hankfully, Pakistan and India have agreed to a ceasefire, preventing the situation from becoming bloodier. Warfare, animosity and grievances have existed between the neighbours since their inception. The animosity between the two is not straightforward, as is typical among arch rivals. Instead, it is simultaneously challenging and enigmatic. The similarities between them, though, far outweigh the differences. However, when there is a conflict, the desire to act aggressively and defeat each other can reach an alarming level of jingoism.

To keep things simple, we might describe jingoism as an aggressive level of nationalism and patriotism that prefers war over diplomacy, dialogue or other peaceful measures of resolving the dispute. In the particular instance of Pakistan and India, religious beliefs exacerbate the intricacy, conflict and severity of these emotions. Interestingly, both countries have a similar colonial history. They were both colonies of the same coloniser that left behind the vestiges of colonial history. Both exhibit hyper sensitive nationalism, skin deep and fake patriotism and superficial religiosity. These social qualities, I insist, are controlled by their respective power circles. Furthermore, majoritarianism has reached new heights.

Here, I argue that people often focus on only half of the definition of majoritarianism: that the majority of the given society desires and asserts supreme power in decision making. The majority of a religious, linguistic, political or socioeconomic class wishes to impose their preferences on society. However, that is not the complete picture. Majoritarianism is at its fullest and worst when a majority perceives a minority as a threat to its values and existence. The majority then feels so insecure around the minorities that they fear that their presence in the society might cause social and practical challenges and bring bad luck in general. Such a majority performs violence and aggressiveness as an act of its presumed sacred responsibility. Religious violence in India, as well as sectarian schism in Pakistan, qualify as psychosocial symptoms of majoritarianism. However, without a doubt, hesitation or reluctance, India can be declared the frontrunner in this regard. The most significant evidence of Indian ‘superiority’ is that the flag bearers of such a doctrine are in power, having won popular elections; this has never been the case in Pakistan. The Indian society has been pervasively indoctrinated with such an ideology that from the mainstream media to leading intellectuals, everyone has been beating the war drums.

One feature or symptom of majoritarianism deserves special attention. It is a never-ending search for an adversary or adversaries. Such societies tend to spot enemies even when they do not exist or are non-functional. The severe paranoia is more internal than external, imaginary rather than real. In his book The Psychology of Jingoism (1901), Hobson described such a trend as the neurotic yearning for conflict. It is not difficult to see that if a majority perceives a threat, they will be bound to be in a constant state of hypervigilance. The majority of such a society is continuously under imagined but looming intimidation; their security is constantly under attack; and they are prone to reacting unexpectedly even in non-threatening situations. This enemy-seeking majority not only hunts for foes, but also constantly produces them.

The Indian society has been pervasively indoctrinated with such an ideology that from the mainstream media to leading intellectuals, everyone has been beating the war drums.

The desire for conflict serves several emotional needs at once. First, the people believe that they are not ignoring a threat to their survival. Second, it addresses their personal concerns, anxiety and restlessness. Third, conflicts serve as a means to realise their fantasy of defeating and eliminating a threat to their ideas, values and material gains. Such dreams are tactically and tacitly transformed into collective dreams. The entire group, or the majority, aims at it. One can plainly see how this dream success or desire affects and encourages the majority to shape their ideology and identity. When a chance or opportunity arises to make this dream come true, it piques the interest of the masses and excites them. Neither occasional setbacks nor successes alleviate or calm the paranoia.

However, the million-dollar question is whether such social development tainted by the aforementioned features, occurs naturally or is actively designed and manufactured. Returning to the colonial legacies inherited by Pakistani and Indian societies, enemy-searching and enemy-carving phenomena are linked to and driven by power corridors.

The power elite in India effectively carried out more radical social changes from within than in Pakistan. These indigenous changes pushed India away from non-violence to a violence-first approach. They made a giant like Gandhi insignificant in their political arena. Ironically, the popular vote, rather than any type of dictatorship, was responsible for this development. That is why social manifestation of majoritarianism is more visible in India than in Pakistan. The media and intellectuals are more vulnerable to such paranoid thinking in India than across the border. In this way, the pathological socio-political trends are more widespread than confined to the power elite.

I don’t want to end on a dysphoric note regarding the truce, but I do want to emphasise the need to look at the larger context. People fight the war. Hence, neither a war strategy nor the possibility of peace can be evaluated without taking their mental states into account. If we do so, the unrest sadly seems to perpetuate; and the truce looks flimsy.

The writer, a principal clinical psychologist, lives and works in Ireland. He can be reached at akhtaralisyed@gmail.com