smartcybers786@gmail.com 
#Dreading #peace #Political #Economy
A veteran Pakistani historian Dr. Farhat Mahmood, an experienced Pakistani historian, witnessed a surprising candidate, while peeking BBC Radio 4. He said, “It is natural that every nation or community is afraid of war. Ironically, the two South Asian neighbor, India and Pakistan – are cautious of peace.” His words are in the depth of wisdom and insight, which is forced to revise the traditional conversation around the conflict in South Asia.
The metaphor he used – a fly is ringing in his bonnet – whenever the ideology of peace begins to appear, the two countries feel that both countries feel. Instead of affecting relief or hope, just the possibility of lasting peace begins to provoke anxiety. The reasons are deep structural and psychological.
At peace, states are forced to counter many responsibilities, including education, health care, housing, justice and civil rights. Peace is not just a show of power, but demands governance. It calls for honest calculations with poverty, inequality, corruption and historical injustice. The threat of war, or war, provides an easy disturbance. When the national story takes shape with the enmity and fear of an external enemy, it is easier for the ruling elite to suppress differences and suppress freedoms. This enables governments to postpone or remove accountability for failures to rule.
As Bertrand Russell has written in his article, the future of mankind, “war does not determine who is right – who is just left.” He warned of violence and warned against the illusion that war could be a moral or lasting solution. Indian peaceful, Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore warned that “patriotism cannot be our last spiritual shelter. I have a refuge.” These voices resonate over decades, powerful in the current context of India and Pakistan, which is stuck in the cycle of militant posting and mutual doubts.
The irony is that the irony is that it can be more volatile for some governments than war. For those governments whose authority is not by democratic consensus but from the mentality of the siege – where the external enemy is created permanently as a justification for internal repression – the offer is no balm. This is a danger. It anxious the state propaganda scaffolding. It invites independent or populist governments, reflects, chaos and worst for questions.
Peace made national dialogue democratic. This opens the shell of fear and doubt, which has been cautious for decades. Once the guns are silenced and the beating of patients stops the voices of people. Leaders are not praised, but in protest and inquiry. Ordinary citizens then start asking: Why are our schools falling? Why are our hospitals invalid? Why does the poor suffer when Elite’s rich? Why disagreement is criminal? Why should we always prepare for war when we cannot eat ourselves? These are the types of questions that allow peace. These are the questions that the war sinks into its drum.
This contradiction was not lost on George andol, who wrote in 1984: “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. In the Distopia of the Well, the war is not a temporary emergency, but a deliberate source of social control. War uses resources, strengthens power and redirects public anger. Today, in some parts of South Asia, the same mechanisms appear in the game. The ‘enemy’ boogie – which is ready to strike, is demanded with such consistency that it becomes a national loli, making the public a kind of martial fool.
War silences questions that encourage peace. It hides inequality in the flag and wrapped up in patriotic rhetoric. In such a climate, even a dialogue call is presented as weakness or treachery. Under the bombing and fading, the common people of India and Pakistan – the children of Punjab, Lahore and Delhi, the shopkeepers in Karachi and Mumbai, both simple and deep, are trying to do: without fear, want to work, travel, travel and dream.
Voting after the polls, over the decades, the majority of the border sides are craving for peace. They want general relations, open borders, cultural exchanges, economic cooperation and above all. They want cricket, not a dispute. Trade, not Tirds. And yet, a significant number of political leaders from both sides have been caught in a story of a fraud in the trouble of division – where there is a tradition and enmity. They are imprisoned for their statements, not able to eliminate the myths that war explains masculinity, nationality and political justification.
As Bertrand Russell observed surprisingly, “Men’s fear is because they are not afraid of anything else on earth … the idea is destructive and revolutionary, destructive and horrible. The idea is cruel to privilege, established institutions and comfortable habits.” These words are particularly true in societies where harmony is cultivated and where the state ship is often not convinced, but to suppress. Thought, in such contexts, just not hurt – this is dangerous. It raises questions about sacred myths, disrupts the prejudices that are inherited, and questions the stagnation with the sharp edge of the cause.
Peace, according to its nature, creates the potential to flourish. This is not just the silence of the guns, nor the absence of bloodshed – this is a different type of noise: the murmur of the investigation, the dialogue of disagreement, the curriculum of the citizens, which they want to be like society. Peace removes blindfolds, which were sewn together in the politics of nationalism, fear and constant confrontation. It opens the windows and lets the light go in. For those whose power is in the shadow, who rule through fear rather than justice, this light is a mortal threat.
Peace is much more than inactive condition. This is a radical suggestion. It invites the possibility. This possibility is a deeply disturbing force for the authoritarian minds. This means re -concept the priorities, re -bringing resources, and re -evaluating historical statements. This means that citizens will start demanding schools instead of dialogue and rights instead of datube instead of silence.
Russell, with his piercing intellect, once remarked, “The problem with the world is that there are stupid coaches and is full of intelligent doubts.” This Aforism will not be found anywhere in South Asia, where faith has become a weapon and is suspected that it is a crime. In this nuclear weapons theater of ancient wisdom and modern stupidity, loud voices are often the least thought of. They are flareing with irreversible self -pity, unclear patriotism and a controversial authenticity, which drowns the soft voices of restrictions and peace.
Public dialogue, especially at the time of political tension, has been reduced to raw binarys: we, in comparison to them, nationalist vs. treacherous, loyal vs. enemy agent. The noise is lost, the complexity has been eliminated and the date has been re -written to serve the existing fever. In this cocophoni, the peacekeepers and moderates are mocked and backward.
George Bernard Shaw, with the sophistication of the feature, once noted that “patriotism is the last shelter of a bully.” Although this phrase is often mistakenly attributed to Samuel Johnson, the Shaw version resonates especially in South Asia. It is a region of ancient civilizations and the field of modern populism. Here, patriotism is often used as a bulldogen to silence disagreement, not as a goodwill of citizen duty. It becomes a haven for people who fail to provide justice, prosperity or peace, trying to disqualify, criticize and disqualify the currency as a patron of national honor. It is only when peace is claimed – not as a pause between wars, but a political and moral essential – that South Asia can begin to realize the full promise of civilization, not on barbed wire and doubts, but on dialogue, dignity and dignity.
Throughout history, war has been wrongly celebrated as a measure of power and manhood. On the contrary, peace is often mocked as weakness or compromise. However, real power is not in destruction but in patience. The legacy of division – a wound that is still included in the psychology of both countries – should be a reason for the pursuit of reconciliation, not justification for eternal conflict.
Peace and freedom are probably the two most passionate but unrealistic ambitions of human civilization. Despite the memorable developments in science and technology, these basic goals are ambiguous, as both need courage. Do not have the courage to kill him, but the courage to listen, to rule with justice and acknowledge the mistakes.
In South Asia, this courage is very low.
The author is a professor at the Faculty of Liberal Arts at the Beacon House National University in Lahore.
