In both Myanmar and Pakistan, the prevailing crises appear to have no resolution except through violence, argues Nilanthan Niruthan, Director Centre for Law And Security Studies, Colombo, and one of the region’s foremost security analysts on The Gist.
The long-standing conflicts in these nations have reached a point where diplomatic efforts, peace talks, and ceasefire agreements merely serve as temporary pauses rather than lasting solutions. The situation in Pakistan is particularly dire, with an economy in shambles and a political landscape that fosters instability rather than reform. Without the application of decisive force, Pakistan remains trapped in a cycle of unrest, where insurgencies, militant extremism, and political chaos perpetuate the country’s decline.
Myanmar faces a similar fate. The government is at its weakest, while insurgent factions are at their strongest and most unified. Many strategic experts predict the collapse of the military junta in the near future, not through negotiation but through the overwhelming force of armed resistance. Even if a new coalition takes over, internal power struggles will likely lead to further violence. However, history suggests that only a clear and forceful victory—rather than tentative peace agreements—can establish a semblance of stability in Myanmar.
The reality of modern conflicts shows that peace cannot be imposed upon unwilling participants. It must be forced upon them through definitive action.
Pakistan, much like Myanmar, has allowed extremism to flourish under the illusion that it can be contained, yet the chaos inevitably turns inward. The famous warning about nurturing snakes in one’s backyard—only to be bitten oneself—rings true here. Without a forceful crackdown, neither nation is likely to see enduring peace.
Between the two, Myanmar has a higher chance of achieving a resolution, albeit through violence, as resistance forces continue to erode the junta’s hold. Pakistan, on the other hand, remains mired in perpetual conflict, where violence is not just a possible outcome but an inevitability.
In both cases, history demonstrates that stability often comes not through negotiation, but through the decisive and ruthless assertion of power.
