A ceasefire as early as possible was the best option for both countries and the entire South Asia region
ONE of the most welcome pieces of news from South Asia in recent times has been the ceasefire agreement reached by India and Pakistan on May 10. The leadership of both sides deserves credit for this. From India’s perspective, the response to the Pahalgam attack was effective in achieving its objective. And to avoid further escalation in a fast-escalating situation, it was the most sensible thing to accept the ceasefire offer. This timely decision has potentially saved the lives of a large number of innocent people on both sides. Particularly in the context of people living in border areas or very close to such areas, it can be stated without exaggeration that the early ceasefire was a big relief to them and all their near and dear ones living in distant places.
The ceasefire, undoubtedly, brought a lot of relief to the vast majority of people on both sides of the conflict. At the same time, almost every day, one hears criticism of the same. Some voices, without any evidence whatsoever, claim that we have been deprived of a bigger victory. Someone else says that, like during the times of Indira Gandhi, India should have marched forward for a comprehensive victory, completely forgetting the difference in conditions then and now.
In most war and pre-war conflict conditions, the policy of ceasefire as early as possible is good. However, there can be a few exceptions. In the 1971 war for the freedom of Bangladesh, there was the urgency of stopping a genocide. Nearly a million people were killed by the Pakistani army and their local collaborators (various estimates range generally from three hundred thousand to three million persons killed). In addition, there was mass displacement of people, with nearly 10 million displaced people coming to seek shelter in refugee camps in India (nearly three million were displaced internally). So, that war had become essential to stop the mass distress. This distress would not have stopped just by local opposition, very courageous though it was, as the Pakistan army was very heavily armed and had the support of both the United States and China. The local freedom fighters had no air force or navy against the formidable forces of Pakistan. Hence, India’s intervention was needed for the wider cause of stopping genocide and ethnic cleansing. Besides, India had planned its military operation exceedingly well so that the Pakistani surrender could be secured very quickly, with an unprecedented (in the post-World War II years) number of 93,000 Pakistani soldiers and service personnel taken as war prisoners.
Another big difference was that the sides did not possess nuclear weapons then, so that the Indian army could advance very swiftly without having to reckon with the possibility of either nuclear or tactical nuclear weapons being used.
On the other hand, in the present context, all the factors favoured a ceasefire as early as possible, before a full-blown war could start. It makes no sense to enter the war arena without carefully considering where it will end. Any such consideration leads to the conclusion that a ceasefire as early as possible was the best option for both countries and the entire South Asia region.
One hopes that a better realisation of the real situation would lead to the critics giving up non-rational criticism of the ceasefire. There should be broad-based support for a ceasefire and peace.
At a very early stage of the ceasefire, there were some violations which were a cause of worry for all those who desired peace. At the same time, in the interest of increasing the chances of peace, it was important not to exaggerate the extent of violations. However, in sections of the media and social media, there was a tendency to blow up the extent of violations. It was almost as if some people were happy to say that the ceasefire could not hold or succeed. Fortunately, the violations could be curbed soon, and the ceasefire stayed. This is mentioned here also to appeal that in the future also any violation or similar incident should not be exaggerated or blown out of proportion to create a false scare or incitement.
There have been several voices of peace in India, and one of the noblest among them has been that of the family members of a brave victim of the Pahalgam terror attack, Lt Vinay Narwal, who somehow overcame their great grief to soon organise a blood donation camp to help save the lives of others. Their voices for peace and restraint also led to some of them being trolled on social media. Even some senior officials, who, while briefing about the ongoing events, were known for their grace and restraint, were not spared by those indulging in indiscriminate trolling; even their family members were targeted.
This shows that those who oppose peace and peace initiatives are very active and influential and can be highly aggressive in very indiscriminate ways, not caring at all about the adverse consequences of their actions. Hence, all those who stand for peace have to work much more to strengthen the base of peace.
———-
Bharat Dogra writes extensively on environment, development and welfare issues. The views expressed here are the writer’s own, and Clarion India does not necessarily subscribe to them. He can be reached at: bharatdogra1956@gmail.com
