“Borders are scratched across the hearts of men, by strangers with a calm, judicial pen, and when the borders bleed, we watch with dread, the lines of ink become lines of red.”
— Marya Mannes
Introduction: The Paradox of Proximity
It is a curious feature of global history that nations with shared roots, overlapping cultures, and entwined histories often make for the most bitter adversaries. This paradox is not confined to any one region. Across the world, geopolitical animosity has often thrived between neighbors who, in many ways, resemble one another.
Take, for example, the long-standing tensions between Greece and Turkey—two nations with deep historical and cultural overlaps stemming from the Byzantine and Ottoman eras, yet repeatedly clashing over Cyprus, maritime borders, and national identity. Or consider Russia and Ukraine, whose linguistic, religious, and familial ties have not prevented one of the most devastating modern wars in Europe. Similarly, China and Japan, despite centuries of cultural exchange and geographical closeness, remain locked in historical grievances and territorial disputes, their rivalry intensified by memories of war and colonization.
Even peaceful nations such as Australia and New Zealand, though allies, carry an undercurrent of strategic and economic rivalry that surfaces in sport, trade, and regional leadership ambitions. These examples illustrate a deeper truth: similarity can breed not harmony, but hostility.
Why does this happen?
The Psychology of Hostile Twins
To understand why such conflicts emerge, one must move beyond geography and politics into the realm of psychology. Sigmund Freud’s concept of the narcissism of minor differences helps explain the phenomenon. Freud posited that individuals and groups who are alike in most ways tend to exaggerate minor differences to assert distinct identities. When translated to the realm of nations, this manifests in hyper-nationalism, identity crises, and a compulsion to define the self in opposition to a familiar “other.”
In international relations, this is further reinforced by the psychological mechanism of mirror imaging, where two rival states project their fears and intentions onto one another. If one state assumes the other is aggressive, it responds with defensiveness, which the other side then interprets as hostility—thus reinforcing a cycle of suspicion and animosity.
No rivalry in modern history embodies this paradox more vividly than that of India and Pakistan—two nations carved from the same cultural and geographical heritage, yet perpetually entangled in conflict.
Historical Context: Partition and the Post-War World
The 1947 Partition of British India was not merely a political event—it was a psychological rupture. The Radcliffe Line, drawn in hurried secrecy by colonial authorities, arbitrarily split provinces, river systems, and communities. It created two nations, but failed to provide either with a clean emotional break. What followed was the largest mass migration in human history, accompanied by unprecedented violence, rape, and displacement.
The division occurred in the aftermath of World War II, at a time when imperial powers were rapidly redrawing borders across Asia, Africa, and Europe. In most cases, including that of India and Pakistan, the decolonization process was abrupt and inadequately planned, leaving behind unresolved ethnic and territorial tensions. Kashmir, in particular, became the most volatile legacy of this rushed separation.
This historical trauma laid the foundation for enduring mistrust, which has since hardened into nationalist dogma on both sides.
Conflicts and Casualties: A Cycle of Confrontation
Since 1947, India and Pakistan have fought three full-scale wars—in 1947–48, 1965, and 1971—and a limited but deadly conflict in Kargil (1999). In between, the Kashmir issue has remained a persistent source of skirmishes, cross-border terrorism, and military escalation.
The 1971 war, which resulted in the creation of Bangladesh, was particularly painful for Pakistan, leaving a deep scar in its national psyche. The Kargil War, fought after both nations had become declared nuclear powers, underscored the terrifying stakes of their rivalry.
Each conflict has added layers of grievance and militarization. These are not merely political disputes; they are deeply embedded in the narratives taught in classrooms, broadcast in media, and institutionalized in military doctrines.
Aqua-Fire: The Coming Battle for Water
Beyond ideology and territory, another potent cause of conflict is emerging: water. Both India and Pakistan are heavily reliant on the Indus River System, which originates in the Himalayas and feeds vast agricultural economies on both sides of the border.
The Indus Waters Treaty (1960), brokered by the World Bank, has generally held firm despite wars and hostilities. It allocated the eastern rivers to India and the western rivers to Pakistan. However, as climate change, population growth, and infrastructure development strain water supplies, the treaty has come under stress.
Pakistan views India’s dam projects in Jammu & Kashmir with suspicion, fearing strategic manipulation of water flows. The specter of “hydro-hegemony” haunts diplomatic relations. In return, Indian officials have occasionally suggested revisiting or even revoking the treaty as a pressure tactic.
This transformation of water from a shared necessity to a strategic asset has led analysts to warn of “aqua-fire”—a form of conflict where water becomes both a battlefield and a weapon.
The Price of Paranoia: Guns Over Growth
The cost of this enduring conflict is astronomical. India allocates over $80 billion annually to defense—ranking third globally. Pakistan, though economically smaller, spends a disproportionately large share of its GDP on military preparedness, often exceeding 3.5%.
This obsession with security comes at a steep price: neglect of education, healthcare, and human development. Millions of children in both nations remain out of school. Malnutrition, poverty, and inequality persist. Defense establishments, by absorbing critical resources, have become institutional beneficiaries of conflict itself.
Is Reconciliation Possible? A Realist Hope
Despite the gloom, there is a glimmer of hope. Generations born after Partition are increasingly questioning inherited animosities. Cross-border cultural exchanges—through cinema, literature, and digital media—continue despite political restrictions. However, in the new world of digital division and hardened narratives, social media is becoming a double-edged sword. While it offers a platform for dialogue, it is increasingly weaponized, spreading misinformation and fueling hysteria. Nationalistic echo chambers amplify fear and hostility, often undermining the very cultural bonds that could foster peace.
Trade, people-to-people contact, and shared environmental concerns offer potential points of convergence. Indian writer Arundhati Roy writes, “There’s really no such thing as the ‘voiceless.’ There are only the deliberately silenced, or the preferably unheard.” Perhaps the silent majority on both sides—ordinary people yearning for peace—must become impossible to ignore.
The future of South Asia does not depend solely on summits and treaties. It depends on a transformation in thinking—on viewing history not as a justification for hate, but as a warning against it.
Conclusion: History as a Mirror, Not a Weapon
The Indo-Pak conflict is not merely a territorial or ideological dispute—it is a psychological hysteria, fed by the traumas of the past and fears of the future. It is a rivalry in which each side sees its own reflection distorted through the lens of suspicion.
But the cycle is not unbreakable.
In a world where global cooperation is key to survival—against pandemics, climate change, and economic instability—India and Pakistan cannot afford to remain prisoners of the past. Peace is not just an ideal; it is a strategic necessity.
As the poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz once wrote:
“Let us raise our hands in prayer, that this dream too becomes reality.”
Ertaan Siddiqui
“The writer is a regular columnist on social issues and can be reached at seer42.blog or via email at furian240@gmail.com.”