Hacker News Reader

Comment by fauigerzigerk | Hacker News Reader

So if India and Pakistan, both democracies, go to war over Kashmir, whose way of life is worth fighting for?

Pakistan is a faux-democracy at best. Their army controls the government[1], and I would rather not talk about their proxy war against India and terrorist funding, given my strong bias towards my country. Perhaps a neutral party can elaborate.

India, on the other hand, is a melting pot of multiple cultures, ethnicities, and religions that have managed to co-exist harmoniously, despite the odd riot or skirmish. Based on this alone, I would support India's "way of life" to be worth fighting for.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Pakistan

I tend to agree with you, I love India and even if it has many flaws (I think corruption is the worst), it is fascinating and very diverse place which is considered biggest democracy in the world. Can't comment on Pakistan since I was never there, but I would expect more homogeneous place. And I guess everybody heard about ISI supporting terrorist groups and fueling problems in Kashmir.

I don't think though it makes sense to try to paint every single conflict as good-vs-bad, democracy-vs-dictatorship, since you can easily have full democracies fighting each other for any possible reason (imagine potentially UK-France, Yugoslavia breakup or anything else)

My point is that democracies (including flawed ones) can go to war against each other over things that have very little to do with either party's way of life.

Not every war is about protecting democracy or anyone's fundamental freedoms against undemocratic enemies. Nationalism, disputed territories, conflicts involving minorities, these things cause wars, and democracy doesn't necessarily fix it.

Sometimes the world is a bit more complex than a Hollywood movie.

That's great for investors on both side of the war. If you can invest in both countries, you get double the profit from the war.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com