Nisid Hajari’s Midnight's Furies:

[Kuttabanda2]

12 hours ago, paapiman said:

An Indo-Pak war will most likely result in a world war. It will be a Parloh.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Though it may seem possible, it's unlikely for it erupt into a world war, unless of course other countries have vested interests and bones to pick, or other conflicts escalate at the same time. Say, for example, a war in the South China Sea, or a NATO vs. CSTO war, or some war in the middle east), then we may see the onset of another world war.  Otherwise, the world's major/global powers (regardless of their relations with India and Pakistan) would sit back and employ diplomacy and stand on an ethical high ground by not interfering in a war.  

[paapiman]

17 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

Though it may seem possible, it's unlikely for it erupt into a world war, unless of course other countries have vested interests and bones to pick, or other conflicts escalate at the same time. Say, for example, a war in the South China Sea, or a NATO vs. CSTO war, or some war in the middle east), then we may see the onset of another world war.  Otherwise, the world's major/global powers (regardless of their relations with India and Pakistan) would sit back and employ diplomacy and stand on an ethical high ground by not interfering in a war.  

The issue is that both, India and Pakistan are nuclear powers. Pakistan will probably suffer very badly in a war with India. If it comes to the point that their existence is being threatened, they will nuke India. If that happens, other countries will get involved as nuclear radiations will travel towards other super powers like China, Russia, etc. Therefore, world global powers will always ensure that India and Pakistan avoid a war.

All nuclear super powers know that they cannot afford a war among themselves, as it will eventually lead into a world war.

Do you think US would have attacked Afghanistan or Iraq, if they had nukes. Never.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[tonyhp32]

On 6/19/2017 at 9:58 AM, kdsingh80 said:

Also I would like to know if Maharah of Patiala wanted sikhistan and was provoking sikhs to attack muslims then why he signed accession in India without securing sikh rights

Believe it or not but at one stage the Maharajas were more in favour of Sikhistan than the Akalis! The success of  the Sikh mobilisation into Jathas to counter the Muslim aggression was in part due to the participation of the Sikhs states with their manpower and their organisational ability. It was only after the plan to create Sikhistan out of the Sikh owned areas of Punjab failed that both the Akalis and the Maharajas acted like India's greatest desh bhagats! 

[chatanga1]

5 minutes ago, tonyhp32 said:

 The success of  the Sikh mobilisation into Jathas to counter the Muslim aggression was in part due to the participation of the Sikhs states with their manpower and their organisational ability.

 

It also was to do with the fact that these were semi-independent states which little british interference. This gave the states an opportunity to plan froma higher govenrmental level without any or little hindrance from the British, whereas in Panjab the main planning was done at village level.

[kdsingh80]

On 7/18/2017 at 2:34 AM, tonyhp32 said:

Believe it or not but at one stage the Maharajas were more in favour of Sikhistan than the Akalis! The success of  the Sikh mobilisation into Jathas to counter the Muslim aggression was in part due to the participation of the Sikhs states with their manpower and their organisational ability. It was only after the plan to create Sikhistan out of the Sikh owned areas of Punjab failed that both the Akalis and the Maharajas acted like India's greatest desh bhagats! 

Even if Sikhistan failed they should had secure Kashmir like status for Sikhs.Even Some Hindu kings did not sign accession as fast as sikh maharajah's did