What does it mean for the United Nations to send peacekeeping troops to Amritsar?

Is Amritsar a war-torn area?

Obviously, this is no small matter.

Why?

In principle, the United Nations will only send peacekeeping troops to war-torn areas, or at most, to countries that are unable to exercise their sovereignty.

Is India a war-torn region?

Or is India incapable of exercising national sovereignty?

It is clear that India is certainly not a war-torn area, and the Indian authorities will certainly not admit that it is unable to exercise national sovereignty.

Let's not forget that just a few years ago, India was clamoring for an increase in the number of permanent members of the Security Council and considered itself the most deserving of a position.

What does it mean?

India has long regarded itself as a world power and believes that it is qualified to sit on an equal footing with the P5.

In fact, related topics have been discussed for decades.

According to the latest version, the number of permanent members of the Security Council should be increased to at least nine, and the four new ones should be only partially privileged.

To put it simply, these four permanent members are only eligible to vote and do not have a veto.

Why?

The P5 will certainly not agree.

The so-called new permanent members are those with fixed seats, rather than being selected from among the UN member states, according to rules that have been in place for decades.

This, of course, is a privilege in itself.

In the eyes of Indians, India is the country most qualified to become a new permanent member.

Why?

India has a population of more than a billion people and will soon overtake China to become the world's most populous country.

India has nuclear weapons, and several hundred nuclear warheads.

India has aircraft carriers.

India is the largest developing country outside of China and the seventh largest economy in the world.

India is the regional hegemon of South Asia.

India is the most powerful country in the Indian Ocean region.

India is a country with an ancient civilization.

All in all, India has 10,000 reasons to become a permanent member.

Unfortunately, India is not.

Bringing UN peacekeepers to Indian cities?

Not to mention now, I am afraid that in a few decades, India will not be able to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council, let alone be regarded as a great power.

Why?

Which major country needs UN peacekeepers to help maintain order at home?

If it can't even maintain domestic order, what kind of big country is it?

It would be even more needless to say if India were to be included in the war-torn zone.

It can be seen that no matter how it chooses, India is unlikely to agree.

In addition, there is an even more critical issue here.

What's the problem?

The Pakistani army has surrounded Amritsar, and India has essentially lost control of Amritsar, and if the United Nations sends peacekeeping troops to Amritsar, India is likely to completely lose control of the city, and even make Amritsar an extraterritorial state of India.

What do you mean?

It is to give Amritsar substantial independence.

For India, this is the fatal problem.

Why?

India is called the "Republic of India" and has a federal system, but in terms of political system, India is more like a loose confederation.

In fact, modern India inherits the legacy of the British colonizers.

Before becoming a British colony, India was not a complete country, but dozens of princely states, that is, small states.

It was the British colonizers who united India and, for the sake of administration, made India a single country.

Although India has long been freed from British colonial rule, the essence has not changed at all.

For example, the caste system is still prevalent in India.

And, of course, tradition and culture.

In the history of thousands of years, the unification of India was extremely short, even during the powerful Mauryan Empire, which only unified the Ganges and Indus valleys.

To put it more bluntly, India has never been truly unified in history, let alone a centralized dynasty with strong dominance.

Looking back at history, India, which gained independence from British colonial rule, can be regarded as the most powerful India.

The implication, of course, is that India's power system is not strong, and the central government has very loose control over the local states.

Strictly speaking, the various regional states of India have a high degree of autonomy.

What are the consequences of splitting Amritsar?

Even if it's a city, not a state.

As long as Amritsar gains substantial independence and is no longer at the mercy of the central government, the foundations of India's unity will be dismantled.

It won't be long before more states seek independence, or at least fight more vigorously for it.

Is this an outcome acceptable to the Indian authorities?

The answer is clearly no.

The United Nations must then be prevented from sending peacekeeping troops to Amritsar.

It's just, how to stop it?

When it comes to the UN Security Council, it is necessary to give clear, at least plausible reasons.

Of course, the Pakistani authorities have given a very good reason.

The conflict with India has not yet ended, and the Indian authorities have not yet given an explanation on whether to negotiate an armistice, so Pakistan will not send troops to occupy Amritsar, but it will not unilaterally end the military operation in India, so it is naturally unable to provide humanitarian assistance to the refugees in Amritsar.

The implication is that Pakistan does not have that capability.

What reasons can India make?

In other words, on what grounds can Pakistan's claims be refuted?

The point is that Pakistan did not send troops to occupy Amritsar, and the fighting is ongoing, and India has not offered to negotiate an armistice.

De jure, Amritsar remained under Indian control.

Although all the Indian troops in Amritsar have surrendered, the city government of Amritsar is still the official institution of India.

In other words, it is the Indian authorities who are actually responsible for Amritsar.

Well, humanitarian aid for Amritsar?

Obviously, this is not possible.

Why?

Even if the Pakistani authorities give assurances, they will at best allow the convoy carrying humanitarian supplies to go, and will never allow the Indian army to go to Amritsar.

Of course, the Indian army will not venture to Amritsar.

So, how to ensure safety?

Not the threat from the Pakistani army, but how can the distribution of humanitarian supplies to refugees be guaranteed after they are delivered to Amritsar?

You know, Amritsar has long been out of control.

If security is not guaranteed, then the provision of humanitarian assistance is a dead phrase.

In addition, how much India has that can be used to assist Amritsar.

So what to do?

In the situation at that time, the only feasible way was to negotiate an armistice with Pakistan.

Not the previous consultations, but formal negotiations, and through negotiations to end this large-scale military conflict, which has been going on for almost 3 months!