> would have invented another populist topic to distract people with

Probably China. A far more dangerous sparring partner likely, considering China's generalized over-aggressiveness even at minor perceived offenses.

China and India have plenty of contention points. They fought a war in 1962 and have ongoing border disputes to this day.

...and are conducting genocides to their minorities.

* * *

I dont think India ever got that much airtime in Pakistan (even before 911). When comparing to the level of media coverage India's foxnews-equivalent does on PK (it's hilarious, and pretty popular meme in Pak)

Acting like Pakistan is notable in any shape or form in the global economy.

What does that have to do with what I said?

> Pakistan is not an existential threat,

So, a nuclear power, effectively ruled by military junta and full of religious ideologues is not an existential threat. In that case, I don't know what it.

I guess North Korea is not an existential threat to South Korea (instead of religious it's the communist ideologues) and China is not an existential threat for Taiwan (CCP ideologues).

I think you can manage a less reductive analysis the considers the possibility that militancy is rooted at least partly in legitimate grievances rather than mental illness.

India has full confidence in the incompetence of its cute little neighbour. Look at that country's condition right now, it is on its knees with a crippled economy and dysfunctional administration.

How can a country that has consistently shown itself to not be capable of even regular state governance be an existential threat? Just because it got nuclear tech in the cold war? Lol give me a break.

That's exactly what an existential threat looks like - desperate for an external enemy to blame. Consider Putin, Hitler, etc - when things are properly screwed, the easiest thing for a leader to do is blame then annihilate their neighbors.

Nuclear weapons mean that poor troop training means nothing. Trucking a bomb into New Delhi has never been difficult.

So, a nuclear power ruled by populists hating your guts because of religion is no existential threat? That is, to a degree, a reasonable stance to take for Pakistan. In this particular conflict both sides suck.

India also has nuclear weapons, unlike South Korea and Taiwan, so there is a strong deterrence effect.

Sure, if the handful of people who control such weapons act rationally. Of course, 'acting rationally' isn't exactly something humans are known for... Especially when faced with adverse social pressures or fanatical religious adherence.

Deterrence yes.

But, it all depends on whose finger is on the button and whether they are rational or simply driven by an ideology of hate.

If and when the finger changes, all bets are off.

India also has a clearly stated and un-ambiguous "No First Use" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use rule.

Our neighbour China also has this rule. All the recent border flare-ups with China haven't even involved fire-arms because no commander on either side wants escalation. The border lines have been literally maintained by sticks and fists.

Any escalation there would be an utter nightmare. So even if the media plays it up, at the local commander level, there is a lot of internal mitigation that goes on.

However, any border flare-up with our other neighbour - Pakistan always causes a lot of anxiety, because there are a LOT of hot-heads in the Pakistan Army who have a dream of taking Kashmir by force by any and all means necessary. You don't even have to take my word for it - just listen to what they explicitly state. And read the books their Generals have published.

I am aware of the intricacies - I am Indian :)

Regardless of everything, my comment was pointing out the obvious difference between the other examples and India-Pak dynamic.

Your comment is racist and inappropriate for HN.

Just last month, Pakistan's national assembly unanimously voted to expand its country's blasphemy laws, which have previously been used to charge more than 1500 Pakistanis. That doesn't include the more than 70 people who have been murdered by mobs and vigilantes over allegations of "insulting Islam."

Those laws impose the death penalty for "insulting the Prophet Muhammad" and 10 years to life in prison for insulting his "companions." According to Pew Research, 76% of Pakistani Muslims support the death penalty for simply leaving Islam, never-mind "insulting" the religion (https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/04/30/the-worlds-m...). Apparently a 10th century drawing of the guy is "prophet worship" (which is also punishable by death), but putting people to death for insulting him isn't.

If you think those surveys are wrong, the unanimous legislative support for these measures would suggest Pakistan really is ruled by a military junta that doesn't represent its people. If you acknowledge the polls are even somewhat accurate, I'm curious how you think demanding the death penalty for leaving a religion doesn't make you a fanatic. According to Gallup Pakistan, a majority of Pakistanis said they wanted the "type of Islamic government in Pakistan that the Taliban have brought in Afghanistan" (https://gallup.com.pk/post/32284).

I am genuinely curious what you do believe constitutes a religious fanatic if demanding the death of people who leave their religion and openly supporting Taliban-style government doesn't fit the bill.

There are absolutely (non-Muslim) religious fanatics in India and other places who do terrible things. Conversely, there are many Pakistanis who are not religious fanatics and oppose these fanatical measures. That doesn't change the truth of his point: that Pakistan is plagued by religious fanatics and a militaristic government. All countries have their religious fanatics, but there is a very real difference between, say, 50 crackpots from the Westboro Baptist Church carrying offensive signs and 76% of the country supporting the execution of people that leave their religion.

This is not a forum for debate on what constitutes rational and irrational policy.

However If you want to discuss the technicals of whether certain laws are correct or incorrect, please feel free to do so.

Instead, what is being discussed in your post is akin to chiding. Example: “The lawmakers have low quality education and therefore have insensible laws.” By using labels and stereotypes and creating logical arguments that are often fallacious, it leads to head spinning debate.

I will not further this discussion simply because too many logical fallacies exist.

"The lawmakers have low quality education and therefore have insensible laws" doesn't logically follow because "low quality education" is not sufficient to establish that they will make insensible laws. I.e. not all lawmakers with low education will necessarily pass low quality laws.

I am genuinely mystified how you can argue supporting the death penalty for apostasy or "blasphemy" does not imply the supporter is a religious fanatic. If that doesn't, what does, and who do you consider to be a religious fanatic?

There are, of course, opportunist lawmakers who support these laws simply to gain political points. That does not, however, explain why overwhelming majorities of the Pakistani population support the same fanatical policies when polled by the most reputable pollsters on earth. Furthermore, the fact that it is politically expedient to support the execution of apostates and "blasphemers" supports his argument that its voters are largely religious fanatics.

You are "not furthering the discussion" because you refuse to provide actual arguments and instead resorted to calling him a racist without any evidence.