So much has already been written about Pope Francis since his passing on Easter Monday that one feels emboldened to write briefly about him today, based on a variety of reports.

During his long life, Pope Francis was universally known for his willingness to reach out with an open heart to everyone. This was a key feature of his 12-year papacy. If there had ever been any doubt about this, at his emotional and highly charged funeral service on Saturday it was fully demonstrated that he had been truly a “Pope of the people”. He was known, particularly, for an endearing way of welcoming everyone with whom he came into contact and for showing mercy and compassion to all alike. He was an inspiration and guide for countless numbers of people.

The late Pope was revered for treating people the same irrespective of position or station in life and he championed the poor, the marginalised and the disadvantaged, with a message of hope for all. He preached unity but welcomed diversity as long as it was without division. He also tended to shun much of the pomp and privilege of the papacy.

The wonderfully well-orchestrated ceremony on Saturday in fine bright weather was a poignant requiem mass attended by prominent visitors from overseas – royalty, heads of state and political leaders together with other guests and huge numbers locally (with thousands lining the streets) - and watched by millions of TV viewers around the world. The occasion was preceded by three days of public viewing of him when more than 250,000 people paid their respects. The BBC coverage of all the proceedings was, I thought, notably comprehensive and effective.

The service was clearly defined by the Pope’s legacy as someone who reached out to all. The evidence was there for everyone to see. Judging from commentary in the international press, people were engrossed and even mesmerised by the historic occasion that demonstrated unequivocally that he was a man of deep faith and humanity who practiced humility in his own understated manner and reached out to everybody, not least so-called ordinary people, all of whom, in his words, he regarded as one human family.

Given the huge media coverage, there is no need to repeat details today of Pope Francis’s background and career. But it might be worth emphasising that his humility and low-key approach were reflected by his funeral service in other ways, too. For example, he chose a plain and simple wooden coffin for himself while also insisting that instead of being buried in the Vatican, which has been the traditional resting place of Popes, he should be laid to rest in the Church of Santa Maria Maggiore, a few miles from the Vatican where he used to go regularly to pray and where people could readily visit his tomb.

Interestingly, since the service was well attended by leading politicians from around the world, including two US presidents, there was a chance for what appeared to be some quiet personal diplomacy. The soft power of the Pope’s own diplomacy should never be underestimated. In the lengthy and highly personal homily delivered at the funeral service by the 91-year-old Dean of the College of Cardinals, which will choose the next pontiff, mention was made of the capacity of the Pope to shed light on the problems of the world through the wisdom of the Gospel.

Significantly, on the sidelines of the funeral and just before it began, the US and Ukrainian presidents were seen in deep discussion sitting one-to-one facing each other on chairs hastily drawn up in full public view outside St Peter’s Basilica. The White House later called this 15-minute ad hoc meeting “very productive” while Zelensky said later it had the “potential to become historic.” It was Trump’s first face-to-face encounter with him since the infamous showdown in the Oval Office in February. Who knows what might transpire from such a brief talk, but it was Winston Churchill who famously said that “jaw, jaw is better than war, war”.

Much has been written about Pope Francis’s humility, which is, of course, in its truest sense a strength, not a weakness. According to reports, in his final Easter message he said: “There can be no peace without freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of expression and respect for the views of others”.

It seems that he was indirectly condemning the pride, arrogance and self-importance that is all too often evident among the rich, the powerful, the successful, the famous and celebrities of different sorts, with too many people trying to put themselves on a pedestal above others. Instead, Pope Francis taught consistently that all should be realistic about themselves in relation to others; and that, without genuine humility, it was not possible to have empathy and compassion towards other people who may be less endowed or fortunate than you are but, in their different ways, possess varying gifts, qualities and capabilities that you do not. That does not imply compliance but, rather, an openness to others and their needs.

People say that this Pope was defined by his humility. He was also widely loved for it. His funeral service said it all – an extraordinary human being whose kindliness touched the hearts of so many.

India and Pakistan at loggerheads again

It is probably a fair bet that relatively few people this side of the Atlantic will have much knowledge of the Himalayan region of Kashmir or even any interest in it. But the sad fact is that it has been a flashpoint between the nuclear-armed nations of India and Pakistan for over six decades.

After a relatively quiet period, with Pakistan preoccupied by tensions on its border with Afghanistan and India focusing on its global role as the world’s most populous democracy, the long running dispute has flared up again with a terror attack last week in Indian-administered Kashmir that resulted in the killing of 26 Indian tourists. This was the biggest attack on civilians since 2019 when a car bomb killed 40 Indian paramilitary forces. A Pakistan-based terrorist organisation has claimed responsibility for the most recent attack though the Pakistani government has denied any involvement.

The territory of Kashmir was created when Britain gave what was known as British India its independence in 1947 and partitioned it in to two independent states - India itself and the new state of Pakistan (with east Pakistan becoming Bangladesh in 1971). India’s population at the time was about 25 percent Muslim, with the rest mostly Hindu, but also Sikh, Buddhist and other religions. People were divided on the basis of religion. Because of growing tensions between Hindus and Muslims, who were demanding a separate state for fear of being marginalised in a single country dominated by the majority Hindus, Britain was deeply concerned about the danger of civil war. So partition followed with the Muslims given their own statehood.

History shows that this created a massive and horrific upsurge of violence, with some 15 million people being displaced through having to cross newly drawn borders, and up to a million deaths were caused by the ensuing fighting.

Partition left a legacy of political and social tensions between India and the new Pakistan, particularly over the region of Kashmir in the north west. After arguments about which parts of the territory would join which country, Indian troops took over two-thirds of it and Pakistan the remaining northern area, while China occupied small eastern parts of the territory in the 1950s. So it was divided basically into two parts as India-administered and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. There have been military clashes over the years between the two countries and a “Line of Control” was agreed in the Simla Agreement in 1972. Today, the population in Indian-administered Kashmir is about ten million and in the area controlled by Pakistan approximately five million.

Thus, India and Pakistan have been in dispute over Kashmir since 1947. Violence has flared up from time to time and there have been two wars over the issue. After a brief rapprochement, relations soured about ten years ago when India carried out so-called surgical strikes inside Pakistan-administered areas and, in response, Pakistan attacked Indian military facilities.

In the last few years a ceasefire on the Line of Control was established. But the experts are now warning of a robust Indian military response to last week’s deadly incident followed by a strong Pakistani reaction. The Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, has pledged publicly to “pursue terrorists and their backers” and has placed all the blame on Pakistan. India has already diverted water flows to Pakistan from the Indus river which have been in place since the 1960s and have stood the test of time and several wars. Pakistan has declared that this amounts to an “act of war”. In addition, each country has placed various other restrictions on bilateral cooperation like suspension of visas and closure of airspace and restrictions on trade.

According to reports, in the past the US has played a significant role in lowering tensions over the Kashmir dispute – but, apparently, not this time as the president is clearly preoccupied with other well known global issues. It remains to be seen how this latest conflict may be resolved. I have not seen any reports of action Britain may be taking. But, if this develops in to a more significant confrontation between two nuclear nations, I imagine there will be pressure on the major powers for some sort of intervention or mediation – yet another active conflict in an already seriously troubled world.

London marathon leads the pack

Interestingly, yesterday’s UK press contained a number of reports about the success of Sunday’s London Marathon.

This year’s event set a record for the number of finishers - 56,640 – which narrowly surpassed the previous record that had been achieved in the past in the New York Marathon. The event in London also attracted record crowds, with the organizers saying that about 800,000 people had cheered on the runners, though this high number was partly attributable to warm weather and a greater number of participants this time.

Everyone seems to be saying that Sunday was an extraordinary occasion of people coming together in the sunshine and supporting one another in their efforts to cover 26.2 miles. Others add that it is all about “celebrating humanity” since many people were participating in order to raise money for specific charities.

A little research reminds one that the London Marathon – in addition to the other five World Marathon Majors in New York, Tokyo, Chicago, Boston and Berlin – was founded in 1981 by British Olympic athletes Chris Brasher and John Dyson.

Their vision was that the event’s success would encourage the public to take up sport. At the same time, it would generate funds to provide grants for sporting and recreational facilities in the capital.

Brasher, whose son is now reported to be responsible for the London Marathon, was also famous for being one of two pacemakers providing support for Roger Bannister who made history at Oxford University in 1954 by becoming the first person in the world to run a mile in under four minutes. This had become known as “the four-minute barrier” – and history shows that Bannister’s winning time was 3 minutes 59.4 seconds.