War and peace -Auther –                               Dr Niaz Murtaza

As I pen this reflection, the Indo-Pak conflict, which flared up with the threat of all-out war, now simmers on the diplomatic stage. Neither side landed a decisive blow, leaving both to claim moral victories. India, despite its military strength, couldn’t deliver the humiliating defeat it had anticipated, especially after the Pahalgam incident. On the other hand, Pakistan, against heavy odds, managed to stand its ground, thanks largely to the professionalism of its air force. Both nations, licking their wounds and puffing up symbolic wins—the downing of Rafales for us, and India’s strike on Nur Khan base—are now puffing up their chests in a different kind of war: one waged in diplomatic halls rather than over smoky skies. But let’s not kid ourselves. The battlefield may have changed, but the chest-thumping hasn’t. Both sides are still caught up in a zero-sum mindset, hoping peace will offer what war couldn’t—a clear win.

The harsh truth, though, is that peace cannot thrive on misplaced patriotism or euphoric unity born of crisis. We’re fooling ourselves if we think a flash of unity during war will magically patch up deep-seated issues back home. The state continues to muzzle internal dissent even as it signs ceasefires with external enemies. With global attention subtly shifting, we must tread carefully. Relying on figures like Trump, who’ve shown blatant favoritism toward global bullies, might leave us high and dry. While the world may lean toward India on terrorism, we might find sympathy on water disputes—but only if we play our diplomatic cards right. Real peace will only come when both nations drop the winner-takes-all approach and embrace dialogue rooted in mutual respect and real compromise, rather than empty bravado. Otherwise, we risk repeating this endless loop of fire and frost.

Overview:

The article explores the transition of the recent Indo-Pak confrontation from military hostility to diplomatic maneuvering. He dissects both sides’ performances and delusions, exposing the limits of military posturing and stressing the need for sincere, equitable diplomacy. The piece questions whether short-lived national unity and reliance on flawed foreign figures can bring sustainable peace and highlights the urgency of institutional reforms and democratic strength.

NOTES:

This article highlights the post-war mindset of the state, critiques blind nationalism, and encourages introspection over structural reform. It addresses global diplomacy, water security, terrorism, budget planning, civil-military relations, and democratic Challenges. The analysis of foreign policy and leadership miscalculations helps develop a critical eye, essential for argumentative essays and policy-oriented questions.

Relevance to CSS syllabus or subjects:

• Current Affairs (CSS Compulsory Subject)
  • The article looks into the recent Indo-Pak conflict and the shift from military engagement to diplomatic strategy. It evaluates regional stability, military deterrence, bilateral tensions, and global diplomatic intervention which all are key aspects of the current affairs paper.
• Pakistan Affairs (CSS Compulsory Subject)
  • This piece critiques Pakistan’s internal dynamics post-conflict, such as misplaced patriotism, budgetary priorities, and civil-military relations. It also emphasizes how war efforts have weakened the state’s peacetime governance capacity.
• International Relations (Optional Subject)
  • The discussion on global diplomatic pressures, third-party mediation (e.g., Trump’s mediation offer), and the international community’s role in Indo-Pak peace negotiations aligns directly with IR themes like diplomacy, conflict resolution, and balance of power.
• Political Science (Optional Subject)
  • The article touches on themes of state sovereignty, democratic decline, elite capture, and the paradox of external unity versus internal authoritarianism—critical topics in political theory and governance.
• Essay Paper (CSS Compulsory Subject)
  • The article offers an argumentative, critical, and analytical perspective on war, peace, and state-building. It provides a model for writing nuanced essays on civil-military balance, regional geopolitics, and democratic values.

Notes for Beginners:

The article explains that although there was no clear winner in the recent conflict between India and Pakistan, both countries are now trying to win diplomatically. India couldn’t defeat Pakistan as planned, and Pakistan successfully defended itself with limited resources. Now, the focus is on peace talks, but both sides still think like enemies, hoping to dominate through diplomacy. The writer warns that we cannot use war success to solve internal problems like crime, weak democracy, or poor budget planning. He also advises against trusting unreliable foreign leaders and insists that real peace will only come when both countries negotiate with mutual respect and fairness.

Facts and Figures:

• Pahalgam terrorist attack triggered India’s aggressive posture
• Indian strike on Nur Khan base highlighted symbolic gains
• Pakistan claimed symbolic victory through downing Indian Rafales
• 5 billion people in South Asia stand to benefit from peace
• The article refers to Donald Trump’s past comments on Gaza and Ukraine to question his neutrality

To sum up, This article powerfully reminds us that peace is not a trophy to be snatched but a process to be earned. It dismantles the myth that military resilience automatically translates into national progress. Instead, it calls for sober diplomacy, inclusive politics, and democratic integrity. It provides a sharp lens to assess regional conflicts and global realignments, making it not only timely but essential reading.