Beyond Indo-Pak truce: Reimagining peace in a region on the edge
WAR means an ugly mob madness, crucifying the truth tellers, choking the artists, sidetracking reforms, revolutions and the working of social forces — these words by John Reed, American socialist activist, written in 1917 amidst the carnage of World War I, ring disturbingly true in our time. The recent escalation between India and Pakistan, marked by military exchanges and public panic, brought the subcontinent close to the same disaster.
But in a remarkable turn of events, a ceasefire was abruptly announced — facilitated by an unexpected diplomatic intervention. While it brought welcome relief, its sustainability remains uncertain. The fragile nature of the agreement was evident in the renewed military hostilities that followed shortly after, highlighting the deep-seated trust deficit and questionable intentions between the two nations.
The terrorist attack in Pahalgam, which left 26 innocent people dead, rightly drew widespread condemnation. India’s military response — described as calibrated and proportional — unleashed a chain of retaliatory moves that risked spiraling out of control. Even measured actions, in a region so steeped in historical grievance and mistrust, can set off devastating consequences. In border regions like Punjab and Kashmir, the suffering was acute, with families displaced, agricultural livelihoods disrupted, and civilian lives lost. The cost of conflict is incalculable.
The ceasefire has potentially averted a catastrophic conflict between two nuclear-capable nations. However, true peace demands more than a halt to hostilities. It requires reflection, moral clarity and a commitment to sustained diplomacy. The conflation of patriotism with militarism warrants critical reevaluation, as the pursuit of justice necessitates a more nuanced approach. Consequently, effective accountability for acts of terror requires a multilateral, rules-based framework that prioritises evidentiary rigour and international cooperation rather than unilateral actions that may compromise truth and exacerbate conflict.
As Ernest Hemingway astutely reminded us, “Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime." Regardless of its perceived necessity or justification, war constitutes a profound failure of political and diplomatic endeavours. The historical trajectory of South Asia, marked by such seminal events as Partition, the Kargil conflict and the Indo-Pak wars of 1965 and 1971, has bequeathed a complex legacy of societal fragmentation, collective psychological trauma, and enduring animosities. These historical antecedents cannot be perpetuated indefinitely and the subcontinent’s future stability cannot be predicated on chance, rather they necessitate a concerted effort to transcend the pathologies of past conflicts.
Pakistan, under General Asim Munir, remains a troubled state. Its economy is on the verge of collapse, its foreign reserves are dangerously low and its democratic institutions under siege. Its military continues to dominate its political discourse. For Pakistan’s establishment, escalating tensions with India offered a convenient distraction from domestic chaos and economic mismanagement. India, however, resisted falling into this trap and showed strategic restraint and visionary leadership, displayed in its laudably measured and calibrated approach, that has not escaped global attention.
A more enduring solution lies in investing in democratic values, regional cooperation and economic justice. As it is, militarisation of the Kashmir dispute has led only to entrenched hostility and alienation. A focus on democratic inclusion, dignity, and development can build trust where fear now festers. The wounds will heal through through education, dialogue and a reaffirmation of our shared humanity. The people of Kashmir, who have long been caught in the crossfire of competing nationalisms, must remain central to any solution that aspires toward justice and peace.
Furthermore, the prospect of nuclear escalation warrants utmost gravity, particularly given the unstable leadership dynamics in Pakistan, characterised by questionable decision-making capacity and a propensity for disinformation, thereby heightening the imperative for cautious diplomacy. Any miscalculation can lead to consequences far beyond our imagination. The ceasefire is slippery and must be seen as the beginning of a broader peace process. Nations like Sweden and New Zealand have shown that true security stems not from arms, but from equity and cooperation. India and Pakistan must move in that direction.
The subcontinent cannot overlook that the trauma induced by past wars continues to cast its shadow over generations. The psychological effects of conflict — seen in veterans, widows, orphans and refugees — remind us of the heavy price we pay for political failures. Such trauma is not just personal; it seeps into the collective consciousness, shaping identities, reinforcing fear, and stifling possibilities of reconciliation. The silence of those who lost everything in war should echo in our decisions.
On international relations, a shift is necessary, wherein strategic alliances are reoriented towards fostering peace and cooperation rather than perpetuating conflict. Partnerships with nations like the US or within frameworks like the Quad should prioritise collaborative initiatives in trade, innovation, climate resilience and regional stability, rather than serving as conduits for confrontation with countries like China or Pakistan. It is essential to distinguish between patriotic sentiment and national arrogance.
There must also be a reckoning with the militarised mindset that dominates much of our political discourse. We must understand peace as not the absence of war but as a proactive state — built through institutions, education, empathy and exchange. Civil society, artists, writers, teachers and journalists have a key role to play in imagining a new regional future. The stories we tell, textbooks we write, films we produce, all must move us towards common ground.
The moment demands critical introspection, not triumphalism, as we consider the potential consequences of military action and the human and moral costs associated with it. Effective leadership necessitates questioning prevailing narratives, embracing hope, and refusing to succumb to the logic of violence.
Let us seize this pause in violence to initiate conversations long overdue, not only between governments, but also among peoples. Religious leaders, scholars, entrepreneurs, students — all must collectively contribute to building bridges of trust.
Shelley Walia is former Professor, Panjab University.
Comments