An opinion piece titled “Stepping back from the brink: time for reason and rapprochement between India and Pakistan,” published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) on May 28, 2025 https:/ /www.bmj. com/content/389/bmj.r1102), inspired me to express my views. The opinion was expressed by 11 renowned clinicians from Pakistan and India; some of whom are my friends.

I not only join my voice with their appeal for reason and rapprochement, but also salute them for expressing their opinion jointly and clearly. Many of us who are engaged with scientific research and teaching in India feel concerned about the deterioration of relationships with our neighbours that impedes collaboration and progress of science. Having expressed this concern, I emphasize that I am much more perturbed by the escalation of terrorist activities in our region. The dastardly and heinous act carried out by terrorists in Pahalgam on April 22 must be condemned by all in no uncertain terms. Whatever steps need to be taken to prevent such acts in the future must be taken.

Advertisement

But let us not give up on negotiation and let not diplomats throw up their hands in frustration. Let us not assume that armed conflict is the only solution. The bottom line is that we must not give in to terrorism. Conditions must be created so that terrorism is eliminated. However, terrorists have the last laugh when they are able to precipitate a war by their actions. As the authors of the BMJ article have opined in the context of the recent war between India and Pakistan “Several weeks after the ceasefire, partisan views continued to overshadow any suggestions of peace and confidence building.”

This is where we are losing out. Many may think that it is easy for some to talk about peace in place of war because we have not lost any member of our families in the Pahalgam terrorist attack. However, I am sure that even the families of victims of the Pahalgam massacre will hate to see a rep eat of the episode. War provides no guarantee ag a inst a re peat. There is no winner in a war. If pe ace can be obtained by reasoning and negotiation, then that is the desirable path. We should all join our voices for a negotiated settlement of the crisis. Easier said than done, many will say.

True! However, as an international group of scientists stated in the Seville Statement on Violence, “Just as ‘wars begin in the minds of men’, peace also begins in our minds. The same species who invented war is capable of inventing peace. The responsibility lies with each of us.” Each of us should try to execute the responsibility. Wars deplete public ex chequer in a major way. The recent armed conflict between In dia and Pakistan must have cost billions of rupees to each country. Both are lower-middle-income countries. If only these billions of rupees were available for developmental purposes, for example to improve public health as the authors of the BMJ article have opined, both countries would stand to gain. Armed conflicts cause enormous loss of lives. Also, a huge number of survivors have to live with various injuries, disabilities and illnesses for many years into the future even after the conflict ceases. Death and sustained agony are major outcomes of a war.

There are long term adverse economic impacts. Mental well-being of citizens is compromised hugely. Rehabilitation and reonstruction normally take decades, after the conflict ends. And these pressures and timeframes are even worse now, as we are recovering from the aftermath of the pandemic. We as scientists must speak up against terrorism and all activities that escalate armed conflicts, and help prevent such conflicts. We do different kinds of work ~ understanding disease, finding treatments, inventing technologies, etc. ~ but we are driven by a single goal to advance humanity, to make the world a better place to live for the future generations.

There is no winner in a war; everyone loses. Therefore, we must all speak up for prevention. We place everyone at risk if we choose to remain aloof. “I see neither bravery nor sacrifice in destroying life or property for offence or defense,” Mahatma Gandhi had stated. Verbal negotiations are always preferable to negotiations with arms. Nelson Mandela said “Negotiation and discussion are the greatest weapons we have for promoting peace and development.” Scientists are usually not burdened by political ideologies. In a neutral manner, we must exchange ideas and collaborate with the entire scientific community, irrespective of our geographical locations. We can promote conditions in which everyone can live in peace and harmony, conditions in which both science and society can flourish. In these trying times, we as scientists have a role to play.

As a member of the scientific community, I appeal to all nations to abandon armed conflicts and use negotiation and diplomatic channels to resolve disputes. I appeal to the United Nations to play a proactive role in bringing nations in conflict ~ Pakistan and India, Ukraine and Russia, Palestine and Israel ~ to the negotiating table and to ensure that future generations can live in peace and harmony. Simultaneously with my appeal, I pay my personal homage to the 26 innocent persons who lost their lives to the terrorists in Pahalgam. Let us all create conditions to ensure that we will never have to witness such a massacre

(The writer is National Science Chair, Government of India)