- Kabul to Taliban: 'Join us in peace or we will continue to fight' | News | Al Jazeera
- Stop fighting for peace
Should we fight for peace? Well this is what happens in the world.
Countries are trying to control the world through wars nowadays. We are trying to get peace through war. There are many examples that you could look at to understand what exactly I mean by this.
On 25th December , Afghanistan was invaded. Now what? Maybe after a few years there will be another terrorist group in other parts of the world with dead roots from the middle east. When you engage in violence, don't expect peace. This rage-reaction cycle will continue. You cannot fight for peace to experience peace. Today countries should think about contributing a huge amount of resources towards humanity, poverty, and development, not towards tanks, guns, and modern weapons.joconlesspos.tk
Kabul to Taliban: 'Join us in peace or we will continue to fight' | News | Al Jazeera
See more blogs. April 5, By Siddharth. As such, Gandhian ways provide better hope by redirecting the focus of various conflicts from persons to principles. The Sanskrit term 'satyagraha', pronounced as 'sat-yah-grah-aha' implies 'clinging to truth'. In fact, Gandhi's fight for peace begins with satyagraha. To him, peace can occur only in a truthful environment.
In an environment where feelings of fear, anger, hatred, cowardice and retaliation prevail, there can be no peace. To Gandhi, only insistence on truth can help in resolving various conflicts and only by resolving the conflicts, we can build peace. Gandhi found a scientific connection between truth and existence. He believed that the truth exists like neutrons and can be discovered through 'mathematical conclusions' or 'logical deductions'.
He believed that moral reality was as certain as physical reality even though we may not be able to see it with naked eyes. Gandhi argued that it is our duty to find out through consistent experimentation truth. To Gandhi, morality does not imply following off-beaten rituals blindly, rather it implies questioning the truthfulness of every position, however 'vaunted' it may be.
Stop fighting for peace
This task was based on an attitude rather than on certain rules. To Gandhi, truth as absolute is 'ineffable' whereas our perception of it remains limited or 'proximate'. Therefore, our version can always be challenged. We can, in fact, improve our understanding of the truth by understanding another person's version of truth.
We must not fight for what we think is right but we must fight with it. This open ended approach of Gandhi towards understanding the truth is what saves it from 'the rigidity of moralism'. According to Gandhi, insistence on truth only provides the freedom 'to hunt for truth'. Gandhi firmly believed that the truth in this world can only be discovered through non-violence.
A truthful person can never be violent in thought, word or deeds. To him, the exercise of non-violence requires greater strength and bravery than that of the soldiers.
There is no place for cowardice or vengeance in non-violent actions. For instance, the sun does not wreak vengeance upon little children for throwing dust on it. It should be seen as a virtue that can be cultivated like any other virtue, such as, truthfulness, humility, tolerance and kindness.
Non-violence should be seen as a means towards achieving truth as an end. Whereas violence hits the-sinner, non-violence aims at hitting at the sin and not the sinner per se. Gandhi's concept of non-violence is not based on 'a negative state of harmlessness'. Rather it is based on 'a positive state of love of doing good even to the evil doer'. It is based on the eternal law of love that remains the largest tool for resolving a conflict at a personal or international level.
Violence, on the other hand, leads to further violence. Gandhi believed that violence could only be countered by non-violence based upon the principles of trust and compromise. To Gandhi, non-violence is the 'litmus test of truth'. Hence non-violence is to be practiced in thought, deed and words. It implies complete absence of the feeling to destroy, even if it happens to be an ant. To Gandhi, all obstructive, destructive, alienating and 'life-negating' feelings or actions amount to violence as they hinder the process of reaching the truth and violate the integrity of 'something living'.
Whereas violence is based upon the desire to use some sort of coercion, non-violence is based upon the inner strength. A follower of satyagraha and non-violence, as propagated by Gandhi, refuses to resort to physical force, manipulation, 'pummeling', 'scheming', 'blackmailing' or cheating for being cowardly and immoral.
Gandhi found that the usage of coercion restricted one's freedom, on the one hand and inhibiting one's ability to fight, on the other. He emphasized on consistent negotiations among the opponents and the fighters. One can come to terms with the other party only when there are no pressures or coercions of any kind.
Coercions serve as hindrances in the process of finding amicable solutions. However, Gandhi did not regard all forms of force and pressure tactics, such as, strikes, demonstrations, boycotts and other forms of non-cooperation aimed at seeking opponent's attention as necessarily coercive. According to Gandhi's viewpoint, coercion occurs only when an opponent is forced to act beyond his or her will and in circumstances where the opponent is left with 'no choice but to capitulate'. He firmly believed that noble ends could only be achieved through noble means.
Gandhi's concept of non-violence was not absolute or static. His concept of non-violence was relative. He regarded physical violence accompanied by mental goodwill better than physical non-violence accompanied by mental violence. The purpose of such violence in unavoidable circumstances could be to create a more suitable environment for the enhancement of non-violence. To Gandhi, some struggles may never end and one can gain peace in such situations only by 'meeting violence in a nonviolent way'. Non-violence, on the other hand, helps in bringing out the issues involved in a conflict into the open and finding out new solutions in accordance with truth.
It does not leave behind any frustration or rancor which in turn helps in establishing peace on a lasting basis. To Gandhi, peace is more desirable than war because the legitimate aim of any war is also more or perfect peace implying calm or tranquility at individual level; social justice and stability at national level; and freedom of nations and co-existence at the international level.
Therefore, it has become imperative to strive for peace 'both as a process and a goal'. It implies a positive mindset based upon certain virtues, such as, non-violence, truth, humility, forgiveness, mercy, friendliness, love, etc. Enduring peace is not possible without inculcating such virtues and abandonment of egoism. Nowadays we find such peace lacking at personal, societal, national or international level because mankind today is plagued by consumerist culture, rise in crime, unemployment, communal or ethnic riots, economic inequalities, xenophpbia, denial of human rights, escalation in terrorism, etc.
Earlier humans feared death as inevitable but now the whole of mankind lives under consistent fear of the extinction of the human race. The threat to human security can come from anywhere, at any time and dealing with it requires more constructive and peaceful ways.
Peace studies do not aim at the prevention of war but at pursuing perpetual security and stability. Philosophers, such as, Rousseau and Kant had advocated the need to create permanent conditions of peace.
- Biotechnology of Plasma Proteins (Protein Science).
- "Peace Without Conquest" - Teaching American History?
- Lickety-Split : A Novel From Nebraska.
- Editorial Reviews?
- Speed Reading in Just 90 Minutes - Easily Increase Your Reading Speed And Make Studying Faster.
- Deliberately Brazen [Brazen Sisters 5] (Siren Publishing Classic).
In the 20th century, attempts were made to secure peace through treaties and set norms between republican states, but they could not help in establishing permanent peace by ending all hostilities.