War is Not a Joke
Ayesha
Siddiqa
When
the French statesman Georges Clemenceau, who led his country into the First
World War, said that ‘war was too serious a matter to be left to generals’ he wasn’t
demeaning his commanders. It meant that active conflict is not a light matter
to be trifled with and thus should not be left to people, who due to their
training, have a natural propensity towards conflict. Many decades later, John
F. Kennedy followed a similar principle in not adhering to advise of his
generals in dealing with the Cuban missile crisis.
If wars teach us anything it is that
these must be avoided not cherished. Those, who understand the ugliness of war
and violence, can appreciate the tyranny of war more than those for whom war is
perhaps nothing more than a thrilling videogame.
Thus, it can be appreciated when young
Russian, Ukrainian, German and Armenian musicians got together in Berlin in
late August this year to participate in the 16th Young Euro Classic
Peace Orchestra and played to send a signal of peaceful coexistence and
international understanding to their respective governments and other in
Europe. The 1500 musicians from 44 countries gently challenged cultural biases
of their state and political blocks. This was meaningful in the context of
Europe that looks strained due to the West’s attitude towards Russia.
And who understands war and violence more
than Europe that experienced years of bitter wars over competing political,
religious and power divides. Moreover, people of Europe have lost millions
fighting both protracted hot and cold wars. The crowd in Berlin would certainly
have been amazed to see India and Pakistan recently celebrate a war rather than
peace. War are remembered not because of gains made or loses to the enemy but
to remember all precious lives lost due to egos of their leaders or that they
couldn’t find a reasonable solution. I remember a recent conversation with the
sibling of one of Pakistan’s brave war hero who received the highest military
award for laying down his life in 1971 war. The sister so wanted him to be
alive today and not dead. She wasn’t ashamed of her brother’s sacrifice but weary
of those who use these deaths to market war as worth cherishing. This sister
was certainly troubled by the increased jingoism on both sides of the divide.
Such expression of heroism is farcical
considering that the way 1965 war was fought by both India and Pakistan. The war
at best denotes antics of two 2nd World War veteran militaries that were
terribly unimpressive in fighting decisive conventional battles. Conscious of
its relative technological superiority, Pakistan started Operation Gibraltar with
the intent to provide fillip to a wrongly imagined uprising in the Kashmir
valley. The gains made during the battle of Runn of Kutch earlier that year
gave Pakistan’s generals a sense that they could outmaneuver Indian army in
Kashmir, especially with the help of better American equipment. Not only that
the plan, which was based on poor intelligence did not work, it provoked a war
across the international boundary. So, those of us, who grew up reading about
1965 as a victory were truly amazed to hear the then army chief, Mirza Aslam
Baig admit in 1989/90 that this was not the case. This act of his was
considered as army’s version of ‘perestroika’. The urgent image change military
needed after General Zia demanded truth as a concession to people.
However, India’s performance during the
war was equally unimpressive as it could not manage a decisive victory despite
that it had greater numerical potential to snatch tactical initiative from
Pakistan. The poor inter-services coordination put it in the same league as
Arab militaries that failed to make gains despite crossing the earlier
considered impregnable ceasefire line into Israel in 1973 Yom Kipur war.
But then those were comparatively decent
wars in which casualties were limited. Apparently, the two enemies lost approximately
five thousand people in its three wars. This cannot be said about the present
age of ‘mutually assured destruction’ where annihilation could be at an unimaginably
larger scale. (I have always believed that Japan should lend its Hiroshima and
Nagasaki exhibitions for display for ordinary Indians and Pakistanis). Notwithstanding
love for their respective countries, people must at least know what can happen
in case of a nuclear war. May be when people actually understand the grave risk
of nuclear wars to life and future generations that the idea of using nuclear
weapons if a crisis goes out of control may not appear very cute. No one, who
has lost a loved one, can dispassionately talk about death.
However, observing young serving officers
fight virtual battles and promising to finish the unfinished job of 1965
reminds one of how important it is for a professional military to ensure that
its men are seen only in barracks and not on twitter and facebook. The
leadership may be willing to defend the nation but that requires for it to
harness its men from expressing opinions that could complicate perceptions.
It is equally important for these brave
men to be taught that bravado is not synonymous with lack of appreciation of
life. Majority of militaries globally have not really fought conventional wars
they were initially programmed for which means they have not really had taste
of its lethality. The appreciation of how increased dedliness of weapons makes
conflicts bloodier than imagined. Wars aught to be the very last resort than
the first available option.
The manner in which war is imagined and
verbalized indicates a lack of appreciation of the fact that those brave men
that we remember did not just die for the sake of dying but so that their
future generation could live. The talk of annihilation is anti-life. With a
thousand times increase in velocity of destruction caused by nuclear weapons
its important that while committed to protecting their nations, military men
remain humble about war and death. I will re-iterate that professionalism
requires emotions to be kept in check and not influence decisions of
leadership.
