The politics of villages are no different from the international politics. In Pashtun society, whenever there is a clash between two families or groups, then people pour their sympathies. However, still they would confide their fellow Pashtun brothers that both the parties involved are responsible for the bloodshed. They wanted it, otherwise it would not happen.
(Da ye pa zan akhpala wokrhal, de ba hamesha topak ta thrapedal. os da topak garzawi)
It doesn’t mean that the parties wanted themselves to be killed or wounded, but the posture they have adopted for their rivals are actually inviting for the conflict. The same is true for international actors. The Hegelian school of thought might consider it in their favor. Owing to their stance of the inevitability of war. However, I don’t agree with it.
The recent saga of possible Indo-Pak war on the national media of both states are leading to the inevitability of war. The vitriol against one another in the UNGA is worth mentioning. The hawkish elements on both sides of the border are busy in the glorification of war. However, war is not something to be pursued, but to be avoided. According to a report, 280000 Syrian civilians have lost their lives and almost 185 billion dollar loss have been incurred. If the reconstruction process is started today then it would take 20 years to reach up to the pre-war level i.e 2011. This is an eye opener for the hawks that war is not a fancy thing that we always desire for.
The security establishment of both Pakistan and India should avoid conflating the situation through media frenzy. Because there is a famous saying in Pashto, Kala Tokey no Matokey jorhey she. The two world wars are the clear manifestation of the miscalculation of the persons at the helm of affairs.
Conflicts are inevitable and it emerges among people and nations. However, war is not the mean to diffuse a conflict. Hegel was, I think, talking about the inevitability of conflict rather than war. Because war is an extreme measure which is being employed by the actors to solve their conflict. However, there is absolutely no doubt that war is not a solution.
So what should be the way forward to diffuse the recent Indo-Pak conflict. The answer is simple yet difficult. First of all media should act responsibly and the issue should not be made a populist. Otherwise, the videos which are being circulated in social media will take a new turn.
Second, the security establishment of Pakistan should renounce its policy of ‘strategic assets’ for their own good. Today world sees Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism. The recent motion in US senate is a vivid example.
Third, India should refrain from directly accusing Pakistan on national media. They should take their case to the concerned forums, which is the approach of the civilized nations. The issue of Kashmir is an issue of international concern and it should be dealt as such.
Fourth, the Pakistani so called intelligentsia should come out of their surreal nation building approach. To mention one, Orya Maqbool Jan, who has in his speech termed the posture (enmity) of Pakistan towards India as cogent. In his view, it is in the best interest of Pakistan because nations are built on the presence of ‘common enemy’ and India is filling that void space for Pakistan.
Fifth, Owing to the geographical location India and Pakistan is ‘neighbours’ and they should live as such. Because neither India can conquer Pakistan nor Pakistan can have their flag on Delhi fort. The only thing both can do is MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Therefore, they should cooperate in the uplift of the lives of their vulnerable populace, instead of plunging them into more misery.
By Noman Wazir
The writer is a socio-political analyst from FATA. He can be reached at
THE PASHTUN TIMES