"O brave new world, / That has such people in't!"
One of Shakespeare's most debated heroines, Miranda, exclaimed in The Tempest. "Such people" then and now are the kind of people who launch just wars. Aldous Huxley, who borrowed the title of his most famous work, Brave New World, from Shakespeare, explained in his first novel how these are instigated.
"The surest way to work up a crusade in favour of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behaviour 'righteous indignation' - this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats."
There's No Safe Distance Anymore
The first half of 2025 has seen an unchallenged rise of such crusades. With the dogs of war reaching its soil and skies, India no longer has the privilege of pontificating about peace from a relatively safe distance. Unlike the two world wars of the previous century, which primarily involved Europe and the US, the third one appears to be earmarked for the Global South. And it's already in motion. Twice in the past two months did the world come close to a nuclear conflict.
More than 60 armed conflicts are currently raging across the globe. Scan the map, and it becomes painfully clear: countries in Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and parts of Asia are heavily - and disproportionately - represented. This isn't just a cartographic coincidence. It's a product of a global security architecture that never truly served these regions in the first place.
Violence Is The Top Global Risk Now
It's no longer controversial to say that the world is entering a new era of instability. But what remains under-discussed - perhaps deliberately so - is that the Global South bears the brunt of this unravelling order. The 2025 Global Risks Report from the World Economic Forum tells us what those on the ground already know: "perceptions have darkened when it comes to conflict", with state-based armed violence now ranked as the most pressing global risk. Not long ago, such a threat wasn't even in the top two-year outlook. Now it defines the present. Violence, according to the report, is expected to remain "very high relative to the recent historical norm", with an annual rise of up to 20%.
The figures speak for themselves. However, statistics alone cannot convey the profound social, economic, and psychological costs of a world in perpetual crisis. For more than three months, India's focus has been fixed on how to contain Pakistan's unconventional covert operations and its full-blown conventional aggression. A significant bump in Pakistan's defence budget will compel India to follow suit. With an annual spend of $75 billion, India is already one of the world's leading military spenders. The Global Firepower Index ranks it in fourth place after the US, China, and Russia.
Seeing War For What It Is
For decades, conventional security doctrines have hinged on procurement: weapons systems, alliances, and defence budgets. But for much of the Global South, these are symptoms of the problem, not its cure. It may not be 'sexy' in an era dominated by drone strikes, cyberwarfare and diplomatic brinkmanship, but peace remains the only proven path to prosperity. In recent years, the war economy has been unmasked for what it truly is: not a generator of strength, but a destroyer of long-term viability. Bombed-out infrastructure, displaced populations, and disrupted trade routes do not foster investment. They repel it.
No Shortage Of Hypocrisy
The disruption caused by war to supply chains, energy security, market dynamics, and the psyche of the consumer is all but clear to us, thanks to the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war and Iran's threat to choke the Strait of Hormuz. Talking of Iran, with one of the largest oil reserves in the world, it is an economy on a ventilator. Even the United Nations, often criticised for its bureaucratic caution, has been clear. Marking the International Day of United Nations Peacekeepers in 2022, the organisation warned that "armed conflict and post-conflict situations have a substantial impact on economic life and present a hostile environment to business and investments." Its 'Business for Peace' initiative might more accurately be rephrased as 'Peace for Business'.
This isn't just a semantic trick. But it is bound to fail. The war industry cannibalises all others, and there's no shortage of hypocrisy in today's global security discourse. Powerful states lament instability while fuelling it through arms sales and proxy wars.
There is a paradox, too. The time to turn away from reactive militarisation and toward proactive peacebuilding is right after a war. But that's also the time peace becomes an orphan because a crusade in favour of some good cause is to be launched soon, and we must be prepared.
(Nishtha Gautam is a Delhi-based author and academic)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
