Pacifism and Pakistan

A version of this article appeared on the Huffington Post. 

At the smallest signs of conflict–for instance, the claimed* cross border strikes by the Indian Army on terrorist camps in PoK–hoards of pacifists crawl out of the vast Left-Liberal brocade, to wax eloquent and moralise about non-violence and peace. Luckily for the world, they normally concern themselves with situations where their moral cowardice makes little or no difference: situations in which both sides are equally bad, or equally at fault. In those cases, pacifism, useless as it is, does nothing to impede the case of what is right and good.
But when there is no moral equivalency between two sides that are involved in a conflict the pacifists begin to turn dangerous for the good side; which in this case is India. (If you doubt this ground reality, you are already too deep in the Left-Liberal rabbit hole for this article to be of any use, and you should probably stop reading).
If patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, then pacifism is only a notch below, a soft bubble on top of an ivory tower, for cowards and clueless ignoramuses.
George Orwell had this to say about pacifists: “The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point.” And this: “Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other,…”
And this: “Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other.”
Pakistan is not yet a Fascist country: it is a nearly failed country, that could turn into a Fascist country, if it completely fails. Fascism, in this case, has a new face, and that is the face of Islamism. Make no mistake, the only thing that can keep Pakistan from falling head and nuke first into the eager, murderous arms of these Islamists, is military force; no amount of non-violent dharnas, peaceful protests or sentimental newspaper campaigns will keep these fanatics at bay. If Pakistan cannot provide this military force and propel it against the metastasised part of the cancer (the dormant part of which is growing from within and can be removed only in the long term and only with free thinking) then India must do so itself.
So when the pacifists begin to jump up and down howling “War what is good, for absolutely nothing,” they are not doing the free world any favours. What is war good for? Let me tell you: War is good for freedom, for equality and for a future in which my kids can learn science in school and not be fed violent fairy tales in which women are barely human. In other words, war, in this case, is good for the fight against Islamism, and the sharia law that they wish to impose on India, Pakistan and the rest of the world. This applied to Al-Qaeda, to the Taliban, and it applies now to ISIS, and the Islamists who go camping in Pakistan.
Sometimes the only way to win is to fight, and against an enemy as ruthless, as evil, and as inhuman as Islamism, the fight is going to get bloody. If you can’t handle that, I suggest a hasty retreat to your safe zones.

*- One needs to provide a disclaimer when dealing with sensitive matters such as these surgical strikes: I am in no way suggesting that we take the government’s and armies words at face value - they certainly need to provide evidence for their actions. In other words, when I say India is the good side, I am not implying that India is faultless: only that in the fight against Islamism, it certainly is the good side. I am also in no way advocating a war between India and Pakistan; on the contrary, what I am suggesting is India and Pakistan working together to declare war –full scale war– against the Islamists who threaten civilization.


Bangalore's Cauvery Crisis Is A Creation Of Dubious Identity Politics