I actually wanted to ask, about weapons they was using in first movie, is this correct forum for it
https://defence.pk/forums/modellers-forum.167/post-thread
But 2 Q. Is the movie correct and its a sing that India and Pakistani move more near in heart togheder ?
Some of my thoughts and reflections on the topic: (used auto speller, sentences might be a bit distorted from what i intended to say)
The apparent aim of the movie seems to be to symbolically bring India and Pakistan closer by showing a deeper level of cultural respect, even when the two sides are portrayed as enemies.
It is cleverly constructed. At first, it allows itself to be perceived as a propaganda film by viewers expecting hostility. However, by the end, what tends to remain is not the hatred, but the realization of how deeply interconnected the people actually are — despite the narrative framing.
The idea that Pakistan is “connected to global terrorism” is only briefly mentioned at the beginning. This appears intentional, possibly to satisfy certain expectations while avoiding sustained reinforcement of that claim. In contrast, the broader geopolitical reality is far more complex, involving multiple actors, including historically the United States and Russia, whose relationships with the region have shifted over time.
This raises a deeper question: are major powers genuinely aligned with ideological goals (e.g. religion, political systems), or are such elements used instrumentally in larger strategic competition?
In such an environment, direct confrontation between powerful actors is often avoided. Instead, indirect influence, covert alignment, or even staged opposition can emerge.
Originally, the interest in the film came from a technical curiosity — specifically, identifying a rifle shown in the movie. A colleague working in a weapons history museum was skeptical that such a weapon even exists. If it does, it could carry contextual or symbolic meaning beyond its surface role.
Within the film, there is a suggestion that “good actors” may enable “bad actors” by supplying weapons for operations that are meant to appear as someone else’s responsibility. This reflects a known narrative device, but also echoes real-world concerns about proxy actions and attribution ambiguity.
The second half of the movie feels less developed compared to the first, which focused more on character-building. As a result, moral distinctions blur — the “evil” appears less absolute, and the “good” less pure.
Films like this are often watched not only for entertainment, but to extract perspective:
- What version of events is being presented?
- What might be omitted?
- What deeper context exists beyond the narrative?
One underlying idea suggested is that Pakistan itself is not entirely “other,” but shares deep historical, cultural, and human continuity with India.
From a broader perspective, if borders were historically drawn in ways that increased division, the question arises: what would a more “natural” or functional arrangement look like today?
A hypothetical scenario:
- India and Pakistan cooperating or even partially integrating governance structures
- Prioritizing suppression of severe anti-human crimes over lower-level offenses
- Reducing incentives for escalation by removing fragmented enforcement gaps
However, such a scenario would face major constraints:
- External geopolitical interests (including large powers)
- Internal political identities and sovereignty concerns
- Security structures and historical mistrust
The
comparison to conflicts like Russia–Ukraine conflict is relevant in structural terms: deeply intertwined populations divided by state-level conflict.
At a human level, populations with long shared histories are often less inclined toward total war than political narratives suggest. This creates a tension between identity, memory, and state-level strategy.
___
In Russia also Communists used in 2 sides of border, buffer groups to make crimes on ones and another name (later forcing Ru gov in to war who ever would be in charge), growing entire groups like that for that exact purpose. Likely in WW2 in Korea something similar happened, still strange how it happened, and almost happened to "east" Germany also.
is easy to blame "the crime" but not all crime is the same.
so what i can see, knowing little about it for now - that its engineered and kept alive conflict by forces whose interest are not local.
