After millions of lives were lost in the two World Wars of the last century, a world envisioned, “without a war” with the attendant slogan “NEVER AGAIN”, became a clarion call world-wide. And ironically such a spirit emerged on the heels of the ghastly events that occurred nearing the end of the Second World War. Not only is a ‘war-free’ world desirable, it is now necessary if humankind is to survive! The massive destruction of cities in a flash heralded a new age, viz. the nuclear age, whose chief characteristic is: for the first time in the history of civilization, the human race had acquired the technical means to destroy its own species en-masse thereby potentially rendering them an endangered species. Morality and ethics are at the core of the nuclear issue. We all crave for a world of peace and equity isn’t it? But how can we talk about a culture of peace if peace is predicated on the unabashed production and use of weapons of mass destruction by nations?
War, however horrible has always held a strange fascination for man. Questions often asked are: Where will the next war occur? Who will fight it? Why will it occur? How will it be fought? Tensions between India and Pakistan intensified on Wednesday, May 7 after India’s armed forces launched strikes against our neighbouring country in response to a militant attack in which terrorists shot dead 26 civilians near Pahalgam on April 22, in an Indian-administered area. This incident triggered a series of reactions including the heightened fear of war between the two nuclear-armed rivals. Indian-administered Kashmir is a heavily militarised zone. Amid escalating tensions between India and Pakistan, diplomacy failed to find a middle path. The international community, including the Trump administration clearly said that it is not going to get involved in a war that’s “fundamentally none of its business". Named Operation Sindoor, it was a clear message to the Indian women who were widowed in Pahalgam’s jihadi massacre. In October 1947, the first war over Kashmir broke out when armed Pakistani tribesmen invaded the territory. The monarch of Kashmir had then sought India’s assistance to drive out the invading tribesmen. Since then India and Pakistan have fought four major wars. The seeds of the India-Pakistan conflict were sown when their independence from British rule in 1947 was accompanied by a bloody partition of the Indian subcontinent to create Pakistan.
To live along the Line of Control (LoC) — the volatile de facto border that separates India and Pakistan — is to exist perpetually on the razor’s edge between a fragile peace and open conflict. It is a quiet reminder of how fragile peace is, when your window opens to a battlefield. Families on the LOC are subject to Indian and Pakistani whims and face the brunt of heated tensions. India and Pakistan share a 3,323 Kms (2,064 mile) border, including the 740 km-long LOC and the International Border (IB) spanning roughly 2,400kms. Each time firing resumes, many are thrust into bunkers, peoples’ livestock and livelihood are lost, infrastructure such as homes, hospitals, schools, roads and water bodies are damaged. The vulnerability and volatility experienced has grave repercussions for their everyday lives. The LoC carved out by India and Pakistan, and militarisation and weaponisation, was done without taking the Kashmiris into confidence. Days after India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire, questions now remain over what lies ahead for the two South Asia neighbours. We hear the grim statements: “water and blood cannot flow together, terror and talks cannot happen together”!
Terrorists should know there’s no place to hide from their heinous crimes. Besides taking immediate action, India was burdened with the ever more complex task of ending the regular cycle of attacks from Pakistan. It is time for Pakistan’s Bonsai ‘democracy’ to take some deeper roots. Witnessing the agony and pain of the victims, the bombing of infrastructure and the needless loss of life which resulted due to the recent conflict, we need to ask: why does man feel the need to revel in his animalistic tendencies every now and then? Why do human beings find it difficult to live in peace with one another? Between 1740 and 1897, there were 230 wars and revolutions in Europe, and during this period countries were almost bankrupting themselves with their military expenditure. The death toll from these wars rose sharply. And 30 million people died in all the wars between 1740 and 1897. The estimates of the number of dead in the First World War range from 5 million to 13 million and a staggering 50 million people died during the Second World War!
In the course of many thousands of years, the human species has undoubtedly and painstakingly crafted a great civilization, developed a rich and variegated culture, has accumulated enormous treasures in arts and literature and it has also created the magnificent edifice of science. It is indeed a supreme irony that the very intellectual achievements of humankind have readily provided the tools of self-annihilation of its civilization, culture and life itself. Must we allow this to happen? As cognitive beings it is our paramount duty to preserve human life and ensure the continuity of the human race: that is the least of the debt we owe to humankind. There are no periods in history that have been free from war. Much of the recorded history has also been filled with imperial or colonial occupations, where a powerful nation used force to rule over other nations. Independent India has been known not to invade another country or carry out acts of terror on our neighbours. But when there is infiltration, killing and strident attacks on its territory, what does one do? Either stay quiet or retaliate with adequate force in order to protect its people and territory?
A world without war: is it desirable? Is it feasible? Are we going to base our world on a culture of peace or a culture of violence? Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein tried to warn governments and the public in a statement which has become known as the Russell-Einstein Manifesto. As members of the human species they asked: Do we put an end to the human race, or shall mankind renounce war?” According to Lorenz, humans engage in warfare and derive pleasure from violence because war allows the release of pent-up frustrations resulting from the unnatural suppression of an instinct that is natural. So can we dare to hope for peace on earth? Our world today is in a deep prolonged crisis. The threat of global nuclear war, the ongoing local wars, the imperiled environment, mass starvation, destitution and homelessness are evidence to the prevailing crisis. In such a situation how can we persuade the young generation to cast aside the culture of violence and embrace the values and trappings of peace?
While this article is being written, one does not fail to notice that the conflict between India and Pakistan has not abated and continues to simmer. Take a look at the social media platforms of both the countries to understand the depth of mistrust and hate between the two nations and its governments. There is no guarantee that this tenuous ceasefire will endure. The stalemate in the relationship between India and Pakistan continues to haunt both the nations and its people. The recent war it appears has not served the objective of ensuring lasting peace. Despite public posturing by several world leaders condemning the Pahalgam terrorist attack and expressing solidarity with India, one sadly noticed that India was all alone in its fight against terrorism. Pakistan on the other hand had the tacit support of a number of countries including China who publicly declared its support to Pakistan. While we search for answers beneath the huge pile of rubble left by the recent Indo-Pak war, Truth eludes the concerned citizens who are scrutinising the anatomy of the Indo-Pak ‘cease-fire’. Who was the architect of this so-called sudden truce between India and Pakistan?
(The writer a social scientist and is a senior practising criminal lawyer)