An uneasy calm prevails in India and Pakistan over the last few days. The announcement of ceasefire has brought much respite across the borders. US president Donald Trump has claimed to have prevailed over the entire exercise and made both India an Pakistan to calm down.However, a large section of the people, especially the Generation Z in India – and likely in Pakistan as well are not too happy with the announcement of the ceasefire. Most of them were too excited with the cross border strikes that began on May 7.Generation Z includes those born after 2000. Many in this age group were discussing the possibility of a full-fledged war lasting weeks or even months, with many expressing eagerness to see Pakistan being “taught a lesson.” One remarked that they’ve observed how wars play out in video and computer games and tried to extrapolate those scenarios to real life.Comprising about 40% of India’s population, Generation Z are digital natives—early adopters of technology and significant drivers of economic growth and consumer trends. Their engagement with geopolitical issues through the lens of entertainment or simplified narratives reveals a deeper concern about how militarism is being normalized.Consensus in politics and silence from a majority of the progressivesWhile one might dismiss the excitement of Generation Z as naive or uninformed, it becomes more concerning when similar war-mongering sentiments were echoed by political parties and sections of the intelligentsia. In India, there seems to be a near-unanimous consensus among political parties in support of what was termed “targeted strikes” on separatist camps in Pakistan.There was little to no dissent, even from parties that typically analyse conflict through a class or systemic lens. Except for the Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) and a few civil society groups, the call for de-escalation was notably absent.One such civil society group circulated an online petition urging India and Pakistan to “behave responsibly.” The petition rightly warned that a war between two nuclear-armed nations would be catastrophic, especially for ordinary citizens – women, children, minorities, the elderly, and vulnerable communities who are often forced to prove their patriotism in times of conflict.Echoes from across the borderIn Pakistan, too, there was a similar political consensus, with only a few exceptions among progressive groups such as the Haqooq-e-Khalq Party and the Mazdoor Kisan Party, who were actively advocating for de-escalation. The dominant discourse, however, mirrors India’s – demanding retaliation and proportional response. It is evident that the political elite in both countries were/are fanning nationalistic fervour rather than seeking peaceful alternatives.So, when will this cycle end?There are, of course, varied perspectives rooted in people’s lived realities. Still some continue to advocate for permanent decimation of the enemy, others argue for a “tough lesson” to prevent future provocations. A few raise critical questions about the systemic nature of war – linking it to governance, political economy, and power structures.But the deeper moral question remains: Is there such a thing as a just war? Is one kind of bombing better than another? Can killing ever be righteous? Religious and cultural traditions offer conflicting views. Hindu mythological texts, for instance, often depict war against evil as virtuous. In Catholic catechism, the doctrine of “just war” includes a rule of proportionality: the damage caused must not be greater than the evil addressed.The ethics and futility of warHistorically wars have exposed the hollowness of such questions. Not to miss the point that in World War I, around 10 million military personnel, and 13 million civilian deaths were estimated, whereas the figures went to 15 million military personnel, and around 40 million civilian deaths in World War II. The military and civilian deaths increased from World War I to II, and there were proportionally more civilian deaths owing to better technological advancements.There are innumerable films made during the World War period that depicted the lives lost. The Hollywood movie, Hell’s Angels, depicts Monte Rutledge and Roy Rutledge – English brothers visiting their classmate Karl in Germany and then coming back to Oxford, England.But soon after war was declared and Karl was summoned to serve the German army and he says he can’t kill anyone. Later in the movie, Karl appears as a bombardier on a German zeppelin and crosses the English Channel, while Monte and Roy serve in the British Royal Airforce. Karl does not drop the bombs on human settlements rather drops in the sea, which later gets discovered and he is killed.Likewise, Monte and Roy also disobey their superiors and challenge the morality of war. Later they too are captured and killed by the German forces. The movie points out at the futility of the war. That doesn’t seem to be a possibility now as a new culture came to dawn after the World War 2 and the Hollywood film Bombardier aptly describes it. It’s a story of pre-war indoctrination of the pilots as new moral dimensions of war were drawn out.What Needs to Be DoneI recall a history teacher once telling me that India and Pakistan may not end this prolonged tension until we exhaust ourselves and finally say, “Let’s finish this once and for all” – through dialogue, not war. He pointed to Europe’s past: bitter and prolonged conflicts like those between the Dutch and Scandinavians or between France and Germany, which lasted for centuries.Yet today, Europeans move freely across borders without needing a visa, their countries bound by economic cooperation and shared institutions. The transformation was not spontaneous – it was the result of consistent dialogue, mutual understanding, and a commitment to peacebuilding.For South Asia to achieve anything similar, both India and Pakistan must first acknowledge that no real victory can come from war. Political leaders must resist using ultra nationalism as tools for short-term popularity. Civil society must be emboldened to speak out, to educate the youth, and to build narratives rooted in cooperation rather than confrontation.Efforts must also be made at the grassroots. School curriculums, public media, and digital platforms must be reoriented to highlight peace movements, common cultural legacies, and people-to-people exchanges. Governments should prioritise cross-border economic collaboration, environmental cooperation, and cultural diplomacy. Peace is not merely the absence of war – it is a process that must be cultivated intentionally.Ultimately, the question is not whether we can afford to dialogue, but whether we can afford not to. In a region where nuclear capabilities exist on both sides, even a minor miscalculation could spiral into an irreversible disaster. The path forward must be shaped not by excitement over war games, but by the wisdom of peace.Tikender Singh Panwar was once directly elected deputy mayor of Shimla. He was linked with the Leh Vision document and has written vision documents for a dozen cities. Author of two books, he is an urban specialist working in the design of inclusive cities.