Deutsch and Senghaas have defined ‘war’ as a large-scale organized violence, prepared and maintained by the compulsion and legitimacy claims of a State and its government, and directed against another State or quasi-State, i.e. a relatively comparable political organization. I believe that all the stages of war (pre-war, war and post-war) involve psychological, economical, geographical, cultural, ethical, environmental, infrastructural, social, educational and human devastation.
There is no one term that can define “War”. It has so many names and forms. Here is a list of ‘war’ terms: Cold war and hot war, local war and world war, limited war and total (or all-out) war, controlled and uncontrolled war, conventional and nuclear war, declared and undeclared war, accidental war and premeditated war aggressive or offensive war and defensive war, general war and proxy war, international war and civil war, tribal and civilized war, preventive or pre-emptive war, absolute war, protracted war, war of liberation, war of conquest, war of plunder, war of commerce, revolutionary war, economic war, political war, social war, imperialist war, psychological war, guerilla war, strategic war, counter-insurgency war, monarchical war, ritual war, agonistic war, dynastic war, sacred war, genocidal war and instrumental war.
Much of the nature of war is established not on the battleground, but in the attitudes and behaviours that sketch a state’s foreign policy. Irrational leaders can create unusual situations and destruction in the international system. There have been times when states, as decided by their Irrational leaders have taken actions that do not adhere to the rational model of foreign policy behaviour and that, in the end, negatively affect the irrational state more than any other. On the other hand, rational leaders proactively advocate diplomatic and non-military resolution of major territorial or ideological disputes through nonviolent means and methods. They always recognize alternatives and their magnitudes and select from these alternatives in an effort to maximize peace in the international system.
Right now, Pakistan and India are on the brink of war. Any irrational decision from either side of leadership can create great amount of destruction not only in Pakistan and India but also in other countries. During this time of turmoil around the South Asian states of Pakistan and India, irrational Prime Minister Narendra Modi and rational Prime Minister Imran Khan, respectively, are tackling with the clouds of war from completely different mindsets. Here is the comparison of the leaderships of both the leaders during turbulence:
Narcissist vs Empathetic: Narcissism is one of the traits in what is called the 'Dark Triad'. Modi is a perfect example of malignant narcissism. His selfishness, arrogance and callousness are reflected in the choices he has made during war-like situation between Pakistan and India.
“Narcissistic leadership is a leadership style in which the leader is only interested in him/herself. Their priority is themselves – at the expense of their people/group members. This leader exhibits the characteristics of a narcissist i.e. arrogance, dominance and hostility. Narcissism is most often described as unhealthy and destructive. It has been described as driven by unyielding arrogance, self-absorption, and a personal egotistic need for power and admiration," Linda L. Neider
Modi already knew that in upcoming elections he would not be able to maintain his political standards; therefore, he selfishly used the card of war. He is putting the lives of his countrymen at stake just to achieve his own hideous political motifs. Whereas, under the clouds of war, Imran Khan is taking every decision while stepping into the shoes of humanity.
“Empathy is the ability to step outside of your own bubble and into the bubbles of other people. Empathy is the ability that allows us to be useful creatures on this planet; without empathy, we are a waste of oxygen in this world. Without empathy, we are lower than animals. Empathy is the ability that allows us the perception of things around us, outside of ourselves; so a person without empathy is a limited human being,” C. JoyBell C.
Imran khan has displayed universal/magnanimous empathy. He can deeply resonate with other people’s feelings. He has the ability to understand the perspectives and feelings of not only Pakistanis but also of Indians and Kashmiris.
Tunnel-visioned vs Open-minded: Under prevailing circumstances, Modi has well demonstrated through his poor decision making that he is a tunnel-visioned leader. He has got selective perception that limits his ability to remain open and to see things clearly. He is not weighing the turbulence from the “world’s point of view”. Aggression is the only choice he has. On the other hand, Imran Khan is evaluating the situation broad-mindedly. He knows if Pakistan and India go for any type of war, there will be no winner and lots of destruction will take place. Unlike Modi, Imran has not just one choice i.e. “aggression”, instead he is considering other options like non-violent resistance and peace talks for the sake of national and international peace and stability.
Unfaithful vs Faithful: Does Modi not know the cost of war? Is he not aware that the war between two nuclear-armed nations can cause devastation not only in Pakistan but also in India? Is he really a faithful leader? I believe, for the sake of selfish motives, keeping ones nation under constant threat and playing with the emotions of countrymen is not loyalty. On the one hand, unfaithful Modi is dragging his nation into the valley of death and on the other hand faithful Khan is leaving no stone unturned to save his nation from any sort of war jeopardies. It is worth appreciating that Khan is holding faithfulness and sincerity as first principles.
Obstinate vs Flexible: Modi is obstinately refusing to change his aggressive behaviour and illogical course of action. He is showing absolute stubbornness on a very delicate issue like war. Whereas, being a flexible leader, Imran Khan is exhibiting strength of character and flexibility in actions during war-like situations. He has the ability to change his plans to match the reality of the situation. He has the capability to work on different options during transitions or periods of chaos. He is trying to sort out the tension between Pakistan and India through peace talks, but if need be, he will not hesitate to use arms and go all out to protect his country.
Warmonger vs Pacifist: A warmonger is someone who instigates war whereas; pacifist is a person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable. War is a very sensitive issue, and accordingly it should be tackled with calm minds. Unfortunately if the leader is Modi, who gets strength from violence and aggression, the world may suffer. If we clearly examine the choices that Modi has made so far during the war-like situations between Pakistan and India, it is evident that he is misusing his power. In contrast, Imran Khan has always promoted peace for the sake of stability in Kashmir and Sub-continent. In order to defuse the escalation between the two countries and secure peace, Imran khan released the captured Indian pilot Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman from Pakistan's custody. But unfortunately, Modi never acknowledged the peaceful gesture from Pakistan and in return sent a dead body of Shakirullah to Pakistan.
In conclusion, war is not the answer. Wars often fail to solve the problems and eventually make them worse. Under prevailing circumstances, mediating role of leadership is very crucial. From Modi’s aggressive and manipulative mind-set problems can never be solved. Before both Pakistan and India suffer from any type of war, peace should be tried and practiced.