June 19, 2025
By Rehan Piracha
LAHORE
In the midst of disinformation and jingoistic nationalism dominating public discourse on both sides of the Pakistan-India border, the Pakistan‑India Peoples’ Forum for Peace and Democracy (PIPFPD) hosted a crucial webinar titled ‘Counting the Cost of Pakistan‑India ‘War’. The session held on June 18 aimed to reclaim space for peace and critically examine the humanitarian, economic, political, military, and environmental fallout of escalated hostilities in the region.
Moderated by human rights activist and scholar Rita Manchanda, the webinar featured a diverse panel of academics, journalists, peace activists, and political commentators from both countries. Manchanda remarked that the dialogue came ‘at a difficult time, not just because of Pakistan-India tensions, but because war has become the new normal globally’. “There is no ceasefire, only a pause, ”she added,
Re-centering the narrative: people, not states
The discussion moved beyond traditional strategic analyses to underscore the lives and voices sidelined in the din of state-led militarism — from the residents of Jammu & Kashmir to ethnic minorities across Pakistan, and from civil society actors to those labelled as traitors for questioning war narratives. The speakers repeatedly emphasized that the conflict is no longer just at the borders; it is internal, systemic, and increasingly turning civic spaces into battlegrounds.
People want peace, not war: Taimur Rehman
Speaking from Pakistan, academic and musician Taimur Rehman pointed to public dismay over the recent Pehelgam attack in Kashmir. “Pakistanis expressed sorrow over the incident and agree that terrorists must be punished,” he said. However, he questioned India’s military retaliation without publicly presenting evidence of Pakistani military involvement.
“Both nations are nuclear powers. Any armed escalation risks catastrophic consequences,” he warned. He noted that despite widespread cuts in Pakistan’s national budget, ‘defence spending has gone up and no debate on this is allowed in legacy media.’
Rehman highlighted the reassertion of military power in Pakistan’s civic life.
“Big cities are flooded with pro-military banners. The military, once facing criticism over Imran Khan’s incarceration, now enjoys soaring popularity — some say up to 90%.”
He cautioned that such conflicts empower the military establishment, curb dissent, and marginalise ethnic voices: “Sindhi and Baloch nationalists are on the backfoot. Pashtun and Baloch activists are being labeled pro-India online.”
Media has become the battlefield: Radha Kumar
Indian peacebuilder and columnist Radha Kumar, who has been involved with PIPFPD for three decades, lamented the rise in war-mongering across Indian media. “The kind of jingoism we’re seeing is unprecedented,” she said, recalling how Indian media aired live footage of the 2008 Mumbai attacks, compromising security.
On the current tensions, she said: “There was widespread demand for military action, but the Modi government waited two weeks — maybe for planning.” She added that diplomatic fallout, such as snapping talks and threatening the Indus Waters Treaty, “should never be weaponised.”
Kumar noted a possible silver lining: “Pakistan’s willingness for India-Pakistan dialogue on the Indus Treaty offers a glimmer of hope.” But she cautioned about growing military ties between the US and Pakistan, referencing Pakistan Army Chief Asim Munir’s lunch with US President Donald Trump: “India may have less control over such engagements.”
We’re playing nuclear Russian roulette: Pervez Hoodbhoy
Renowned Pakistani physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy offered a grim warning over India-Pakistan conflict. “Pakistan is playing Russian roulette with its nuclear posture. In any full-scale conflict, fatalities in our dense cities could be far greater than Hiroshima.”
Hoodbhoy criticised the erosion of civil liberties in Pakistan and the ease with which dissenters are branded foreign agents. “Those fighting for civil liberties in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa or Balochistan are labeled Indian proxies. This is a total disaster for civil society,” he said.
We are in World War III: Atul Gurtu
Indian nuclear physicist Atul Gurtu contextualized the crisis within a broader global framework. “We are already in World War Three — just look at Ukraine, Gaza, Iran, and Israel,” he said. Gurtu posed pointed questions for both governments: “What exactly defines a terror attack? How many attackers? What’s the threshold for a military response?”
He urged civil society to press for clarity: “India labels Pakistan’s water diplomacy as blackmail. Pakistan says India is using nuclear threats. We need to understand each side’s red lines to prevent future escalation.”
Nukes were a reaction to conventional imbalance: Abdul Hameed Nayyar
Physicist and peace activist Abdul Hameed Nayyar noted that Pakistan’s nuclear posture has always been defensive. “We built nukes fearing India’s superior conventional capability. Unlike India’s ‘no first use’ policy, Pakistan reserves the right to strike if its existence is threatened.”
“Under the nuclear umbrella, both sides feel emboldened to indulge in ‘mischief’. It’s a dangerous strategy,” he added.
Pakistan needs independent media: Marvi Sirmed
Pakistani journalist and rights activist Marvi Sirmed expressed shock at the contrasting narratives across the border. “In India, there is near consensus that the Pehelgam attack was orchestrated by Pakistan. In Pakistan, there is barely any discussion.”
She recalled how Pakistan acknowledged and even took action after the 2008 attacks — “Hafiz Saeed was jailed under global pressure. Now, even that level of accountability is missing.” She warned that radical groups, often normalised as philanthropic actors, are creeping back under the guise of charity.
“Pakistanis can’t imagine that a Pakistani infiltrator could launch an attack inside Kashmir. That mindset must change,” she said. Sirmed called for “Track-2.5 diplomacy,” exchange of journalists, and creation of “a new normal of dialogue.”
Indian Muslims undergo test of patriotism in conflict with Pakistan: Ziya‑us Salam
Indian journalist and author Ziya-us Salam criticized Indian media’s handling of the conflict. “No major outlet reported the loss of Indian fighters to appear ‘nationalist’. Tweets were deleted.
Indian Muslims are forced to prove their patriotism,” he shared, recounting personal harassment.
He said peace voices are branded as anti-national. “Even army spokespersons from minority backgrounds are trolled.”
Kashmiri Voices: “We are caught in between”
Rao Farman Ali, a writer from Indian Jammu & Kashmir, said the belief that revoking special status in 2019 ended militancy is flawed. “Militancy has only changed form — jungle warfare, underground cells,” he said.
Tanveer Ahmed, an activist from Pakistani-administered Kashmir, added: “Both countries deny us basic rights. Kashmir’s geography and legality remain locked in colonial legacies.”
Anuradha Bhasin, a senior journalist from Indian-administered Kashmir, said Kashmiris face an “internal war, repression, and economic strangulation”. “Kashmir has been sliced into pieces. How much Balkanization will take place before we wake up?”
‘Speaking from the margins’
Indian lawyer and activist Shahrukh Alam said dissent is increasingly criminalised. “I was jailed for a post. “Those who aren’t jingoistic are being sidelined. Challenging the state on ‘national security’ grounds is near impossible,” she disclosed.
It is now very easy to dismiss people like me by invoking national security,” she said. “The political space is shrinking.”
‘Peace is our only path forward’
Pakistani journalist and peace advocate Beena Sarwar emphasized the need to bring the region’s people together. “Kashmir should not be treated as real estate. SAPAN’s peace charter, endorsed by over 700 entities, calls for regional cooperation in trade, culture, and climate.”
Academic Saba Gul Khattak echoed that sentiment about how people in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh should be allowed to critique their governments and lessen hostility towards one another.“We must talk about the long-term effects of generational hate. We need forums that allow self-critique in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.”
The webinar underscored the urgency of reclaiming peace discourse from state actors, jingoistic media, and militant nationalism. The participants did not agree on all points, but the consensus was clear: the human cost of war — be it lives lost, liberties curtailed, or societies radicalized — is too great to bear. Civil society, activists, and ordinary people must now lead the way in building dialogue and resisting hate. As Beena Sarwar aptly concluded, “Peace is not idealism. It is imperative for our survival.”
Link to complete webinar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?