In the four-day (7–10 May) low-intensity modern war, both sides of the border found a chance to vent their pent-up jingoism. More than soldiers, the media spearheaded the war. All kinds of creativity were let loose from both sides to down the enemy’s aircraft and conquer the adversary’s cities. It was like constructing a new adage: wars are not fought on the battlefield; wars are fought in the media.

The distinguishing feature remained that Pakistan tried its best to preclude the war. Pakistan’s economy was in a shambles, hence acted as a pre-emption. Pakistan’s diplomats approached every possible international forum to dissuade India from opening a war front. Pakistan wanted the conclusion of the inquiry into the Pahalgam massacre, which took place on 22 April in Indian-administered Kashmir, before any breakout of war. India was piqued and impatient. Though India played the victim, its economic prowess buoyed up its haughtiness, until the afternoon of 10 May saw the conclusion of a ceasefire.

Iran’s Cultural Counselor condemns Israeli aggression against Iran

The four-day war kept looking for answers to two questions. First, could India launch missiles to annihilate any suspected terrorist networks existing on Pakistani soil? If the answer is in the affirmative, a new lineage of conflict stands initiated: instant war disregarding the prospects of a nuclear confrontation. Second, what was the definition of civilians? India claimed that its initial missile strikes killed terrorists (besides disrupting their sanctuaries) in certain areas of Pakistan such as Sialkot, Muridke and Bahawalpur, whereas........

© The Nation