
The climate of war
The writer is an educationist based in Larkana. She can be reached at sairasamo88@gmail.com
Listen to article
In the ongoing wake of war between two nuclear-armed and hostile nations, South Asia's peace is at stake, painting a grim picture of doom and destruction in the minds of many - expressing a crippled fate. The consequences seem severe, threatening the future with dire outcomes.
War is a condition born of chaos and conflict of interest, culminating in bloodshed, injuries and suffering. Nevertheless, throughout history, long-lasting wars have remained a persistent trait of human nature — often ending in devastation and despair.
Let's glance at some of the prolonged and destructive wars in history.
The Thirty Years' War (1618-1648), primarily a religious conflict, caused immense destruction and loss of life throughout Europe.
World War I (1914-1918), known as the Great War, brought widespread violence and destruction, particularly on the Western Front. World War II, a conflict between the Axis powers (Germany, Italy and Japan) and the Allied powers (France, Great Britain, the US, the Soviet Union and China), along with some neutral nations, was fiercely fought, resulting in massive economic and social repercussions. Approximately 60 to 80 million people lost their lives, causing global sorrow and havoc. Its aftermath plunged millions into food shortages, malnutrition and widespread disease.
Furthermore, Vietnam was the most heavily bombed country in history. Over 6.1 million tons of bombs were dropped — nearly triple the tonnage used during World War II. The Vietnam War (1955-1975) came at a severe cost: 100,000 US troops lost limbs, and countless civilians were killed or injured.
Tragically, the genocide in Gaza that began on October 7, 2023, has claimed up to 61,709 innocent lives — a brutal consequence of war, spreading hatred and bewilderment throughout the Muslim world.
All these wars, since their commencement, have either destroyed societies or left people socially and psychologically traumatised. War ends peace and stability — something now reflected in the bellicose posture of India.
William Hazlitt once said, "Those who are at war with others are not at peace with themselves."
India exemplifies this, as Prime Minister Modi seems restless. The attack on Pakistan under the cover of night is a cowardly act — a brutal step toward a belligerent era. Pakistan has rightly responded in self-defence. Following the Pahalgam incident, India has unilaterally suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, sealed the Wagah border and ordered Pakistani officials to leave within 48 hours. Within 15 days, 'Operation Sindoor' was launched, targeting Punjab and Azad Kashmir. How peaceful India is — it thrives in a climate of war rather than choosing the path of diplomacy.
Political theorist Francis Fukuyama once believed that humanity in the 21st century would evolve into a globalised, post-conflict society, moving deterministically toward collective peace and prosperity. Yet, the reality proves otherwise. India's recent moves stand in stark contrast to this vision. The history of Indo-Pak relations includes three wars over Kashmir, all of which have escalated tensions, deepened animosity and made bilateral ties increasingly fragile. Agreements and accords often fall short in the face of warmongering.
War always ends in destruction and confusion. Thousands are killed and injured, while societies desperately long for peace. Moreover, human resources are depleted, slowing a nation's progress.
Bringing warmongers to the dialogue table requires the attention of international law and the global community. Nations involved in conflict should be offered peaceful avenues to resolve disputes. This would lead to less destruction and promote greater stability and integrity.
Journalist and peace activist Norman Cousins says, "War is invention of human mind. The human mind can invent peace."
So, let's invent peace and be united before the warmongers.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Express Tribune
3 days ago
- Express Tribune
Military notes; Indo-Pak conflict: deterrence, pre-battle manoeuvres
The writer is a retired major general and has an interest in International Relations and Political Sociology. He can be reached at tayyarinam@ and tweets @20_Inam Listen to article We continue to discuss various aspects of the recent Indo-Pakistan military standoff. Third, deterrence per se. More than a billion lives escaped Modi's madness in a closer than ever nuclear Armageddon. Besides the conventional side of warfare, the more dangerous 'nuclear parity' still overhangs South Asia perilously. With deterrence in 'conventional terms re-established', one hopes India under Modi would avoid another wasteful adventure of humiliation, and resume talks over the table, rather than in the skies and through brinkmanship. The future India-Pakistan conflict scene will no longer be unilateral. It will be dictated and decided by Sino-Pak military alliance especially in collaboration with China's Western Theater Command. And this would augment deterrence for rational players on the Indian side, if any. Pakistan's Military, in South Asia's modern history, showcased the most integrated defensive strategy and real-time coordination. And just to reiterate, in military literature, a weaker side is supposed to have won an asymmetrical contest, if it denies outright victory or the attainment of war's aims and objectives to the stronger side, which Pakistan did to a larger India. So perceptually speaking, deterrence in the Indo-Pakistan context would, henceforth, be defined by the conventional military capabilities plus nuclear arms, and the fragility of psychological threshold on both sides, as discussed in my piece, 'India, Pakistan — redefining deterrence', printed in this space on May 22, 2025. And in Pakistan's context, deterrence would remain to be fortified by the Sino-Pakistani alliance, and the resolve of Pakistan's civil and military leadership, through Islamabad's 'quid-pro-quo Plus' strategy, to never let India prevail. So, peace, the perusal of which now squarely lies with a mellowed but bellicose India that still pursues its intended water wars, would remain elusive if we do not recognise each other's capabilities, and do not engage each other with dignity, mutual respect and patience, and not with ignorance or arrogance. Fourth. The Exterior Manoeuvre. Without going into the nuts and bolts of the diplomatic war, the Indian efforts to paint Pakistan into endemically bad light and as a state sponsor of terrorism, had very few takers, regionally and internationally. Indian diplomatic overtures focused on painting itself taller by telling the world its military response was calculated and non-escalatory and that this 'new India' would respond muscularly to the so-called terrorist attacks, without wanting a wider war with Pakistan and its people. Essentially contradictory iterations. No country condemned Pakistan for the 'alleged' terrorism; none appreciated India's 'carefully calibrated' military response. The world, contrarily, was preoccupied with the IAF's French Rafael jets being shot down by PAF's Chinese J-10C fighters using PL-15 E air-to-air missiles. Even the US after some initial ambivalence from VP Vance had to forcefully intervene to affect a ceasefire, without giving India the blank cheque of unilateralism and brinkmanship. Russia, India's traditional friend, withheld the 'expected' diplomatic support for India. And Türkiye, Azerbaijan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and the entire OIC, the UN all called for restraint and then ceasefire. Major capitals responded with studied neutrality despite India sending seven diplomatic delegations to 32 countries. Beijing's signalling and posturing in support of Pakistan were overtly clear. Washington's ceasefire appeal re-hyphenated the two nuclear neighbours, to India's great chagrin. New Delhi even refused to acknowledge any US role, for which Trump had publicly taken credit. The paradox of Indian 'Exterior Manoeuvre' was laid bare, as to why was it accepting a ceasefire, irrespective of whether it was reached bilaterally (as India claimed) or under US interlocution (as Trump tweeted), if it had an upper hand militarily. During the conduct of operations, fiasco after fiasco derided New Delhi's aspirations and outsized ego. From denial to acknowledging downing of planes including Rafaeles, to persistent lies on the state and social media, greatly diminished India's shine, sheen and diplomatic weight. New Delhi's comical effort to influence the World Bank under its Indian-origin president, Mr Ajay Banga, from sanctioning loan to Islamabad failed spectacularly. The extent of India's hostility towards Pakistan permeated not only its body politics, but also its cultural elite (read Bollywood), its state behaviour; and resulted in a compulsive obsession with Pakistan, whom India's intellectual wizards proudly claim to have pushed into irrelevant ignominy. This paradox - Pakistan's irrelevance and Islamabad being an uncomfortable reality - remains unresolved and has been damaging India's 'perceived' important power aspiration and status, without pundits realising it. Fifth, The Inner Front. India whipped up its jingoist anti-Pakistan narrative in order to jell its inner front, silencing opposition, muzzling rationality and suppressing truth in the process. And it failed. The Modi Government had to launch Operation "Tiranga Yatra (tricolour journey)" for intense domestic messaging, to manipulate outcomes during Operation Sindoor. From annihilating Pakistan to dominating South Asia as the new hegemon, its efforts, however, could not convince most of its 200 million Muslims, who constitute 10.9 per cent of its population, is the world's 3rd largest Muslim population, and the largest Muslim-minority globally. Its illegally occupied Kashmir, the expected battle zone, simmers with hate, discontent and a resurgent anti-India sentiment, making operations and rear-area security a nightmare for the Indian Military. Assam, Christian Mizoram, Nagaland, the Naxalite insurgency in the 'Red Corridor', Khalistan Movement in Punjab and abroad, and other insurgencies drive wedges in the India Union. Even the Brahman-dominated decision-making elite had and have reservations on the direction secular India has taken under Hindutva-laced Modi Sarkar. Indian security sector and armed forces saw removals, arrests and demotions during the stand-off; and its population is still experiencing arrests for supporting Pakistan, as per press reports. By comparison, Pakistan's inner front jelled like it always does in a crisis with India. RAW-financed terrorism in KP and Balochistan, and the expected political uprising by some political forces against the armed forces, in hilarious formulation of Indian intelligence, failed and failed miserably. Pakistan's national will, determination, resolve and motivation across the political spectrum and across the nation was tougher and firm. Pakistan's 'relative' demographic homogeneity compared to India's heterogeneity is always an asset and a force-multiplier. Such demographic truism also permeates Pakistan's armed forces, making it a formidable fighting machine. Continues...


Business Recorder
4 days ago
- Business Recorder
Zelenskyy says Russian ceasefire memorandum is an ‘ultimatum'
KYIV: President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Wednesday said that Russia was giving Ukraine an ultimatum at peace negotiations but said he was ready to hold direct talks with Russia's Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump 'any day'. His comments came after Russian and Ukrainian delegations in Istanbul swapped terms for agreeing to a ceasefire and said they were ready to host another round of prisoner exchanges. Zelenskyy told reporters – including from AFP – that the Russian document outlining Moscow's requirements to halt its invasion amounted to an ultimatum. 'That is, it is not a memorandum of understanding. At least a memorandum of understanding should be signed by two parties, not just one party demanding something,' he said sitting around a table with international and Ukrainian media. Ukraine invited to NATO summit in The Hague: Zelenskyy 'Therefore, it cannot be called a memorandum. It is, after all, an ultimatum from the Russian side to us,' he added. Zelenskyy said that there was no point in continuing peace talks in Istanbul with the current level of Russian delegates as they are not high-ranking enough, calling instead for a sit-down with Putin. 'We are ready for exchanges, but to continue diplomatic meetings in Istanbul at a level that does not solve anything further, I think, is pointless,' Zelenskyy said, referring to the two agreements for prisoner of war swaps that have come out of the talks. He said instead that he was ready to hold a meeting with Putin and Trump. 'We are ready for such a meeting any day,' Zelenskyy said, adding that he was proposing that a ceasefire be put in place before any such summit, which would also include Turkish President Recep Tayip Erdogan. The White House said that Trump was 'open' to meeting his Russian and Ukrainian counterparts in Turkey after the two sides failed on Monday to make headway towards an elusive ceasefire. Zelenskyy added that Ukraine and Russia were prepared to exchange captured military personnel this weekend, following the agreement between Moscow and Kyiv brokered in Turkey this week. 'The Russian side has passed on information that this weekend – on Saturday and Sunday – they will be able to transfer 500 people, 500 of our military,' Zelenskyy said. 'We will be ready to exchange the relevant number' of prisoners of war, he added. Tens of thousands have been killed since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, with swathes of eastern and southern Ukraine destroyed and millions forced to flee their homes in Europe's largest refugee crisis since World War II.


Business Recorder
4 days ago
- Business Recorder
Despite crushing defeat, Modi remains unlearned
In a fiery address from Bhuj in his home state Gujarat, Prime Minister Narendra Modi issued a stark yet hollow warning to Pakistan, declaring, 'Live a life of peace and eat your roti in calm, or else, my bullet is always ready.' Delivered in the humiliating aftermath of Operation Sindoor, where India suffered a crushing and comprehensive defeat on all fronts, Modi's bluster masked the reality of India's exposed vulnerabilities, broken illusions of regional dominance, and the utter failure of its military might against Pakistan's far smaller yet far more agile and resolute forces. His speech, laced with threats, revealed a dangerous refusal to reflect on India's strategic miscalculations and a desperate attempt to spin humiliation into hollow bravado. As Pakistan's air force, missile command, cyber units, and the sheer resilience of its people stood tall, Modi's empty threats only deepened the cracks in India's facade of strength, revealing a nation unprepared for the consequences of its reckless aggression. This aggressive rhetoric, however, is neither new nor constructive. It follows a well-worn script that Modi has often played before elections, invoking Pakistan as a perpetual threat, demonizing an entire nation for internal incidents, and overlooking the possibility of homegrown actors or third-party provocateurs. Modi's framing, once again, reduces Pakistan to a target and portrays India as the victim, demanding retribution without introspection. Yet, what he ignores — either willfully or due to political expediency — is the ground reality that Pakistan is not Gaza, and India is not Israel. Any bullet fired from one side will inevitably trigger a response—two bullets, five, or even more—escalating into a cycle of retaliation with catastrophic consequences for both. This is not conjecture; it is history. Qamar Bashir Copyright Business Recorder, 2025