The cost of war

Express Tribune

04-05-2025

Listen to article
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!