By: Waniya Kabir Ahmad
The Miraje of Peace and the Anatomy of Conflict The subcontinent, once envisioned as a cradle of shared heritage and cultural confluence, is haunted by its undivided past and insurmountable present. As the echoes of artillery faded in May 2025 – another chapter in the long, painful history of hostility between India and Pakistan – the cost of our collective failure became painfully apparent once again.
For decades, neighbors equipped with two nuclear weapons have been dancing dangerously on the edge of conflicts, only retreating when it is reminded of the ditch beyond it.
Diplomatic overdose is done in a season, only in the other to be opened through political affirmation, populist rhetoric, or any one, fire incident. This dizziness collision has created an illusion – that without a deep commitment to maintain peace, it can come into existence through men in the suit. However, history has proven otherwise.
The limited conflict in May 2025 – which began with high casualties across the Line of Control in Kashmir – did not escalate into a full-scale war overnight, only to be interrupted by channeled communications and international intervention. But it did highlight the fragility of our current arrangements, and the absence of political will to break the cycle of retaliation, reprisals.
The real question is not how many cases’fires can be discussed, but how many of them are based on sincerity. How many leaders are both sides who are ready to endanger political capital in search of something like sustainable peace?
During the years of the papers, Islamabad and New Delhi have signed more than a dozen agreements and confidence construction measures (CBM). From the 1972 Shimla Agreement to the 1999 Lahore Declaration, there are documents from several border trade and military hotline protocol. However, the translation of the promises to change the long -term behavior is not change.
Peace is not a checklist to be ticked off by bureaucrats. It is an evolving process that demands vision, courage and, above all, will -Not just to avoid war, but to uproot the ideologies that create enemies among neighbors.
Unfortunately, both Indian and Pakistani leaderships have repeatedly failed. Be it the intoxication of domestic electoral victories, pressure from military establishments, or hereditary enmity, every window for peace has ultimately been closed not by the enemy but from within.
The recent flare-up in May 2025 showed how quickly peace can be shattered when genuine goodwill is not built upon. It was not just an exchange of gunfire, but an end to an already fractured narrative that only diplomacy can anchor a future free of hostility. The politics of war, the war of politics The politics of peace are rarely popular. In Pakistan, leaders who talk about reconciliation are branded as apologists.
In India, those who advocate dialogue risk being painted as weak or “anti-national.” In both countries, media rhetoric fanned the flames, turning the prospect of compromise into a political liability. In May 2025, the media’s response to the conflict was as telling as the event itself.
With hashtags emphasizing the tendency to retaliate on both sides of the border, news anchors became generals, and political analysts became war strategists. What was missing, however, was nuance. No one asked what would happen next if another war broke out — especially between two countries that possess more than 200 nuclear warheads.
And therein lies the true test of leadership: not in winning wars, but in resisting the temptation to wage them.
The true statesman is the ability to look beyond the immediate ideals of patriotism and toward the long, difficult road of reconciliation. It is a matter of understanding that strength is not in revenge but in forbearance. That courage is found not in provocation, but in patience. Part 2: The Human Cost and the Cost of Perpetual Hostility Conflict may be brief, but its aftershocks last a lifetime, especially for those who had no say in its occurrence.
As a result of the May 2025 clash, hospitals near the Line of Control were filled with the wounded, families mourned their dead, and civilians were once again displaced from villages, their lives reduced to makeshift tents and ration aid.
The human cost of such escalation is rarely found in diplomatic discourse. The death toll is reduced to a number. The grief is erased. Yet behind every figure is a family broken, a future extinguished. In a region where poverty and illiteracy are rampant, war not only claims lives but also perpetuates the damage across generations.
The economic damage is equally severe. Defense spending on both sides is steadily increasing, draining funds that could otherwise be used to promote education, health care, and infrastructure.
Pakistan and India spend billions annually on arms purchases while their rural populations lack clean water and basic amenities. How long can nations force their own citizens to prepare for wars they claim they do not want?
Grassroots Yearning: Silent Voices for Peace. Amid the nationalism that beats in the chests of the elite, the voices of ordinary citizens are often not heard. But they are there – in the shared sorrows of families across borders, in the prayers of mothers who have lost sons to senseless conflicts, and in the dreams of young people who yearn for travel, trade, and understanding rather than isolation and fear.
Social media, though a double-edged sword, has revealed a thirst for peace among the younger generation. Cross-border friendships flourish in digital spaces, even as states feud. Artists, poets, students, and activists have long argued that shared humanity should prevail over state animosity. If only their voices were heard in the corridors of power.
The problem is not that peace is impossible to achieve. It is that peace is painful for those whose political careers depend on its absence.
Incruces: Beyond agreements, towards truth The events of May 2025 must serve as more than a cautionary tale. They must be reckoned with. For too long, the subcontinent has been inclined to reactive diplomacy rather than proactive healing. Agreements may shape borders, but only intention can shape history.
Lasting peace in South Asia will never be achieved by mere signatures. It requires honest self-reflection, moral courage, and a fundamental shift in political will. The people of India and Pakistan deserve more than a temporary ceasefire. They deserve a future where peace is not a pause between wars but a promise fulfilled.
It is time to move beyond the theater of diplomacy to the difficult, necessary work of reconciliation. Not because it is easy. But because we owe it to the generations that we leave behind us, whether the ashes of conflict or the foundations of coexistence.
