The cost of war
The generation that saw the horrors of the 1947 partition is fast getting extinct. Only a handful of such people on both sides of the border are alive today. The irony is that those who witnessed the madness and the ones who were directly a part of it expressed regret and remorse.
They wished to erase that painful chapter from their memories. Only those who have witnessed war know the price of peace. In World War II, between 70 and 85 million people died. The rivalry between Germany and France was far more poisonous than the relationship between Pakistan and India.
It taught Europeans a cruel lesson that the price of perpetual hostilities is too high. They made a conscious decision to safeguard their future and their future generations. This led Europe to rise again, and today the region is known as an economic giant. This transformation in Europe would not have been possible had they not learnt from the horrors of the War.
Pakistan and India have shared a chequered history — one that their forefathers had not intended. Quaid-e-Azam envisioned a separate homeland for Muslims, but he also hoped for a relationship between the two nations akin to that of the United States and Canada.
One indication of that was that only a few years before the partition, Quaid-e-Azam had built a house in Mumbai. Perhaps he thought once the two independent states were established, he would shuttle between Pakistan and India frequently. Despite the bitter partition, leaders of that generation still had great respect for each other.
When Gandhi was assassinated, there was a three-day mourning in Pakistan. Similarly, the Indian Parliament paid a glowing homage to Jinnah on his death. Subsequently, despite wars and other periods of hostilities, the two countries maintained decency in their conduct when dealing with each other.
Former Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee famously iterated that friends and enemies can be changed, but not neighbours. It was because of this reason that he undertook a historic visit to Lahore in 1999, after both sides conducted nuclear tests.
Perhaps that was one of the few rare occasions when there was genuine hope for a new beginning between two estranged neighbours. What happened to that peace process requires a different discussion. But the point here is that, today, the relationship between Pakistan and India has reached a dangerous point.
The April 22 attack in Pahalgam, IIJOK triggered yet another military standoff. The threat of potential Indian kinetic operation looms large while Pakistan is ready to hit back hard. But India took several other measures that suggest the perpetual hostilities with Pakistan. Some agreements, including the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty and the 1972 Shimla Agreement, have withstood wars and recurring cycles of violence. India has decided to suspend the Indus Water Treaty while Pakistan indicated its intention to do the same when it comes to other bilateral agreements, including the Shimla accord.
War and hostilities, wherever they take place, cause more harm to ordinary people than leaders. In this case, the first casualty is the people of both the countries. In a tit for tat move, both countries cancelled visas of each other's nationals. The only land border between the two countries has been shut.
Painful stories have emerged from these decisions. An 80-year-old Kashmiri, who was declared a Pakistani national, died in a bus when he was being transported by Indian authorities for deportation to Wagah border. A mother with a Pakistani nationality had to leave her Indian husband and young son behind. Pakistani patients who went for medical treatment to India were expelled.
Media outlets have set up war rooms in anticipation of conflict, whipping up frenzy and hyper nationalism. But remember, those who are baying for blood will regret and express remorse later!
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
3 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Anti-terror outreach
Listen to article A shot in the arm for Pakistan's anti-terrorism efforts as Majeed Brigade has been proscribed by the United States. The labelling of the Baloch terrorist outfit by the US State Department as a "Foreign Terrorist Organisation" is an outcome of detailed persuasion on the part of Islamabad, and clears the path for global action against such dreaded organisations. Majeed Brigade performs as the suicide wing of Baloch Liberation Army (BLA), which is already languishing in the US terror category. Some of the recent gruesome activities of this duo include the hijacking of Jaffer Express train in which more than 30 passengers o were killed; profile screening and killing of people in bus attacks; the 2024 Karachi airport ambush that killed Chinese engineers; and last but not least persistent attacks on security forces and government installations in the desolate province of Balochistan. While the State Department move speaks at length about the understanding that both the countries have attained in their counter-terrorism strategy, it needs to be buckled up with a broader regional response. Beijing has to play a special role as it enters into talks with India later this month, as footprints of Delhi are widely evident in the province. The rise of Khawarij (Indian proxies) is a case in point, and Chinese assets and personnel engaged in CPEC projects have been a victim. China must raise this issue with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and bring the latter on board in fighting terrorism, rather than indulging in policies of bleeding Pakistan. Likewise, a broad-based policy is desired wherein Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asian states collaborate to exhibit zero-tolerance towards non-state actors, and entities such as BLA, TTP, ISIK, Al-Qaeda and their accomplices are taken out. Washington admits that there have been more than 1,000 terrorist attacks in "the western area of Pakistan" this year. Pakistan, which has sacrificed more than 80,000 lives in the war on terrorism, must take this international acknowledgment to beef up its anti-terror gear and devise a multipronged policy. Apart from the kinetic option, the intention should be to neutralise the dissidents through political outreach in order to make inroads for stability and development.
Express Tribune
3 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Was Pakistan necessary?
Listen to article Was Pakistan necessary? The question, as always, arises as we are close to celebrating the 78th anniversary of "independent" Pakistan. The creation of Pakistan in 1947 remains one of South Asia's most contested events. To its proponents, it was an essential homeland for Hindustani Muslims to safeguard their religious and political rights. To critics, it was a tragic consequence of failed negotiations, colonial strategy, and the politics of religious nationalism. To address this question, we must understand the ideological foundations, political context, human cost and post-partition realities. At the heart of Pakistan's creation was the Two-Nation Theory, articulated by Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the All-India Muslim League. It claimed Muslims and Hindus were not just religious groups but distinct nations with irreconcilable differences. In his Lahore Resolution speech (March 22, 1940), Jinnah declared: "We are a nation with our own distinctive culture and civilisation." Writers like Stanley Wolpert (Jinnah of Pakistan, 1984) portray Jinnah as a pragmatic leader who saw partition as the only solution after failed talks with the Congress. Ayesha Jalal, in The Sole Spokesman (1985), suggests Jinnah may have used the demand for Pakistan as a bargaining tool for maximum Muslim autonomy within a united India, only accepting partition when compromise failed. Opponents of the theory, such as Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, argued religion alone could not define nationhood. In India Wins Freedom (1959), Azad called the partition a historical blunder, insisting that Hindustani Muslims were too culturally rooted in Hindustan to be separated by ideology. The political collapse of the 1930s-40s shaped the final outcome. The Muslim League's poor showing in the 1937 provincial elections and the Congress's reluctance to form coalition governments deepened Muslim fears of exclusion. Ian Talbot (Pakistan: A Modern History, 2009) identifies this as a turning point for Jinnah's mobilisation of Muslim sentiment. The failure of the 1946 Cabinet Mission Plan, which proposed a loose federation to avoid partition, was decisive. Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal (Modern South Asia, 2004) argue that partition was not inevitable; it became "necessary" only after mistrust and political rigidity destroyed the possibility of compromise. The consequences were catastrophic. Between 1-2 million people died in communal massacres, and over 15 million were displaced. Contemporary reports in The New York Times and The Times of London recorded mass killings, abductions and sexual violence. Yasmin Khan, in The Great Partition (2007), highlights British unpreparedness for the transfer of power, noting that the partition "created not just new borders but new wounds" that remain unhealed. Post-independence, Pakistan faced deep identity dilemmas. Should it be a secular Muslim-majority state or an Islamic theocracy? The 1971 secession of East Pakistan into Bangladesh exposed the fragility of religious unity in the face of linguistic and ethnic differences. As Akeel Bilgrami (Secularism, Identity and Enchantment, 2014) observes, the premise of a single Muslim identity was flawed when confronted with South Asia's diversity. In India, Muslims who stayed behind became a vulnerable minority. The rise of Hindutva politics under BJP has reinforced some of Jinnah's warnings, but others contend that the partition itself hardened communal divisions, making reconciliation harder. So, was Pakistan necessary? It depends on the perspective. Through ideology, it provided a political refuge for Muslims in an increasingly majoritarian India. Through hindsight, it appears as a tragic product of political failure, religious nationalism and colonial opportunism. Hamza Alavi, in Pakistan and Islam: Ethnicity and Ideology (1987), urges us to see Pakistan's creation as not just nationalism, but a complex interplay of class interests, imperial strategy and identity politics. In the end, Pakistan was neither inevitable nor universally desired. It was born of missed opportunities, rigid leadership positions and imperial designs. Yet, its creation permanently altered the subcontinent, offering a lasting lesson in the perils of division and the staggering cost of political failure.
Express Tribune
4 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Qureshi will follow party line after acquittal: Salman Akram Raja
Listen to article Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Secretary General Salman Akram Raja on Tuesday said that Shah Mahmood Qureshi will continue to follow the instructions of party founder Imran Khan after his release and will not act independently of party policy. Speaking to the media near Adiala Jail, he said: 'Only the founder's word holds weight within the party.' He declined to speculate on Qureshi's future role, stating that no decisions could be made without the founder's direction. Raja's comments came after an Anti-Terrorism Court in Lahore issued two separate release warrants for Qureshi, addressed to the Superintendent of Central Jail Kot Lakhpat. The senior PTI leader had been acquitted on August 11 in connection with cases linked to the May 9 riots, which followed the arrest of Imran Khan. Read More: ATC orders Shah Mahmood Qureshi's release after acquittal Raja further clarified that the PTI's August 14 programme was not a political protest. 'It is a celebration of Pakistan's independence, where our supporters will also express solidarity with the party and its founder,' he said. He criticised the current political climate, claiming that Pakistan's judicial system lacks independence, and that the political freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution are not being upheld. The PTI leader described the legal proceedings against party workers as unjust, often reliant on repetitive evidence and police testimony. He also condemned the authorities for blocking access routes and allegedly using force against workers attempting to meet Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi at Adiala Jail. Also Read: Bilawal dismisses 27th Constitutional Amendment rumours as 'baseless' 'According to the court's order and the jail manual, family and lawyers were supposed to meet them today, yet we were denied access once again,' Raja said. He added that Imran's sisters, Aleema and Noreen, were also barred from entering and eventually staged a protest. He accused law enforcement of deploying containers and using batons to disperse the gathering. 'Several workers were injured. It's dictatorship—and we will stand against it, no matter the consequences,' he said. Earlier in the day, Aleema and Noreen were denied entry despite attempting to walk to the jail on foot. After over five hours of protest, they were taken into custody along with several workers and moved to Chakri Interchange, where they were released later in the evening. The arrests sparked brief protests, but all detained workers were released shortly afterward and dispersed peacefully.
