Here’s a different perspective on how India should deal with Pakistan. There’s an iconic final scene in The Social Network, the movie about the creation of Facebook. In the scene, Mark Zuckerberg is in a conference room with a junior legal intern after a big meeting with lawyers. He’s facing multiple lawsuits—from the Winklevoss twins, who claim he stole their idea, to Eduardo Saverin, his ex-co-founder, who accuses him of deceitfully diluting his stake.
Zuckerberg feels wronged. He believes he did nothing unethical and that Facebook is his invention. But the intern suggests he settle anyway, telling him, “Pay them. In the scheme of things, it’s a speeding ticket.” The movie ends there. In real life, that’s exactly what Zuckerberg did. He paid the Winklevoss twins $65 million in 2008 and settled with Saverin for an undisclosed amount. At the time, these were huge sums. But today, Facebook (now Meta) is worth $1.5 trillion, and Zuckerberg himself is worth over $250 billion.
Zuckerberg could have fought for years on principle. He could have let ego take over. But he didn’t. He focused on building his company—and became one of the wealthiest and most influential people in the world. (WhatsApp, anyone?)
This analogy can help us understand what India truly has at stake. We are on a promising trajectory. In two decades, we could be a middle-income country; in three or four, a fully developed one. But this future is not guaranteed. It will take relentless focus, smart policies, hard work, and national harmony. That, and only that, should be India’s priority—not Pakistan.
Unfortunately, a significant portion of our population remains obsessed with Pakistan. The wounds of Partition, multiple wars, the creation of Bangladesh in 1971, and continued terror attacks have kept the issue alive—and at times, centre stage in public discourse.
The recent terrorist attack in Pahalgam, where innocent tourists were killed, understandably disturbed the nation. The mood, echoed by the government, was one of retaliation. India struck back—targeting terror sites, not civilians or even Pakistani defense infrastructure. This clarified that the objective was to send a message, not provoke war. But Pakistan retaliated with missiles, drones, and airstrikes. India responded in kind. For a moment, it seemed like we were slipping toward full-scale war. Fortunately, with U.S. mediation, a ceasefire was reached. Tense peace followed—but at least peace nonetheless.
What was shocking, though, was how many Indians wanted an all-out war. Television media amplified the frenzy with dramatic sirens, fake news about troops entering Pakistan, and claims that India had destroyed Karachi port—none of which were true. Panelists screamed, hurled abuses, and called for escalation. Social media followed suit, demanding India unleash everything from missiles to INS Vikrant to demolish Karachi. Anyone questioning this approach was branded anti-national, a Pakistan sympathizer, weak, or worse.
Have we lost perspective? Has India really got nothing better to do than war with a failed state? Didn’t this start as a message against terrorism? Why escalate to full-blown war? What would that achieve? Would it end terrorism—or make it worse? Would it save Indian lives—or cost more? And even if we “crush” Pakistan, what if they retaliate with a nuclear weapon in desperation? How many Indians are we willing to lose? A thousand? Ten thousand? A million?
The problem is, hotheaded voices lack logic. They react from the emotional, non-cognitive part of the brain—the chimp brain. They cannot be reasoned with. Thankfully, cooler minds prevail at the highest levels of government. We must reframe our thinking. This is not 1971.
Back then, India had a per capita income of $118, a GDP of $65 billion, and barely grew at 1%—the infamous “Hindu rate of growth.” We were poor. Defeating Pakistan felt like a major national achievement. There was nothing else to be proud of. Also, nuclear weapons weren’t in the picture, so wars were relatively contained.
But this is 2025. India now has a per capita income over $2,500 and a GDP of $3.5 trillion. Our economy is growing at 6–8%, one of the fastest in the world. Apple has announced plans to shift most of its iPhone production from China to India. That decision could bring a wave of global investment—if we remain stable and safe. No one wants to invest billions in a war-torn country.
Imagine the economic fallout if we heed the social media warmongers. Jobs would disappear. Growth would stall. Our youth’s future would be derailed. And above all, the worst loss—thousands of Indian lives.
Even if we “win,” what have we proved? That we beat Pakistan? That’s our benchmark now? A failed state? If you think defeating Pakistan in a war will end terrorism, then why didn’t Pakistan stop after we made them surrender in 1971?
This week-long conflict achieved little beyond one damaging result: we gave Pakistan the spotlight. Their generals and admirals were suddenly featured on global media. Why? Because they were “taking on” India. Just like when a celebrity replies to a troll online—the troll gains relevance.
So what’s the smarter approach? Just like Zuckerberg settled lawsuits or celebrities ignore trolls, India must learn to disengage when it’s not worth it. Address what’s necessary, but don’t let it consume us. We have far more to lose. Pakistan thrives on conflict because they have nothing else. For us, it’s just a dangerous distraction.
Kashmir doesn’t have a simple solution—eight decades of conflict prove that. But there is a workable status quo: respect the Line of Control as it has existed since 1948 and stay out of each other’s way. Sure, PoK won’t come to India. But it hasn’t so far anyway. And if it did, what exactly would we do with it? It’s not worth the cost. Letting it go is like paying a speeding ticket to stay on track.
With global allies and clear long-term strategy, we can reach a stable “live and let live” agreement. Let PoK watch India rise. In 30 years, when we’re a rich, prosperous nation, and they are not, they will know. Then we can offer Indian citizenship to PoK residents—on our terms. Many will want to join. Over time, it will become part of India—peacefully, by choice.
This is a longer, less dramatic route. But it’s the one that will actually work—and enrich India in the process.
Let’s not stoop to Pakistan’s level. India in 2025 has far more important things to do.