There is a full-blown war underway between India and Pakistan following the Pahalgam atrocity – not with guns and missiles – but on social media. All the elements are there – heroes and villains, traitors and patriots, truth, lies and propaganda. Overall, the attempt is to bolster the people’s courage for the ‘coming conflict’ (which for some will be the final one) and demoralise the enemy. There are attempts to understand the other’s point of view to bring sanity back to the narrative, while the opportunity is also being taken to score political points, regardless of what’s at stake. This, of course, is spilling over on to the real world, with FIRs and official objections being filed against social media code violators. And, as always, the governments are playing spoilsport by banning sites and vlogs.
What is interesting is the level of sophistication ordinary citizens on both sides of the border have acquired in the communication field, even if it is in presenting a totally fictional storyline. By venting their sentiments and ideas, they are still communicating with the adversary on a mostly democratic platform in a war of words that spills no blood. If the number of views they attract is noted, it becomes clear that quality prevails over mere rhetoric and hate speech. The question therefore is – should this interaction be suppressed or a more liberal approach adopted? There are very few, for instance, who are justifying in any way the killing of innocents, even if they are questioning the different versions of the event. Even in all the attempts to mislead, the truth is slowly emerging – is not that a preferred objective?
The general mood is that the perpetrators should be punished, but the innocents should not have to pay the price. That would, of course, require the people of Pakistan to reject their deep state that looks on J&K as the object of a continuous jihad – a recent articulation of which was done by their Army Chief, General Asim Munir. It would be so much better if the people can undergo a change of heart through the exchange of views than being forced to do so by force of arms. They should be asked to consider if they wish to follow the path of Asim Munir, or that of a more civilised concept of nationhood. If they are allowed to have their say, they may well prevail over the fundamentalists and psychopaths that continue to call the shots.
