by Irshad Ahmad
The ceasefire has ended, but another war has begun—this time fought by media anchors, politicians, and propagandists competing to declare victory for their own nations while downplaying their losses. The ongoing cyber-war between Pakistan and India serves as a stark case study. In India, inquisitions test patriotism, mirroring historical loyalty tests from the Abbasid Era or pre-Enlightenment Europe. Once again, history repeats itself: humanity races forward only to return to the same battles—over land, resources, greed, and ego.
Despite claims of progress, little has been done to curb humanity’s thirst for violence, revenge, and bloodshed. Lip service is paid to peace through superficial curriculum additions, but core textbooks lack the deliberate rigor of ancient Greek or Spartan education, which meticulously shaped future generations. Today, perhaps only China has a clear, long-term vision—while Pakistan and India remain blind to the future, locked in present-day struggles. Their militaries invest in training and equipment, but civilians are left adrift, with no collective vision for the next generation.
Instead, chaotic social media nurtures their thinking, fostering individualism and defiance of authority. This growing fragmentation threatens to plunge the region—and possibly the world—into confusion and anarchy. The irony is bitter: smartphones connect people globally, yet states encourage isolation, creating a contradiction between digital and real-life interactions. For instance, many consume explicit content online but face rigid cultural restrictions in person, leaving minds scattered and conflicted. Not everyone can reconcile this dichotomy, breeding frenzy and disillusionment.
Even after the war, distorted videos, misinformation, and memes flood social media. Though the fighting has stopped, minds remain in wartime mode—glued to screens, anticipating the next unpredictable catastrophe. It hasn’t arrived yet, but the collective psyche waits, wired for calamity.
I am astonished that leaders—despite decades of bloodshed—still refuse to learn from history. Instead of pursuing reconciliation, they actively complicate conflicts by fueling proxy wars, destabilizing one another, and clinging to shortsighted nationalism.
Geographically and culturally interconnected, this region could achieve unprecedented collective progress. Yet “coexistence” remains alien to its political vocabulary. Leaders eagerly seek Western mediation but lack the moral courage to meet face-to-face, address grievances, and resolve disputes with sincerity.
True leaders are defined not by their ability to intimidate masses with “glaring eyes,” but by their moral fortitude to:
Solve conflicts through dialogue, not escalation.
Dismantle barriers, making borders visa-free to foster trust.
Collaborate on green initiatives, transforming the region into a prosperous, sustainable hub.
South Asia’s survival depends on breaking this cycle. The courage to make peace is far rarer—and more noble—than the courage to wage war. When will leaders prioritize their people’s future over petty vendettas?
This version balances frustration with hope, making it shareable for op-eds, speeches, or social advocacy. Let me know if you’d prefer a more confrontational or diplomatic tone!
About the Author:
Irshad Ahmad: Visiting Faculty, Department of Political Science, University of the Punjab, Lahore
