India has actually attacked Pakistan. And its justification is past patterns. I thought we would read about such madness in fiction books but little did I know that we lived in a world, which looked madder because of the existence and growth of the RSS-driven Hindutva terrorist ideology. And India's highest office is occupied by one such terrorist.
More disturbingly, he happens to be in that office because the majority of the Indian society voted for him. That alone should speak volumes about Indian society. India is still sticking to its rationale that perhaps, just maybe, it was Pakistan-based militant groups that had launched the attack in Pahalgam. India has gone to war with its nuclear-armed neighbour based on a maybe.
What is Pakistan's case? Pakistan may have already retaliated at the time of this writing. And Pakistan should continue to retaliate. Many would say that I am a warmonger. I will lay it out in simple words. If India understood the language of reason, then it would already have.
Despite my extreme hatred of the incumbent Pakistani government, I will say this very clearly that the rhetoric from them had been quite reasonable. They asked to share proof of Pakistan's involvement. They even offered to work together with India to find those responsible. India's reply was an armed attack. That right there is textbook aggression. How do you not go to war with such a mad player?
Aggression is the most supreme war crime because it involves everything that follows. So, whatever innocent lives that even Pakistan's retaliatory attacks might take, are on India. That is not me the Pakistani saying but rather clearly enshrined in the Nuremberg principles. Speaking of which, while India attacked unprovoked, Pakistan's attacks were very much provoked.
Pakistan has the right to defend itself and this right was given to any state that comes under attack by the UN charter. More specifically, article 51, which clearly states, "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations " Ironically, article 51 is only accepted when it is used in a lie.
If we lived in a world where international bodies such as the United Nations or its judicial organ, the International Court of Justice, or the Rome Statute based International Criminal Court could punish states for violating international laws, then India would be in hot waters right after a peaceful resolution of this ongoing war. But we know that we live in a world where brute force determines the civility and superiority of a nation state, which may not be much different than the tribes that lived in caves and forests.
Pakistan's attacks against India in this war are only keeping in line with the international laws. It is the most legal war a nation can fight. We have seen the United States and other nations wage war against defenceless nations, which had the same right to defend themselves but they did not have the capacity to strike back against the United States.
Pakistan and India are a whole other game. None of them are defenceless and both are capable of turning each other into complete ashes. Strong nations have used moral justifications, which were total lies, to invade foreign lands.
For Pakistan, it is a wonderful opportunity to not only take revenge from this Hindutva society but also to take back Kashmir using self-defence rationale. It is the perfect opportunity. Pakistan should go for the kill and take Kashmir because it is now a war. This would be the first instance in a long long time, I guess, when self-defence would be used honestly and justly.
Both Pakistan and India have heard about and read about the MAD reality of war, which stands for mutually assured destruction. Neither party is going to escalate things to that level. If we have heard of Beer and Quiche, it is time to order some beer.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ