by Irshad Ahmad
War has been a persistent and tragic feature of human history, yet humanity seems to have learned little from its devastating consequences. The First World War, the Second World War, the Cold War, the U.S.-Vietnam War, and America’s invasions of Iraq, Libya, and other nations form a comprehensive, and grim, encyclopedia of destruction, suffering, and critical reflection in recent history. For decades, Europe enjoyed a period relatively free from large-scale conflict after the Second World War, until the Russia-Ukraine war once again plunged the continent into the depths of warfare. Africa, too, has been plagued by near-constant turmoil, with few exceptions such as South Africa and Uganda. Today, a survey of the globe reveals numerous hotspots—on land, at sea, and in the air—poised to ignite future conflicts. It appears that this century is tragically determined to repeat the violent cycles of the last.
The United Nations, once envisioned as a guardian of global peace, now seems paralyzed, unable to effectively enforce its resolutions. Israel’s repeated defiance of UN mandates has set a dangerous precedent, potentially emboldening other nations to disregard international law. In this context, the words of Thomas Hobbes resonate with chilling accuracy: in the absence of a supreme authority, the law of nature prevails, and “might makes right.” In such a state, every nation is, in effect, at war with every other, and life, as he described it, becomes “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
The world today seems to be hurtling recklessly towards a cataclysmic inferno. The critical question remains: can global leaders redirect humanity’s destructive impulses away from mutual annihilation? This crisis has not emerged suddenly. Citizens across the globe have been systematically politicized to support warlike leaders, their minds shaped by relentless propaganda disseminated through social, electronic, and print media. Fiery speeches, crafted to win elections, have fostered a culture of hostility and aggression.
In the Indo-Pakistani context, for example, populations have been inflamed by belligerent slogans. Enemies have been manufactured—portrayed as existential threats demanding elimination. To defeat these foes, the populace demands a “strongman,” a leader capable of vanquishing them and planting the flag of victory. While such rhetoric may have been effective in ancient times, it is profoundly dangerous in the age of artificial intelligence and ubiquitous social media. Digital archives preserve every past speech, enabling citizens to easily compare rhetoric with reality, and exposing lies with unprecedented ease.
Yet, deeply ingrained beliefs, often rooted in myth and falsehood, tenaciously resist the truth. When a leader’s deception is exposed, their followers, clinging to dogma, often react with frenzied anger. And anger, unchecked, seeks destruction—a war to satiate its thirst for vengeance. Crowds intoxicated by such fervor crave conflict, tragically failing to realize that in the modern world, the fires they ignite are likely to consume everyone.
The tragedy is starkly evident: humanity remains trapped in an endless cycle of war, seemingly unable—or unwilling—to break free. Unless both leaders and citizens resolutely reject the seductive allure of hatred, the 21st century will inevitably mirror the bloodshed and devastation of the 20th.
The initial phase of the conflict between India and Pakistan, while currently halted by a ceasefire, continues to be fueled by Indian leaders who incite their populations with calls for revenge—particularly in response to the downing of fighter jets. While these leaders attempt to justify their past decisions, the inflamed public does not seek explanations; they demand action, demanding the “elimination of the enemy.” This thirst for vengeance reflects a perilous disconnect between cinematic fantasy and geopolitical reality.
Indian cinema, particularly Bollywood’s hyper-nationalist action films, has conditioned the public to expect simplistic, superheroic victories. Whether it is Salman Khan single-handedly crushing legions of enemies, or other stars portraying invincible warriors, these narratives have shaped a collective imagination where complex conflicts are reduced to simplistic battles of good versus evil. Consequently, the masses now expect their leaders to emulate these fictional heroes—a dangerous delusion that ignores the intricate realities of war, diplomacy, and the potential for mutual destruction.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a shrewd and calculating politician, recognized this psychological dynamic early in his career. He understood that a significant segment of Hindu society, influenced by decades of mythologized history and the narratives of such cinema, harbored a deep-seated desire to “reverse” what they perceive as a thousand years of Muslim rule. This narrative, however, deliberately misinterprets history, casting Muslims as eternal oppressors while erasing the shared struggles of Hindus and Muslims against British colonialism. The reality is far more nuanced and complex: Muslim rulers, like their Hindu counterparts, were integral parts of India’s rich and complex tapestry—sometimes adversaries, often allies. Many Muslims held prominent positions as generals, advisors, and administrators, contributing significantly to India’s prosperity and development. The true exploiters and “looters” were the British, who systematically drained India’s vast wealth—not the Muslims, who remained in India and played a vital role in building the nation.
Today, the contradictions inherent in the BJP’s anti-Muslim rhetoric are glaringly apparent. If Modi’s government genuinely sought to wage a civilizational war against Muslims, why does it simultaneously maintain robust economic ties with wealthy Gulf states? Millions of Indians—predominantly Hindus—work and thrive in these Muslim-majority nations as shopkeepers, entrepreneurs, and professionals. If the BJP’s stance were consistent, it would logically follow that they would recall this diaspora and sever all economic and diplomatic ties with the Islamic world. However, this selective hostility reveals the inherent hypocrisy of their position: the party fuels hatred and division against domestic Muslims while pragmatically engaging with Muslim nations that significantly bolster India’s economy.
This inherent duality underscores a profoundly perilous gamble. By stoking revanchist fantasies and appealing to a distorted version of the past, the BJP risks unleashing forces it cannot ultimately control. The public, fed on a steady diet of jingoistic cinematic narratives, may soon demand more than symbolic victories and gestures. Yet, real wars are not scripted like Bollywood blockbusters—they bring only devastation, suffering, and destruction, not glory or triumph. If India’s leaders truly aspire to serve the best interests of their people, they must resolutely confront historical distortions, reject the seductive allure of the politics of division, and embrace a path of reconciliation and peaceful coexistence. The alternative—a nation trapped in a perpetual cycle of enmity and conflict—will only serve to weaken India’s future, not restore its imagined past.
————————-
About the Author:
Irshad Ahmad: Visiting Faculty, Department of Political Science, University of the Punjab, Lahore
