad’s duplicity.

Pakistan’s response has been to double down. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif convened a rare National Security Committee, and the Senate passed a resolution condemning what it called a "campaign by the Indian government to malign the Pakistan government." 

Meanwhile, both sides have upped the ante. India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, closed the main land border crossing, downgraded diplomatic ties, and revoked visas for Pakistanis. Pakistan retaliated by expelling Indian diplomats, cancelling visas for Indian nationals (save for Sikh pilgrims), and shutting its side of the border. 

Most ominously, Islamabad warned that any attempt by India to disrupt the flow of the Indus River would be considered an "act of war." Water, in this part of the world, is not merely a resource; it is a weapon.

The UN, ever the voice of toothless reason, has called for "meaningful mutual engagement" to resolve the crisis peacefully. Stephane Dujarric, the UN’s spokesman, pleaded with both governments "to exercise maximum restraint, and to ensure that the situation and the developments we’ve seen do not deteriorate any further." 

One wonders if Mr. Dujarric has ever visited Kashmir, where restraint is as alien a concept as peace itself.

Kashmir, divided since the bloody partition of 1947, remains a wound that refuses to heal. Both nations claim it in full, yet govern only fragments, their rivalry sustained by a toxic blend of history, religion, and geopolitics. 

Since 1989, rebel groups in Indian-controlled Kashmir have waged a relentless insurgency, demanding either independence or union with Pakistan. The Pahalgam attack marks a chilling evolution, targeting civilians rather than the usual military targets. As Modi thundered, "Whatever little land these terrorists have, it’s time to reduce it to dust." 

The echoes of 2019, when a suicide bombing in Pulwama killed 41 Indian troops and prompted Indian airstrikes inside Pakistan, are unmistakable. That crisis brought the two nations to the brink of war. This one may yet push them over it.

What is striking, amid the sabre-rattling, is the deliberateness of India’s response. New Delhi has a history of biding its time. The Pulwama attack was avenged 12 days later with airstrikes. Today, as India’s air force and navy flex their muscles in military exercises, the question is not whether Modi will act, but when—and how brutally. 

Experts warn that a military response may still be in the offing, and the memory of 2019 looms large. Pakistan, for its part, seems equally prepared to escalate, its warnings about the Indus River carrying the weight of existential threat.

Here we are, then, on the precipice of another Indo-Pakistani crisis, with two nuclear powers staring each other down across a contested border. The world watches, the UN wrings its hands, and Kashmir bleeds. 

One cannot help but wonder: how many more times must this tragedy play out before the cycle of violence is broken? Or is it, as it so often seems, an eternal recurrence, doomed to repeat until the mountains themselves crumble?

Buckle up, kids.

If you enjoy my blog, feel free to toss a virtual coffee my way on Buy Me a Coffee – it’s like a high-five with caffeine! No pressure, it's your call.

Tweet

The ghost of Andy Kaufman spotted in India: nope, it's just Trudeau

No, it isn't Andy Kaufman

Initially they thought he was Andy Kaufman and that his ghost had made it's way to New Delhi. They thought he was just doing a schtick for the folks in India, and initially they laughed.

But upon closer scrutiny they realized it was Justin Trudeau, the so-called Prime Minister of Canada, land of the Loony and Toony, hockey and curling, and it was no longer funny.

Trudeau (aka "the Forrest Gump of Politics") arrived in India with his wife, Sophie, and their three kids, for a weeklong visit. And Justin brought along a variety of Indian garb for the myriad photo ops he enjoys. 

There's a photo of him in front of the Golden Temple in Amritsar and other photos with Bollywood stars.  

Vot to do?

Indian media said that the liberal PM was trying too hard and that he was "too Indian even for an Indian." But because Trudeau is a flaming liberal, those on the left never labeled what he did as "cultural appropriation," only conservatives do that.

While visiting the Sabarmati ashram in Gujarat, where Ghandi lived after returning from South Africa, the Trudeaus wore color coordinated red kurtas (loosely fitted collarless shirts). 

They looked marvelous dahling!

At a night event in Mumbai (aka Bombay) with Bollywood folks, the Latke lookalike wore an embarrassing gold and red sherwani and Sophie wore a cream and silver saree while actual Indians wore simple black suits.

On social media, several popular Indian personalities called for Trudeau to "have some chill" regarding his Indian attire, and called his outfits "fake and annoying."

But Trudeau, the darling of Western media, made political blunders to go along with the cultural ones.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, known for his social media savvy and his Donald Trump-like patriotism for India, did not post anything online welcoming Trudeau, and Justin was greeted as he deplaned by a low-level agricultural minister.

On Tuesday, Sophie posed for a photo with Jaspal Atwal, a Sikh separatist and convicted terrorist. In fact, Trudeau's liberal party has close ties to the country's Sikh minority, and some of them support the Khalistan movement which backs a separate Sikh state in the Punjab region of India. (Think of California trying to become its own country and Jerry Brown sending a hit man to take out someone in the Trump administration.)

When Outlook India magazine pointed this out, they were disinvited from a dinner with Trudeau. "Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau feted the world over as the new face of 'liberalism' seem [sic] to find it difficult to accommodate critical media coverage," the magazine wrote.

After Trudeau assured India's government that he didn't back the Khalistan movement, Canada's diplomatic mission sent and then rescinded a dinner invitation to the man convicted of trying to kill an Indian politician. The pal of Trudeau spent some hard time in the slammer, and you would think Justin would have the sense to have him stay in Canada.

Back in Canada, Trudeau was criticized for making his visit mostly about photo ops and less about doing his job as Prime Minister.

"I don't know if Justin Trudeau thinks that international trade missions are reality TV shows, but they are not," said Conservative party leader Andrew Scheer.

President Trump agreed.

A CTV news broadcaster, Don Martin said that "If this is Trudeau putting Canada 'back' on the world state, we should get off."

With five days into the trip, Modi finally acknowledged Trudeau's arrival on social media by posting a photo of Trudeau in normal Western garb from 2015.



Tweet

India's Victory, Islam's Loss

The votes are in and Narendra Modi, of the Bharariya Janata Party is the new Prime Minister of India. Modi won in a landslide over the Congress Party, which had been in the center of Indian politics since the country's independence from Britain in 1947.

And the one group of people India can thank for the victory are the Islamic jihadist/terrorists.

Hassanal Bolkia smiling

While Hollywood awoke from its coma a few days ago and boycotted the Beverly Hills Hotel, when Brunei's leader, Sultan Hassanal Bolkia set the country's clocks back 1400 by re-implementing sharia law, Modi has known all along what the jihadists in India intend to do with his country.

If you don't know what sharia law is (and it's often capitalized by those who respect it), you probably read Time, or The New York Times, or only watch mainstream television. Most people in the know, which really means people who aren't liberal, are aware of the archaic, demonic, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, cruel, and intolerance of Islam. Sharia is its constitution--it allows the killing of those who leave the religion for one less violent or none at all; it punishes gays by hanging from a "high place;" it demeans women by taking away most of their rights; and it thoroughly enjoys be-headings, stonings, burning of individuals, and killing Jews for being Jewish.

But Hollywood seems to just be finding out about sharia. When they learned Bolkia re-implemented sharia and owns the Beverly Hills Hotel, they grabbed their signs and self-righteous indignation, and performed protest rallies. There was Jay Leno with time on his hands, Ellen DeGeneres, and Richard Bronson out there in protest. 

Where was the left when Ayaan Hirsi-Ali was banned from Brandeis? Why were they mute about the 50 boys who were burned to death by Boko Haram, but finally woke up when 276 school girls were kidnapped? 

But armed with their trusty hashtags and scowling faces, they are fighting the good virtual fight. I'm sure the jihadists of Boko Haram are peeing in their lungies, quaking in fear that Michelle Obama will force them to read her sign while Hillary tells her to be cool, "they aren't really terrorists."

India has the advantage over the US right now. They know who the enemy is and they refuse to allow them to put their foot in the door and work their way into their government. Unlike Obama, they don't invite them to their Parliament House.

In my latest novel, a New York reporter is taken hostage by terrorists. If POTUS refuses to release 3 Gitmo jihadists, the reporter will die in 24 hours—they will behead him and show it on the Internet. There is only one way out but the clock is ticking . . .

Jihad Joe: a Novel  Create Space soft cover book edition

Jihad Joe see it here ebook version

Tweet

Outsourcing for a Good President

Narendra Modi is a favorite to win the election for India's Prime Minister position. All of the votes should be tallied by tomorrow, Friday. It's a daunting task with about 900 thousand polling places and around 815 million eligible voters, but since it's going to be computerized this year, I know they can get the job done without having to outsource the computer work.

Modi is a member of the Bharatiya Junata Party, a pro-majority party that believes Hindus have rights in spite of the minority Muslim population trying to impose their will on the nation.

Basically, what Modi has declared to militant Muslims is roughly, "If you want Sharia law, move to a Sharia country, you aren't going to get it here." Could you imagine Obama have the balls to make the same declaration? I love to hear the way he pronounces Pakistan. He says "Pahkeestahn."

India is currently led by Manmohan Singh, a Sikh, who, like Obama, is politically correct to the point of asking Islamic jihadists if they would like to borrow his sword while declaring Islam to be the religion of peace. (Tell that to the 27 year old pregnant woman who married a Christian and the judge sentenced her to 100 lashes and to an old fashioned hanging.)

Modi, unlike Obama, held actual jobs, first as a child working with his father selling tea (chai) at Vadnagar railway station, and later running the same business as a teenager with his brother.

Some accused Modi of being the catalyst of the February 27, 2002 Gujarat riots that lasted 3 days. The riot was in response to Muslims burning several cars of a train in Godhra, resulting in the deaths of 59 Hindu's, 25 women, 25 children, and 9 Hindu activists who were most likely the targets of the attack and were returning from a gathering in Ayodhya. Many Muslims were killed in the aftermath of the train carnage and the horror continued sporadically for months thereafter.

But in 2012, after years of investigation, Modi was cleared of any involvement of the riots.

It's actually refreshing to see a man like Modi lead a country by standing up for its people. He has nothing against Muslims who stay within the law--he had even visited Pakistan to help them with governmental issues, but he's a no-nonsense person who takes the notion of protecting his people at all costs.

Unlike some president I know.

In my latest novel, a New York reporter is taken hostage by terrorists. If POTUS refuses to release 3 Gitmo jihadists, the reporter will die in 24 hours—they will behead him and show it on the Internet. There is only one way out but the clock is ticking . . .

Jihad Joe: a Novel  Create Space soft cover book edition

Jihad Joe see it here ebook version

Tweet