 |
|
The India-Pakistan conflict, though brief, provides a stark and sobering lesson on the complexities of war, peace, and the volatile nature of public opinion. The swift de-escalation, while welcomed due to the nuclear stakes involved, has left many underlying issues unresolved and potentially exacerbated existing tensions. The eighteen days of heightened anxiety revealed both a surge of national unity and a troubling display of irrationality and misinformation. The author aptly describes this period as a 'Samudra Manthan,' churning both the elixir of collective resolve and the poison of unfounded assertions, all contained within a vessel of public capriciousness. The rapid shifts in public sentiment, from demanding retribution to expressing fear and advocating for peace, highlight the profound impact of the 'fog of war' on the collective psyche. This confusion extended to questioning the motives and actions of various actors, including Pakistan's targeting of Kashmiris in the name of liberation, the perceived loyalty of Indian Muslims, the dissemination of unsubstantiated claims by the media, and the ambiguous stances of international powers like the US and China. The IMF's continued financial support to Pakistan during the conflict further fueled the sense of bewilderment.
Despite the prevailing confusion, the conflict did offer some clarity. It exposed the limitations of deterrence strategies that do not guarantee overwhelming superiority at every level of escalation. The traditional 'escalation ladder' needs to be re-evaluated in favor of a more comprehensive approach that prioritizes outmatching the enemy's capabilities at each stage of engagement. Furthermore, the conflict revealed the inherent biases and conditional nature of liberalism, where ethical considerations are often overridden by the dictates of collaborationism. The author argues that intellectual neutrality and evenhandedness are often nothing more than empty rhetoric, easily discarded when national interests or deeply held prejudices are at stake. The conflict also shattered the illusion that certain individuals are immune to the vitriol of the ill-informed public. The case of Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, who was previously lauded for his measured and sensible approach, demonstrates how quickly public opinion can turn, fueled by social media and the tendency to vilify the 'other' when faced with an external enemy. This highlights the vulnerability of even the most respected figures to the capricious nature of public sentiment.
As the world commemorates the birth of Gautam Buddha, the author emphasizes the critical importance of equanimity in navigating such turbulent times. Equanimity, defined as mental calmness, composure, and evenness of temper, is essential at all levels of decision-making and execution. It enables leaders to formulate effective plans, allows those implementing them to accept both successes and setbacks, and empowers onlookers to offer constructive support. The author observes that, in the India-Pakistan conflict, only the armed forces managed to maintain a semblance of equanimity, resisting the destabilizing effects of the public discourse. This underscores the vital role of discipline and emotional control in times of crisis. The author contends that wars come with a steep price, one that most people are unwilling to bear themselves. The fleeting disruption of access to entertainment is hardly comparable to the sacrifices demanded by a prolonged conflict. Even a decisive victory comes at a significant cost, and lasting peace is not simply the absence of war, but rather the integration of human society on mutually acceptable terms. This integration is impossible to achieve when passions and irrationality dominate.
The author laments the shift from a broader understanding of nation-building to a narrow and exclusionary form of nationalism based on bellicosity. This type of nationalism, focused on aggression and exclusion, is ultimately destructive rather than constructive. The author points to official press briefings as an example of a more measured and responsible approach, where the message was clear and devoid of jingoism: to do what is necessary, no more, no less. The author concludes by emphasizing the need for the state to resist the temptation to base its decisions on the fickle desires of the public, which can swing wildly between demands for war and calls for peace. A stable and responsible foreign policy requires a more considered and rational approach, one that is grounded in equanimity and a long-term vision of national interests. The conflict serves as a reminder of the dangers of succumbing to the passions of the moment and the importance of maintaining a steady course, guided by reason and a commitment to lasting peace.
Source: What India-Pakistan War's Quick (De)Escalation Teaches Us About War & Peace