Dr. Sumeera Imran /Assist Prof. FCS, NDU

The international community has adopted a bystander approach, cheering from the side lines emphasizing bilateralism, while avoiding conflict resolution in Kashmir. As a rule, regional conflicts’ intensity is measured by their potency to shape great powers’ global security interests, which in turn determine their speed, frequency and rigidity of response to regional conflicts.

Viewed realistically, in an unequal power equation, territorial, ideological and ethnic conflicts serve as prime venues for great powers’ promotion of global security interests. Alternatively, regional conflicts have benefitted small powers in amassing diplomatic, military and economic support internationally. In a nutshell, the form and substance of international response to regional conflicts is shaped by the big and small powers’ convergence of security interests.

In terms of intensity and consequence, the Kashmir dispute equals the Middle Eastern conflict. Hampering economic collaboration, the dispute has resulted in poor Human Development Index (HDI) in South Asia. Serving as the global nuclear flash point, India and Pakistan nuclear credentials have complicated conflict resolution. Radicalization along ideological identities and issues of international and regional power balance have complicated the situation even more. Conventional wars, nuclear crises and India-Pakistan military standoffs, however, require a quick resolution of the conflict. Peace dividends of conflict resolution are of un-parallel significance as are the horrendous consequence of the absence of peace.

Sino-Indian stand-off in Galwan has revived world attention to the dispute in Kashmir. Indian revocation of Article 370 and Article 35-A propped up diverse responses from the international community. China condemned Indian abrogation and the US offered to mediate on Kashmir. Traditionally, the US and China global security interests have guided the Kashmir policy. Sino-US global security objectives have pinned on maintenance of the status-quo on Kashmir. The Sino-US global security objectives have shaped their Kashmir policy. Promising to resolve what he referred to as a ‘tar-pit,’ in the election campaign, President Obama actually avoided the Kashmir conflict after assuming power. Although by a sheer slip of tongue rather than a consciously crafted strategy, US president Donald Trump plunged into that ‘tar-pit,’ by offering to mediate on the cob-web of the Kashmir conflict. Unleashing a pandora box, Trump’s offer allowed Indian opposition parties’ to create uproar, accusing Modi of compromising on Indian national interests. Congress and opposition parties demanded inquiry of the offer for mediation.

A presidential ordinance before long abrogated Article 370 and 35-A and nullified Kashmir’s special status. Presidential ordinance soon became the act of parliament, given BJP’s majority in Indian Lok Sabha. The abrogation of Article 370 made Ladakh part of the Union territory, inviting Chinese fear of creating an autonomous Buddhist region adjacent to Tibet. Trump’soffer of mediation opened up a pandora box of strong opposition in Indian Lok Sabha. Resolute criticism unleashed on Modi for compromising on Indian national security objectives and territorial integrity. Reflecting the urgency and complications involved in conflict resolution, the propensity of nuclear confrontation in South Asia remains high in Kashmir. Joe Biden administration has declared no change in its historic Kashmir policy, while China has resented Indian unilateral change in the region’s status.

Great powers’ involvement in regional conflicts has been fluid, fluctuating with the change in their national security interests. Broad contours of national security objectives have shaped Sino-US Kashmir policy in the past. Great powers’ involvement has inflicted more injury than cure, exacerbating regional tensions. Great powers’ alignment along opposite poles has increased India-Pakistan bilateral hostilities on Kashmir. Sino-US insistence on Indo-Pakistan bilateral approach for conflict resolution rather than the UN framework has created the impasse on Kashmir.

US interplay of global power politics has granted a new life to the chessboard of South Asian politics. The region holds multidimensional significance for the US and China international, regional, economic, political, and geostrategic interests. Within this context, Sino-Indian border skirmishes in the Himalayan border, involving Beijing’s alleged occupation of territory in Galwan has revived international focus on the conflict in Kashmir. How has the international community viewed the conflict? What isthe latest transformation in the conflict? What are the prospects for its resolution?

The problem of Kashmir is acute: it has involved a complexity of its own. It’s a multidimensional conflict involving repercussions for regional and global peace. Kashmir happens to be a contested Asian region between threenuclear powers of India, China and Pakistan. The dispute has linked to the larger question of war and peace, dominating security concerns of South Asia for more than 70 years. The problem has fuelled weapons and nuclear proliferation in and around South Asia, holding repercussions for global and regional peace.

India- Pakistan wars and several crises have added to the complexity of the conflict. Regional contestants’resolve with respect to their claims and resilient positions make resolution a formidable task in case of the Kashmir conflict.

To understand the international perspective, we need to understand a few ground realities, in the backdrop of which the international community has viewed the conflict.

First, relates to the fact that it’s a ‘dispute left over from history’ and hence

1. represents the incomplete agenda of partition.On Pakistan’s side, its inclusion in Pakistan will symbolise the completion of the Two Nation Theory. Muslims outside Pakistan’s boundary may reflect an incomplete materialisation of the idea of Pakistan. On India’s part, inclusion of Kashmir reflects the success story of India’s secular identity. Kashmir, therefore, has become a part of the two state’s respective national identities.
2. Kashmir plays a pivotal role in India and Pakistan’s political identities—an integral part of the two states’ domestic politics. Political parties have tended to make electoral gains on the Kashmir dispute’s living legacy.
3. Kashmir has acquired an immense military dimension.The dispute has reflected on India-Pakistan’s military might and strengthen ofthe two states’ armies. 
4. Three states have held rivals claims on Kashmir’s geographical boundary. Two of them have controversial relations against the third. China holds substantial territory (in Ladakh) claimed by India. India holds claims on regions historically subordinated to the rulers of Kashmir, controlled by Pakistan. 
5. Finally, the contemporary dimension involves the stirrings of a national self-determination movement since 1989.The young generations have tend to ASPIRE LIBERATION encashing on direct linkage of Central Asia as a self-sustaining tourist destination.

Current Scenario:

India annulled Article 370 and 35Aon August 5, 2019, which granted the state a special statussince 1949, authorized by India’s Constituent Assembly. The Articleformalized the state’s terms of accession to the Indian Union, requiring state assembly’s prior approval for administrative changes. A Presidential Orderempoweredthe state government to regulate the rights of permanent residence, prohibiting non-residents from owning properties in Jammu & Kashmir.

The BJP had long aspired to repeal Article 370 on the pretext of promoting national integration and greater control. Making repulsion part of its electoral plank, the BJP vowed to bring in economic development and greater administrative control.

Imposition of direct presidential rulehad paved the way for constitutional changes inAugust 2019. Failure ofBJP-People’s Democratic Party coalition resulted in imposition of direct federal rule in 2018. Differences had developed on the use of force in addressingsecurity situation in Kashmir. Following the rift, direct presidential rule was imposed dismissingstate assembly rule.Indian government exploited absence of the state assembly to annul Article 370. ‘Special status’ had long been hollowed out; the state of J&K suffered from inferior status amounting to constitutional abuse. For long, the state assembly in actual practice had become pliant to New Delhi’s influence.What’s the transformation now?

India has bifurcated the state into two ‘Union Territories:’a) Jammu and Kashmir Union Territory (UT) that will have its legislative assembly b) Union Territory of Ladakhthat will have no state assembly and will be controlled directly from New Delhi.

Indian move has limited the administrative powers of both the Union Territories.The federal government has repealed 150 laws made by the former state assembly that included prohibitions on leasing land to non-residents. The government restricts state assembly to make new laws on policing or public order, ceding all security affairs to central control.Governors,controlling all administrative districts will report directly to India’s Home Ministry.Provisions of Indian Penal Code have become applicable including numerous new federal laws.

India has altered the status quo of a disputed territoryrecognized so under the UN.Indian move has sparked controversy internationally. How has the international community responded to Indian actions? 

UN STANCE:

The United Nations (UN) Secretary General, Antonio Gottereus stated that Kashmir will be addressed in line with the UN Charter and UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions. Lately, he offered services to meditate on Kashmir and urged India to resolve the matter as per UNSC resolutions.

China’s Policy Stance:

China’s Stance on Kashmir has been interpreted at various levels.

At one level: China has adopted a formal declared position on Kashmir, interpreting the dispute as ‘an unfinished agenda left over from history.’

At another level: China has also demonstrated ‘security support’ during periods of Pakistan’s confrontation with India on Kashmir. Beijing has provided steady and substantial support for development of Pakistan’s military-industrial capabilities.

China has emphasized adoption of the bilateral approach for dispute resolution on Kashmir. China’s latent interests, however, have aspired substantive dispute resolution along the present LoC.The dispute has served Chinadiplomatic leverage vis a vis Washington and New Delhi.

China and Russia both emphasized to settle the dispute in accordance with the UN Charter and Security Council resolutions on Kashmir. Russia has referred to the UN resolutions on Kashmir for the first time. France termed it India’s internal affair. Macron’s political support for India garbbed defence deals and military purchases. EU, UK, and Japan adopted lukewarm approach on Kashmir.

US Policy Stance:

America’s Kashmir policy has, however, marked no change in the aftermath of Indian abrogation of Article 370. The State Department declares no change in America’s Kashmir policy as it considers both Jammu and Kashmir a territory disputed between India and Pakistan.The US urged Indian government to restore normalcy, comply with legal procedures and show respect for individual rights, and hold direct talks to resolve the dispute.

The Biden administration remains cognizant of Pakistan’s sensitivities on Kashmir. For the first time,US officials have discussed the Kashmir problem in speeches and informal addresses. In a way, the US offer to mediate on Kashmirhastened abrogation of Article 370. Trump offer to mediate led to Indian opposition’s uproar in the parliament. Many Indian observers began to question the wisdom of Modi’s confidence in the US as a partner, which led to Modi’s hasty decision to abrogate Article 370.Modi – Trump meeting along the side-lines of G7 summit quelled the US offer, when Trump declared Kashmir to be settled bilaterally. However, Trump administration’s mild criticism further emboldenedhuman rights violations in Kashmir.

US sporadic attempts to intercede in Kashmir involve a short-lived mediation effort by the US and Britain included six rounds of talks in 1961 and 1962. India indicated that it would not relinquish control of the Kashmir Valley. US President Bill Clinton’s diplomatic engagementaverted a potential nuclear exchange in 1999. After 2001, Kashmir began to be linked with Afghanistan that conflict’s resolution will improve the US prospects of success in Afghanistan. US presidentsbecame avert to interlink peace in Afghanistan withthe US policy on Kashmir.

Biden administration’s South and Central Asia policy indicatesno change of policy stance on Kashmir. The new policy shows shift from Pakistan and Afghanistan focusing on China, with greater reliance on New Delhi. The US has sought India to help counter China’s growing influence in South and Central Asia. With respect to India-China dispute, the State Department has assured New Delhi that it closely monitors India-China border situation, andthat it tabs Beijing’s ‘attempts to intimidate its neighbours.

However, in a regional parityPakistan remains an ‘essential partner’ for any peace process in Afghanistan.’ Yet the US difference in approach towards South Asian rivals is evident. Biden telephoned Modi on assuming office; Antony Blinken, the new US Secretary of State called his counterpart Shah Mehmood Qureshi reiterating US desire to strengthen ties with Pakistan. Biden administration has expressed the desire to rebuild relations and start a more productive partnership. As highlighted by the new US Defence Secretary Gen. Lloyd J. Austin, the US interests have pinned on three issues:

US-Pakistan cooperation in the Afghan peace process,

Pakistan’s support for regional stability,

US-Pakistan potential to expand trade and commercial ties.

The US interest prevails on maintenance of stability in India-Pakistan relations –an interest Washington holds in common with China in the region. ’US-India strategic partnership has bipartisan approval and support from the Congress.The US has assured India of support for ‘friends and allies’ in the region. Indo-US bilateral trade, Indian market potential and Indian diaspora in the US are significant stimuli to bolster India-US relations. Global terrorism, defence of democracy counter global terrorism drive are the US priority considerations in forging alliance partnership with India.

Although it can be argued that human rights will receive a lesser priority in the Biden administration.robust and largely uncritical support for India may be eroding. Democratic lawmakers, in particular, have been angered by India’s domestic policies.Indian Parliament’s passage of Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) has added a religious dimension to the state’s naturalization process, triggering widespread violent public protests.House Democrats have started to questionIndia’s commitment to shared human rights values, bearing ominous signs of India increasingly becoming a partisan issue in the US foreign policy consensus.

What are Pakistan’s expectations from the US on Kashmir?

• Biden administration must urge India to stopsystematic human rights violations in Kashmir.
• itpressurize India to help resolve the dispute in a peaceful manner in accordance with UNSC resolutions.

India has demurred from mediation on Kashmir for three reasons:

(1) It holds suspicions about the motives of western powers and the international organizations under their influence;

(2) India believes that its image as a regional leader isin no need of assistance;

(3) India fears that mediation will empower the weaker and revisionist party to benefit.

4) India overruled prospects for third-party mediation on the pretext of bilateralism of the Shimla Agreement. In the agreement India and Pakistan “resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed.”The 1999 Lahore Declaration had reaffirmed the bilateral nature of the issue. Since 1972, India has generally shunned third-party involvement on Kashmir, while Pakistan has continued efforts to internationalize the dispute.

For years, Kashmir has not really been on the international agenda, as long as it appeared to be confined to the distant Himalayas, and not prone to drift into an open war between Pakistan and India. For India, the less the international community was talking about Kashmir, the better. Pakistan tried repeatedly to internationalize the issue.

India won this war for several reasons: the Kashmiri independence movement never found a charismatic leader. Second, India’s thesis about self-determination was found acceptable by many states. Most have remained unwilling to evaluate the merits of a plebiscite in Kashmir. –more eager to accept India’s view that self-determination was legitimate against colonial rule and not a proper recourse against independent nation states of multicultural origin. China was directly concerned because of Tibet and Xinjiang: Russia because of Checnya etc. Other powers favored the status quo in order to avoid the possibility that the pandora box of self determination will open an era of trouble far away from Kashmir. For all of them East Timor was an exception rather than a rule.

Nuclearisation drew the attention of the international community to the dispute on Kashmir. It brought the intense history of Indo-Pak relations and the low intensity war on Kashmir under a different light. How would the nuclear thresholds will be defined at the operational level has turned Kashmir into a nuclear flash point—the world’s most dangerous zone.

9/1, added to the complexity of the Kashmir problem. New Delhi has urged no double standards on terrorism can be accepted. Jihadhisare to be eliminated both in Afghanistan and Kashmir. Indian diplomacy has drawn international attention to terrorism in Kashmir without wanting the international community to pay attention to the cause itself. Islamabad has resorted that Indiafalsify labelling a genuine freedom struggle as terrorism in Kashmir.

Thus, the international response has under the new circumstances become much more fraught with risk than before: the old paradigm appears to prevail. The international community at large and the US in particular are not concerned with the Kashmir issue per se, or the fate of the Kashmiris. They are concerned with the risk of war—conventional or nuclear. With India, China and Pakistan eye ball to eyeball, any move towards dialogue would be encouraged without promoting any specific solution. For the international community, Kashmir appears as a trouble spot in a sensitive location which has to be quietened down if not fully resolved.

By Muhammad Omar Iftikhar

The pandemic has brought to fore the truth behind the façade. In 2020, the US and many European countries faced an uphill task to accommodate Covid-19 patients in hospitals. Medical facilities and equipment became scarce as the number of infected patients increased. The US healthcare system deteriorated. It compelled the world to wonder if a superpower can experience such a catastrophe, how the developing or the least-developed countries will cope with the pandemic. India’s healthcare is also on the verge of collapse.

Videos being shared on social media show heart-wrenching footages as patients are collapsing on the sidewalks as the hospitals are working at full capacity. Twitter is abuzz with the news that Indians need oxygen cylinders and hospital beds while both have become the most needed item at the moment. The authorities in Pakistan need to think proactively and arrange for medical equipment beforehand. However, it is the citizen’s responsibility to give utmost priority to protect themselves from the infection. Unfortunately, seldom do people wear masks.

 They have also reduced the use of hand sanitizers. Social distancing is also not being followed as people are attending Sehri and Iftari events at restaurants in Ramazan. As Eid approaches, people will make their way to the market that will accentuate the spreading of the disease. April 23-24 marked the day when 157 people lost their lives in a single day since the pandemic began. This news must instill fear among the people. Precaution is the most important act we need to follow.

 Each one of us must wear a mask, sanitize hands frequently, reduce going out, refrain from physical contact, and protect ourselves through all means necessary. God forbid, if a situation akin to that prevailing in India transpires in Pakistan, our healthcare system will also be on the verge of collapse. In such a situation, chaos will erupt that will make matters worse. Every citizen must guard themselves against the infection.

Vladimir Norov

April 24 marks the International Day of Multilateralism and Diplomacy for Peace, established by a special resolution of the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly in December 2018.

The establishment of this day is intended to highlight the fundamental importance of the purposes and principles enshrined in the UN Charter to advance the collective building of lasting and sustainable peace and the achievement of common goals. Recent trends in global political, social and economic processes clearly demonstrate the demand for multilateral diplomacy in the search for responses to key challenges of our time.

Obviously, the most recent such challenge, and probably the most serious one, is the coronavirus pandemic, which triggered not only a full-scale epidemiological crisis, but also an economic recession, the rise of protectionist and isolationist sentiments and a crisis of global governance in general.

In a number of countries, leading multilateral institutions have been called into question by certain political forces, as in the case of WHO. Moreover, there has been no serious progress in reforming the existing international financial institutions as well as in developing comprehensive approaches to tackle a wide range of non-traditional challenges and threats, including terrorism, drug trafficking, organized crime, cybercrime, illegal migration, climate change, etc.

Even the emergence of a new epidemic has not led to a rallying of the world’s leading powers and the pooling of their capacities in the interests of the speedy development of a vaccine and appropriate assistance to developing countries, but to the false politicization of the pandemic crisis and the dangerous phenomenon of “vaccine nationalism”.

In parallel, long-standing problems related to security issues in its traditional dimension became more acute: the loosening of the foundations of global strategic stability, the threat of a new arms race, and the risks of militarization of space.

The emergence of new and persistent challenges to international security and the stability and sustainable development of the planet requires a qualitative rethinking and resetting of the concept of ‘multilateralism’.

Despite the creation of the UN as a universal international organization responsible for the maintenance of peace and security and the development of economic and humanitarian interaction, the experience of the bipolar confrontation during the Cold War contributed to a very distorted perception of the very idea of multilateral cooperation mainly in the context of the formation of supranational structures based on rigid bloc discipline.

Unfortunately, this stereotype has persisted in the current era and has a large number of influential political supporters. With such a logic, the activity of any multilateral organisation, especially at the regional level, is viewed and analysed exclusively through the prism of its evolution into a deeply integrated politico-military or economic alliance.

Meanwhile, in today’s world there is a clearly visible trend of redistribution and alignment of the global balance of power through the establishment of new centres of economic development, especially in Asia.

Simultaneously, interconnectedness and interdependence among all participants of international relations are deepening.

Accordingly, there is a growing natural need to find common ground and achieve consensus on the whole range of issues on the global agenda. However, effective implementation of these tasks is only possible within the framework of flexible and open diplomatic communication, which excludes the development of principled solutions in a narrow elite circle and the imposition of any obligations on countries at the expense of their legitimate desire to develop a multi-vector policy.

One of the clearest examples of the structuring of this type of open interaction in the early twenty-first century was the creation of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

The SCO has initially positioned itself as a new type of organization that constructively and meaningfully complements the multidimensional efforts of the United Nations at the regional level.

With a careful analysis of the SCO Charter one can easily notice the document’s full consonance with the UN Charter.

Its participating states confirmed their readiness to jointly ensure regional security, cooperate in prevention and peaceful resolution of international conflicts, promote comprehensive and balanced socio-economic development, and encourage mutually beneficial humanitarian cooperation based on principles of equality, peaceful settlement of disputes, mutual consideration of interests, respect for sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs of states.

The SCO’s nature of non-targeting against other states and international organizations is clearly declared.

This approach was subsequently reflected in the SCO Development Strategy to 2025 (adopted in 2015), which sets out a course for its development as a multidisciplinary regional organization that does not envisage the formation of a political-military union or an economic integration association with supranational governing institutions.

The democratic nature of the Organization’s internal architecture makes it an attractive platform for interaction between states representing different civilizational and cultural areas of Eurasia and possessing diverse military, political, economic and demographic potential.

The accession of India and Pakistan has finally turned the SCO into one of the most influential institutions of trans-regional partnership.

The organization is steadily moving towards becoming the leading multilateral platform in the vast Eurasian landmass for the integrated discussion of issues related to the joint promotion of regional security and stability and the implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. This prospect will become particularly prominent if we add the 10 SCO observer states and dialogue partners to the eight Member States of SCOsharing similar approaches on most issues.

On 15 June 2021, our Organization will celebrate its 20th anniversary. In view of this landmark event, I would like to briefly share some outlines of SCO’s further development in the context of promoting and strengthening the principle of multilateralism.

The Moscow Declaration of the SCO Council of Heads of State (approved on 10 November 2020) reaffirmed our shared commitment to strengthen the Organization’s role as a pillar of the emerging more representative and just world order, based on the rule of international law, equal partnership of states, respect for civilizational diversity and the independent choice of peoples’ political, social and economic development.

In the coming years, the world will continue to undergo dynamic changes due to the strengthening of the regional level of the global governance, the rise of developing countries and the growing interdependence of States as a result of globalization and technological progress.

The comprehensive and interpenetrating nature of global challenges and threats requires observance by all participants in international relations of the universal principles of equal and indivisible security which are equally applicable to the Euro-Atlantic, Eurasian and Asia-Pacific regions.

In that connection, we will continue to establish and strengthen the network of horizontal partnerships with other major regional groupings.

We attach priority importance to enhancing interaction with the CSTO, CIS, CICA and ASEAN in the interests of complementing and synchronizing our efforts, taking into account the main areas of activity of these organizations.

In addition, the SCO Secretariat has been very active in developing contacts with the OSCE and the League of Arab States, contributing to a mutually beneficial and substantive discussion of security and sustainable development problems throughout the Eurasian continent.

International interest in the activities of the SCO Regional Anti-Terrorism Structure, which has established partnerships with such leading specialist bodies as the United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism, the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol), the Eurasian Group on Combating Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism, the African Centre for the Study and Research on Terrorism and others, is growing every year.

The SCO Development Strategy 2025 outlines the growing link between security and prosperity. The updated Action Plan provides for a list of activities aimed at deepening trade, economic and investment cooperation within the SCO, as well as increasing the humanitarian profile of the Organization, including in education, science, health and environmental protection.

In doing so, the member states intend to pay increased attention to the juxtaposition of joint integration initiatives focused on joint development and the achievement of common benefits. An example is the ongoing coordination of the Eurasian Economic Union with China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

This format of interaction provides for the most flexible forms of involvement of individual countries in its work through their participation in joint trade, financial, infrastructure, humanitarian and cultural projects.

According to influential Western analysts, by 2030 China, India and Russia, as the powerhouses of the SCO, will account for up to 60 percent of global GDP, which certainly inspires deep optimism about the prospects for building effective economic mechanisms in our region.

It is gratifying that the multifaceted efforts of the SCO member states have been duly recognized at the highest international level. Thus, last November during the interactive meeting with the heads of regional organizations the UN Secretary General AntónioGuterres positively assessed the SCO’s approaches to combating the COVID-19 pandemic, peaceful settlement of regional conflicts, including those in Afghanistan, as well as strengthening of an open, inclusive and non-discriminatory multilateral trading system.

I am confident that the continued and unwavering adherence to the principles of the “Shanghai spirit” based on mutual trust and benefit, mutual consultation and movement towards joint development will further enhance the image of the SCO as one of the effective regional pillars of modern multilateral diplomacy.

The writer is the Secretary General of the SCO.

Wajeeha Bilal

Unlike physical wounds, the countless effects of war on the soul are unaddressed. There is a new form of battle, so there is a new kind of abrasion as well. A threat can be in the neighbour one minute or be in the kitchen speaking to a child, the next. War and home is becoming more intertwined and more complicated; both closer together and further apart. The unseen damage of the unknown, brings a common sacrifice of human happiness for it is clear by now that the fear of the virus surpasses the emotional dependence on our traditions. Everyone faces the challenges of the pandemic at equal rates. The global battle of the corona virus that first emerged in the city of Wuhan is, without question, something very much like war. Various world leaders have stated that we are at war with an invisible enemy that is not invincible.

The WHO has stressed regarding Covid-19, that the pandemic could aggravate in the Africa and the Middle East during Ramadan. The daily news of rising cases and severe restrictions limit the freedom with which the fasts and prayers were usually practiced. Muslims in Pakistan and around the world happen to be experiencing a second Ramadan along with the effects of a pandemic that haunt the observers with daily efflux. This year another Ramadan started in majority of the Muslim countries with a mutual fraternity of Muslims, who get together with their family and friends mostly to break their fast and enjoy the emotional connections of their rituals. But apprehensions and worries about the virus that have resulted in severe lock downs imply that Muslims will not be able to share their fraternal traditions in the usual ways.

The gap in the family unit, the loss of a loved one; they say it gets better with time as everything heals. The war would be over but not for the living who had experienced death of their happiness in one form or another. World War I and II changed the political alignment and social structure of the globe. A new world was bound to evolve yet even after two great wars the world suffered at the hands of the empowered. United Nations was established for international co-operation and prevent future conflicts, but the influence of great powers waned, triggering rivalry between Superpowers. After the confrontations have closed, after the speeches have been given, the smoke dies down, and the danger moves from the outside to inside; the war continues to ring in the souls and thoughts of those who experienced it. They relive it many times yet dying inside every time the thoughts recur.

There is a dark thump in the soul, an emotional, spiritual blaze that not only burns away all naivety, but also modifies one’s identity. There was a time when fasting and Ramadan left an endeared feeling with much more social gatherings and celebrations, but people are now once again dreading the consequences of the viral war.

Meeting for iftar and helping in social events for feeding the needy was a feeling of utter joy and the social reason to observe a long fast, yet the prevalence of this global war is making it more difficult to find peace in solitude or social services. Modern war is not simply more deadly, it is also more confusing and spirit-thumping. The enemy could be anywhere or could be anyone at any time. A public hall or a parking lot can become a war zone simply because of an unanticipated encounter. The daily movements tend to threaten the souls and make peace at home brittle.

The end of Ramadan is usually characterized with a festive observance of Eid-ul-Fitr. It is celebrated by Muslims all over the world by collective morning prayers and commencing feasts and meetings with their friends and family. With the virus maturing through its third wave, religious celebrations are globally put under check and control. In the current war it can be impossible to distinguish the victims from the ordinary when the fear of the unknown keeps resurfacing to haunt the hopes of the survivors.

This daily war with the uncertainty of living in fear is bound to change our perspective about personal and social happiness. It comes with realizing and appreciating the Blessings that were once taken for granted. No doubt Ramadan, a month that has been blessed for the Muslims in numerous ways, brings together the Ummah once again in times of crisis. Though the feeling of isolation and social distancing is depressing and lonesome, yet none of us is truly alone. Across the globe we are joined in a fraternity from dawn till dusk, praying for the virus to end in some way and hoping for a world where we never have to experience such deadly wounds ever again. Desperate times require dire losses but that does not mean the sacrifice of our souls. The path to healing the human wound lies in our collective hopes and prayers where we take precautions despite our wishes to meet and celebrate. The month that teaches patience and self-control is a true testament of the full emotional and spiritual development through these invisible wounds. This life and every battle that we fight is a journey of guidance. It is a journey to overcoming disillusionment and restoring our sense of purpose and connection. Lives will transform if we take a deep look at the universal reality that we choose to ignore otherwise. Even though the global pandemic has pushed us apart in distance, in many ways it has brought us closer together in understanding the power of our brotherhood and unity.

(The writer has authored “The Conscious Ego” and “The Beautiful Present”. She also runs “a purposeful life” blog)