The rhetorics of war have now given place to actual use of weapons between two long dueling nations which have endured four wars in the past 76 years.
A firestorm of narratives
The world witnessed the war of words between the two nuclear countries over the last several weeks, after the tragic event in Kashmir where 26 tourists were killed by terrorists. India called it a killing inspired by Pakistan sponsored terror groups without any material evidence, while Pakistan denied the accusation vehemently, demanding an independent international enquiry.
But India would have none of it. Instead, its government led by its prime minister, went public, declaring a fitting response to the terrorists and their “sponsors” even if it required a campaign from one end of the earth to another.
Cheek by jowl, the media in India joined the ruling party, more vociferously, to not only denounce the terror incident, but also call for retaliatory attacks, and not just the terrorists, but also the alleged sponsor Pakistan. Without any shred of evidence.
According to the jingoist media the evidence of the other country’s involvement in the latest terror incident lay in the past umpteen number of such incidents in Kashmir and other parts of India (Mumbai and New Delhi included) which were caused by militants raised and trained in Pakistan.
Therefore, it was a foregone conclusion that a similar group in Pakistan was responsible for the latest incident in Kashmir. A fitting and appropriate response to punish the culprits became the war cry, and a frenzy in the media thus began.
Fueling nationalism
One would think that the war-mongering rhetoric would be a favourite among weak and unpopular political leaders or army dictators to drum up support for their failing leadership. In the past we had found this phenomenon in the subcontinent when the leadership of one of the major countries underwent a change from democracy to dictatorship. But we did not expect war to be a rallying cry in a stable democracy such as India, where political sagacity usually ruled over mob emotions that are currently demonstrated by Indian media.
But this can happen. Even in a so-called stable democracy, where an extremely chauvinistic political party has taken complete control, waving the flag of religion, and considers all who do not belong to that religion to be enemies.
In such an environment, any slogan of nationalism flavoured with aggression and least tolerance towards others who do not conform is a fodder for war. That is what is happening now in India, and I am afraid Pakistan will also react to this proportionately.
Missiles over diplomacy
In the last couple of days, the war of weapons began -- resulting in casualties on both sides.
India has claimed targeted missile attacks on suspected launch pads of “terror groups” in Pakistan, mostly along the border areas near Kashmir, and one deep inside Punjab, calling it a headquarters of a terror group. Pakistan claims to have downed a few Indian aircraft without any details of where and how. There is no confirmation of any air combat by either India or Pakistan.
All we know so far is that there have been many civilian casualties in Pakistan, and some property damages in Indian Kashmir. From media accounts these casualties and damages appear to have been caused by surface to air missiles or shells fired from across the border. In other words, war so far is traditional and contained. But who knows how long this war will remain at this low level?
In this dangerous game, there is no winner. It is simply a lose-lose situation
A history of civilian losses and political gains
India and Pakistan have battled with each other for decades, but always with disastrous consequences for each country. The two countries have clashed over Kashmir three times, losing both men and money.
According to some estimates (CIA) more than 3500 Indian and 5000 Pakistani soldiers died in 1971 war between the two countries.
Economic consequences, besides cost of funding the war, were more costly for Pakistan than for India, even though India had to suffer enormously housing the refugees which numbered more than 10 million.
Yet, the fighting never seems to stop. With each war or skirmish it also transpired that the country’s political leaders would use the resulting nationalistic fervour to their advantage.
In 1965 President Ayub Khan used the war to boost his political image in his country. In 2019 Narendra Modi used Indian air attack in Balakot of Pakistan (to avenge the terror attack on Indian army in Kashmir) to help him in next elections.
A conflict too dangerous to win
But this war, should it become full scale, will be in neither 1965 nor 1971. This is much later. Both countries are nuclear powers and are armed to the teeth with firepower comparable with other such powers. True, India may have a greater military strength compared to Pakistan, but when nuclear weapons are considered, numerical superiority is a small matter. It requires only weapons to cause a disaster of the utmost proportion.
In this dangerous game, there is no winner. It is simply a lose-lose situation. As it is used in military terms, it is a “Mutual Agreed Destruction.” No one will come out of it as a victor. We can only hope brinkmanship will emerge in this hour, where the two countries stop this madness and come to the table for discussion.
Ziauddin Choudhury has worked in the higher civil service of Bangladesh early in his career, and later for the World Bank in the US.
