Introduction

pdc

Political Discourse

2395-22292582-2691

Prof. R S Yadav

pdc-4-2-002

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Gandhian Perspective for Realizing Peace

Yadav

R.S.

¹Prof. R.S. Yadav, Former, Dean, Faculty of Social Sciences and Chairman, Department of Political Science and Director, Gandhian Studies Centre, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra-136119, Haryana (India)

1122018

421730

2018

IndianJournals.com

Introduction

Problems of war and conflict have been continuously witnessed in the world since the birth of nation-states. Simultaneous efforts have also been made towards the establishment of peace. During the whole twentieth century numerous efforts are made in the direction with varied methodology, such as: power paradigm (balance of power); armaments (deterrence); disarmament (NPT and CTBT); international organizations (league & UN); revolutionary ideologies (Marxist); and structural functional arrangements.¹ As a result, five approaches to peace-power politics, world order, conflict resolution, non-violence and transformation have been evaluated by based on different assumptions of peace paradigms.² But these efforts did not yield effective results. Even initiatives by scholars for ‘preferred world order’ in the form of World Oder Model Projects (WOMP) could not bring out the realization of alternative world.³ But now question arises- why all these efforts have failed? It is not because their goals were contentious; rather their arrangements have been based on wrong edifices and assumptions. Besides, all the efforts have been designed around the basic unit of state system with a vision of management of conflicts. This resulted into two fold anomalies: first, the very genesis of root cause affecting peace in form of existence of state system continues as it is; and secondly, management of conflicts do not guarantee the non-recurrence of such tensions again. In the contemporary world, existence of Weapons of mass destruction (WMDs); non-polarity in global order; and initiation of globalization process have further complicated the scenario to the extent that basic norms of cooperation, equality, justice etc. are threatened to a great extent. Hence, it is pertinent at this juncture to have a full proof vision for peace so that this problem of humanity can be resolved for durable period. Therefore adoption of Gandhian alternative for the realization of long term and permanent peace is not only pertinent but also inevitable.about ‘Asian Century’, an Asian Development Bank report mentions the following:

Before an evaluation of Gandhian vision for realizing peace is made, it is imperative to know about his notion of peace. It is because either there is difference of opinion among scholars about this term or not long ago it used to be understood as a condition that followed the cessation of wars. But Gandhi has through understanding of this concept and analyzed it in a very comprehensive manner in his writings throughout the life.⁴ His understanding of this concept has not only been limited to negative aspect, but also about positive connotation of peace. Generally speaking peace is considered in negative term as absence of war. This idea is mainly derived from direct violence and its elimination or reduction. However, such explanation of peace does not give precise idea of this concept in totality. Therefore, Gandhi added a positive definition of peace as well. It includes a broader agenda of structural violence and its elimination. In this context problems related to poverty, illiteracy, health, misery, alienation, exploitation, injustice, inequality, marginalization etc. need to be resolved if a durable peace is to be attained. Along these basic problems, in equalitarian and exploitative social and systemic structures are to be done away with. Such kind of structural impediment is “an indirect form of violence built into social, political and economic structures that gives rise to unequal power and consequently unequal life chances.”5 Thus, Gandhi took a holistic, comprehensive and broader vision of peace which not only resolve the issues of conflict at individual level, but also do away with problems at structural level as well so that durable peace can be established. It is not going to eliminate the existing threat to peace but also likely to help in getting rid of the root causes disturbing peace.

Gandhian strategies for the realizing peace are multifold and integrated one. Before analyzing them one by one it is essential to analyzed that his realization of peace is based on twin basic assumptions: (i) He believed that basically all human being are alike and essentially good in nature; and (ii) non-violence is the law of life and fundamental moral virtue. Besides, it ought to be practiced at all times and by all men and can never be finally disapproved as proved.⁶ At the outset, it also must be made clear that Gandhi neither analyzed the phenomenon of peace as an isolated concept dealing separately with individual, family, village, society, state, national and international level, nor did he hold the view that it could be studied at different level like “man, the state and the international system” as some scholars have done.⁷ Even his analysis of nationalism was more akin to contemporary thrust of internationalism, as he considered the whole world like an oceanic circle.⁸ Therefore his perspective of peace has been visualized through his six fold strategies which are given as under:

First and foremost idea of Gandhi for the realization of peace has been his ardent belief in satyagraha, i.e. insistence for truth or unwavering search for truth. Gandhi emphasized satyagraha as the most portent method of ensuring an endurable peace. He gave so much importance to truth that he compared it with God. That is why he observed that, “Truth is God”. This acknowledgment of importance of truth for Gandhi is very much manifested when he named his autobiography as -- My Experiment with Truth. As far as application of satyagraha is concerned, Gandhi believed that it can be applied to all situations from inter-personal to the group relationships, from the micro-to-macro level problems. It can also be used for domestic as well as in terms of external relationship. Simultaneously, it can be utilized in resolving all kind of problems such as, injustice, exploration, marginalization, poverty etc. Thus, Gandhi devise it as a moral substitute of war and a superior means of grievances redressal at all level of human activities.

The application of satyagraha, viewed Gandhi, should not be followed by ill-will and hatred against the enemy, rather it is to be utilized with love to one's enemy. It is because aim of satyagraha is not liquidating the antagonist but to end the antagonism. This should also not be limited to apparent behaviour, rather it be followed in terms of thought, words and deeds. While prescribing such technique, Gandhi was aware that task of applying such method is not so easy rather it is full of hardships and difficulties. Similarly a satyagrahi should posses courage of highest order, because he/she must be ready to sacrifice life for the sake of truth.

Gandhi also knew that what so ever be the inner goodness in man, the God of peace can not be attain automatically. Consequently, man need to be activated in the pursuit of truth, because it is only truthful means that the goal of peace can be achieved. In this context, he gave theory of social change by which individual could transform him towards the realization of peace. This transformation, according to Gandhi, can be brought about through self-discipline and by using the technique of non-violence for the resolution of conflicts. Hence, man need to develop a sense of dedication, commitment, public dedication and perseverance. Even the habits of self sacrifice and suffering are to be acquired for the cause of truth. Subsequently numerous traits for the service of other, such as -- knowledge, faith, virtues, brotherly kindness, charity, humility, patience, temperance, godliness and diligence--need to be aroused by self efforts. For de-escalation of conflict, voluntary suffering provides the basic appeal to change the heart of the adversary.⁹ Gandhi, therefore, believed that peace can be realized only by transforming the soul of the individuals. This can happen only by the use of force of truth rather than through any external conditions imposed on him either by the state or by the international organization. This kind of peace would apply equally towards both at inter- personal, as well as, global levels. This transformation can be realized through the self- discipline and voluntary sacrifice, but this ideology of peace is not for the weak, non-committed, idle or fearful. Rather it is for those who have commitment to the values of truth and non-violence and want to pursue these values as goals without any fear or pressure.¹⁰

Since the only way of getting to truth is by means of non-violence, it follows that satyagraha implies an unwavering search for the truth using non-violence. Gandhi believed that, “complete non-violence is complete absence of ill will against all that lives” and “in its active form goodwill toward all life”.¹¹ Added further that,”Non-violence is not a passive force nor so helpless as the correspondent will make it out to be”.¹² Gandhi believed that non-violence is also the virtue to be possessed by the strong and not by the weak. But this courage is not physical but mental. A follower of non-violence technique has the power to practice the dharma of ahimsa who although fully capable of inflicting violence, yet it does not inflict the same. Besides, it also implies love, compassion and forgiveness. To use this strategy, Gandhi laid down five simple axioms of non- violence, which is:

Non- Violence implies as complete a self-purification as is humanly possible.

Man for man, the strength of non-violence is in exact proportion to the ability and not the will of the non- violent person to inflict violence.

Non-violence is without exception superior to violence, i.e. the power at the disposal of a non-violent person is always greater than he would have if he was violent.

There is no such thing as defeat in non- violence. The end of violence is surest defeat.

The ultimate end of non-violence is surest victory, if such a term may be used of non-violence. In reality where there is no sense of defeat, there is no sense of victory.¹³

Gandhi, however, was aware of the fact that, “Ahimsa is a great vow; it is more difficult than walking on the edge of a sword.”¹⁴ Consequently, he pointed out that certain conditions are essential for the success of non- violence, which is as:

Non-Violence is the law of the human race and is infinitely greater than and superior to brute force.

In the last resort it does not avail to those who do not possess a living faith in the God of Love.

Non-violence affords the tallest protection to one's self respect and sense of honour

Individuals or nations who would practice non- violence must be prepared to sacrifice (notions to the last man) their all except honour….

Non-violence is a power which can be wielded equally by all…. provided they have a living faith in the God…

It is profound error to suppose that whilst the law is good enough for individuals it is not for masses of mankind.¹⁵

To harmonize the economic relations and to conciliate the ultimate values into a state of equilibrium Gandhi presented a theory of trusteeship. This has been visualized as way out to both capitalist and socialist methods of economy of which Gandhi has been bitter critic. He was of the view that idea of trusteeship is basically rooted in Indian cultural heritage in its policy of non-possession and British tradition of equality. Though this doctrine is very old in Indian tradition, yet Gandhi applied this philosophical teaching to the concrete reality of life for the solution of existing economic problems of the society.

Gandhi was of the view that all forms of property and human material possessions are either gift of nature or the product of social living. That is why he observed that “all my wealth does not belong to me; and what belongs to me is the right of an honourable livelihood, no better than that enjoyed by millions of others. The rest of my wealth belong to the community and must be used for the welfare of the community.”¹⁶ As most of the resources are the gifts of nature and not created by an individual. Besides, an individual can accumulate wealth only in a social condition. Rich cannot accumulate wealth without the help of the poor (i.e. labourers or peasants) in the society. But each is entitled to acquire only that much of wealth or property that is essential for his immediate need or his existence. Consequently, Gandhi considered “their (extra) earnings only as trustees, i.e., owners in their own rights, but owners in the right of those whom they have exploited.”¹⁷

Gandhi at the first place considers the realization of trusteeship through the voluntary assumption by the rich towards an equalitarian end. But if it cannot be created through this technique, then he favoured this through the method of persuasion and conversion. Consequently, he observed that, “If the owning class does not accept the trusteeship basic voluntarily its conversion must come under the pressure of public opinion.” If both methods fail, then Gandhi was not averse to the application of technique of legislation by the state. But he favoured the statutes or legislations as technique of last resort to give effect to the idea of trusteeship. Thought, Gandhi was afraid of the power of the state and the violence perpetuated by it, yet for the sake of long term interests of the nation, he was prepared to allow state intervention to force trusteeship upon the possessing and the privileged class.

For the realization of trusteeship, Gandhi also accepted the formula presented to him by K.G. Mashruwala and N.D. Parikh, final accepted draft of which reads as under:

Trusteeships provide a means of transforming the present capitalist order of the society into an equalitarian one. It gives no quarter to capitalism but gives the present owning class a chance of reforming itself. It is based on faith that human nature is never beyond redemption.

It does not recognize any right of ownership of private property except so far as it may be permitted by society for its own welfare.

It does not exclude legislative regulation of ownership and the use of wealth.

Under state regulated trusteeship, an individual will not be free to hold or use his wealth for selfish satisfaction or in disregard of the interest of the society.

Just as it is proposed to fix a decent minimum living wage, even so a limit should be fixed for a maximum income that could be allowed to any person in a society. The difference between such minimum and maximum should be reasonable and equitable and variable from time to time so that the tendency would be toward obliteration of the difference.

Under the Gandhian economic order the character of production will be determined by social necessity and not by personal whim or greed.¹⁸

This idea of trusteeship is not without limitations as both Marxist¹⁹ and non-Marxist²⁰ do not agree with Gandhian perception that capitalist class can be transformed for the interest of the humanity. But it is equally true that this doctrine has been better bitterly criticized or eulogized but not experimented.

Gandhi wanted to attain socialism of heart and invoked the Ishopanishadic injuction to renounce and enjoy the world, which nourished his Tolstoyan conviction that the kingdom of God is attainable on earth and is, in any event, a feasible, life sustaining ideal. This resulted in his fascination of Tolstoy's -- Unto the Last -- which has paraphrased and translated as “savodaya”. It was in real term a movement of non-violent social transformation.21 Gandhi admitted that he adopted three teachings of this booklet: (i). “the good of individual is contained in the good of all; (ii) that a lawyer's work has the same value as the barber's in as much as all have the same right of earning then livelihood from their work; and, (iii) that a life of the tiller of the soil and the handicraftsman is the life worth living”.²²

Gandhian conception of sarvodaya means welfare of all irrespective of their class, caste, creed and religion. It also stood for total blossoming of all faculties - physical, mental and spiritual -- of all the human beings. Consequently, it stood for universal welfare and integrated development for all. Therefore this term stands for wider connotation since it conceives of assimilation of all and not only of many or most and provides checks against the imperfection of human mind and soul. Gandhi's idea of sarvodaya include his political, economic and social endeavours oriented towards progressive enlargement of the moral consciousness through the service of the daridranarayana (i.e. poor of the poorest) and the consequent, intimate and intuitive realization of the primordial divine spirit. In the present era of party strifes, jealousies and competition, Gandhi viewed that there is urgent need of replacing them into sacred law of cooperative mutuality and dominant altruism. As sarvodaya is based upon the moral principles of cardinal importance, it wants to enshrine the primacy of goodness and character in place of the skill of manipulation and self-assertion.

Though sarvodaya stands for the emancipation, upliftment and elevation of all and supports the idea of distributive justice, yet is it different from utilitarianism of greatest happiness of greatest number, as well as, Marxist notion of revolutionary socialism. It repudiates the limited gospel of the utilitarian in the sense that its aim is not to serve the greatest number but to serve the good of all. Since all human beings are manifestation of a supreme spiritual ultimate; hence all have to be provided the opportunities for their development and perfection. Similarly, socialism stood for material equality by demolishing the structure of socio-economic inequalities and exploitation. But sarvodaya is neither linked with negativistic approach, nor linked only to materialistic condition. Rather, besides economic affairs it is an all-dominating moral and spiritual approach and considers economic factor only as a means towards the realization of goals of sarvodaya. It is not just, thus, merely a theory of ethical justice but emphatic in its quest for distributive socio-economic justice. Besides, its acceptance that all form of wealth belong to society, made it even a theory of radical and revolutionary justice. For the successful implementation of his theory of sarvodaya as part of policy Gandhi gave a talisman as yardstick to judge whether a policy is good or bad, which reads as:

I will give you a talisman. Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest and weakest man whom you may have seen, and ask him if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him. Will he gain anything by it? Will it restore him to control over his own life and destiny? In other words, will it lead to swaraj (self rule) for the hungry and spiritually starving millions? Then you will find your doubts and yourself melting away.²³

Thus, it is the secret of satyagraha, the doctrine of non-violent socialism which Gandhi fused with his prescription of global trusteeship and his life long experience of the reality and relevance of radical self-generation through selfless service. As a result, a new kind of society is build where individual and collective problems of conflict and war do not generate. Besides, it prevented the very root cause of conflicts, which in turn makes the feasibility of peace as inevitable condition of social life.

For Gandhi peace can be realized in a particular type of economic model of development where the interest of individual and society can work in coordination and harmony. For this he was in favour of the establishment of non-exploitative and equalitarian developmental order. In this context, Gandhi laid stress on swadeshi not because of any inclusive or exclusiveness from the world, but because he wanted that means of production of elementary necessities of life remain in the hands of common masses. These should be freely available to all so that they should not be made a vehicle of traffic for the exploitation of others. Hence, monopolization by any country, nation or group is unjust and becomes root cause of violence and unhappiness.

This very idea of non-exploitative economy paves the way for decentralization as sound technique for economic development of the society. Therefore for removal of poverty and to bridge the gap between rich and poor, Gandhi gave the idea of self sufficiency. He was of the view that under condition of centralized production economic power is likely to be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. As a result, intensification of inequalities; widening of gulf between rich and poor; and conflict between labour and capital are bound to generate. Therefore, Gandhi recommended for the development of small-scale and cottage industry so that self sufficiency of the villages can be promoted. Simultaneously it is likely to prevent excessive centralization and ultimately exploitations.

Besides, Gandhi was always against the mass production and mass distribution as it will need mass financing and these always conspires to expropriate ever increasing number of small owners of land and produce equipments. As a result, it is likely to reduce the sum of freedom among the majority and increasing the economic power of minority to exercise a coercive control over the lives of their fellow citizens. Thus, Gandhi always pleaded for the decentralization of the means of production and distribution. Besides he gave preference to labour-intensive technologies rather than capital intensive technologies.

As next step Gandhi was always in favour of the growth of integrated rural development. As he observed that, “our cities are not India. India lives in her seven and half lacs of villages”. That is why, he gave a call to go and work in villages, develop rural economy, rural industry and rural skill. These small self-sufficient villages are like to produce for their own consumptions. Here life will be devoted for the pursuit of democratic values based on peace and non-violence. On the contrary, development of big urban centers is likely to promote monopolization and accumulation of wealth which may give birth to sharp inequalities and tensions. The economic accumulation is bound to generate political centralization, which in turn bound to support tensions and violence. Therefore, Gandhi was of firm belief that non-violence and peace can be realized not in large scale industrial and urban centers, rather can only be ascertain in rural self-sufficient villages.

Simultaneously to the growth of above model of economic development, Gandhi recommends for its people a stage of wantlessness and doctrine of non- possession. Gandhi was of the view that unlimited wants always create pain and dissatisfaction. Therefore individuals need to reduce its demands at the lowest level. For this he should reduce his wants. It is because wants, instead of adding to the sum total of human happiness, subtract a large part of it. So the removal of wants will lead to the removal of pains and addition of pleasures. Thus, he always put emphasis on wantlessness. Similarly one should not possess more than bare minimum necessities of life. Therefore, need is to adopt the doctrine of non-possession. In modern times, this doctrine can offer an important indictment of one of the most powerful drives in modern economic society -- the drive for multiplication of wants, fueled by an insatiable propensity for superfluous or conspicuous consumption.

For normalization of relations among individuals and states there is need of complete harmony of interests. Gandhi unlike Spinoza, Niebuhr, Morgenthau and Marx, did not believe that society is based on conflict of interests or struggle for power among different states. As a result, he believed that for the resolution of conflicts there is need to create harmony at inter-personal, inter-group and international levels. Because Gandhi never thought of conflict and differences against each others, as individuals are basically good and love each living beings. Even if conflict arises Gandhi thought of resolutions of them at three different levels: (a) ideal situation, according to Gandhi, is complete harmony among individuals, so that possibility of conflict is ruled out. This can be realized through the practice of trusteeship and over production so that need of all can be accomplished; (b) the second best situation, according to Gandhi, is minimization of conflicts by means of de-centralization of both economic and political system levels so that needs of each and interdependent and self-sufficiency at lowest levels are ensured. The method of sarvodaya would not only create harmony among individuals, but also eliminate problem of alienation in the society; (c) finally, if both techniques fail then effort must be made to transform the conflicts. This can be done by opposition through satyagraha and non-violence. Purpose here is not to eliminate or humiliate the adversary, rather to make a dialogue with him. This technique be applied not through hatred against antagonist but with the spirit of love and not getting advantage from adversary's difficulties. This is bound to bring about change in the attitude of the adversary and soul of one's enemy can be transformed, which ultimately result into conflict resolution. Gandhi, thus believed that conflicts at inter-personal, inter-group and inter-national levels can be resolved by developing harmony of interests among all the parties. This non-violent technique caring interest of each other is bound to transform the soul which can establish long-term and durable peace in the society.

Above discussion manifests that Gandhi's methods for realization of peace are related to both abstract and real notion of peace. It is not limited to the domain of existing realities but also to the spiritual trajectories related to both individual and society as a whole. His realization of peace has been linked to highest ethical values of truth and love which he equates with God. Simultaneously to principle stand of satyagraha, non-violence and harmony; he linked them to the fulfillment of operational needs through trusteeship, sarvodaya and developmental concerns. Gandhi's attachment to these humanitarian concerns has rightly been observed as “compassionate constructiveness”.²⁴

III

After analyzing the above strategies for the realization of peace it becomes essential to evaluate it in terms of its utility in the contemporary international situation. Some scholars have rightly pointed out about some limitations of the Gandhian techniques which are as under:

It is pointed out that the pursuit of non-violence through satyagraha involves the use of coercion (may be physical or moral) against whom it is used.²⁵ As CM. Case has remarked: “The nonviolent coercion is, and ought to be, a two-edged sword…it causes…inconvenience and suffering to those who wield it, as well as to those against whom it is invoked.”²⁶

To apply Gandhian satyagraha one requires the courage of the highest order to make sacrifice, even to the extent of accepting death. This is too rigorous a discipline for a common man to follow.

It is also believed by some people that the Gandhian approach to peace could not be operationalized as a matter of state policy. That is why, it has been rightly observed that “peace is not and never can be the direct object of policy.”²⁷

Gandhian ideas are considered by some scholars as Utopian, because they feel that these ideas cannot be realized in practice. It is being commented that adherence to complete truth and sacrifice of highest order is not possible in practice.

Doubts have also been raised as to whether these strategies can be applied in case of dictators like Hitler or Mussolini. It is viewed that decisions of such dictators and their thinking cannot be transformed through Gandhian techniques of peace.

Doubts are also raised whether this method is relevant in the nuclear age where the machines and not men are involved in the warfare. It is because technologies involved in such warfare works through the push button which are inanimate source without soul. Therefore transformation of soul is not applicable in such cases.

In the changed post-cold war non-polar world order, initiation of process of globalization, along with the problems of arms race, terrorism and environmental degradation have further made it difficult for the realization of Gandhian core values of peace.²⁸

From the above it cannot be discerned that Gandhian ideas of peace can not be realized into practice. In real term problem arises with the misreading and misunderstanding about Gandhian ethos. If his ideas are understood in proper perspective, such confusion could have been averted. From appropriate reading of Gandhi following clarification can be arrived at:

Despite limitations of Gandhian technique of satyagraha, one must note that coercion through this method is not with ill-will or hatred. It is, in fact, for the pursuit of truth. Gandhian satyagraha, however, seeks to liquidate antagonism, but not the antagonist. It is neither coercive nor redemptive. It is rather a middle course of ethical compulsion which can be substituted for war because it satisfies many qualities of war, such as mass appeal, aggressiveness, suffering, and romance. But it is always pursued by way of love and not hatred towards anybody. Nor does it contain any sort of vengeance towards anybody. Rather a satyagrahi is always open for “any honorable opportunity for peace”.²⁹

In contemporary times the achievement of global peace is a very ardent task and the last hope to save the humanity. Hence any sacrifice is meager for the attainment of the ultimate goal of world peace.

Though it is certain that a foreign policy serves different objectives of states, the long term goal of all policies, however, is peace. In this respect, the Gandhian principles of unilateral disarmament and equity among nations do away with imperialism and exploitation among states and could be channelized to attain the long-term objective of global peace. Moreover, development of countries is always feasible only when peace prevails at the global level. In this context, at least for the developing nations, quest for peace is a paramount necessity. Hence the Gandhian vision of peace could be conceived as a long term good for nations to attain a just and equalitarian world order.

Besides, there is need among the states to renounce war as an instrument of national policy and resort to disarmament voluntarily. If disarmament is resorted to by one nation, there will be no fear of destruction and it will be an eye-opener for others. This will lead to the emergence of a true international body where each nation could participate on equal terms without fear.30 Gandhi conceived of an international body whose strength comes from the character of individuals composing it, rather than from armaments possessed by states. Thus “a bold and unconditional acceptance of the nonviolent method with all its glorious implications” will lead to the emergence of a peaceful and just world order.³¹

To regard Gandhian ideas as utopia one will agree with the viewpoint that his utopianism is “resilient and challenging” because it deals with man-made inequities and injustices which can be done away with. Secondly, Gandhian ideas give an individual a responsibility to do something for peace rather than to pass this burden on to somebody else (as, for example, state or the international system).³²

Gandhi was fully convinced that this philosophy is tenable in case of dictators, because a non-violent satyagrahi should not wait for the pity on the part of anybody. Besides, this type of resistance will be unique for a dictator as he also possesses the same soul as possessed by a non-violent resister.³³

In the case of nuclear warfare, Stephen King-Hall believed that in an age when deterrent effects of the use of available weapons would be suicidal and destroy civilization, violence has outlived its usefulness.³⁴ In this context, Gandhi believed that the sacrifice by the large humanity will change the perceptions of those who push the buttons of these weapons.35 That is why he was emphatic in his remark that “in this age of atom bomb, unadulterated nonviolence is the only force that can confound all the tricks put together of violence.”³⁶

Gandhian idea of realizing peace is more relevant in the present day world where uncertainties loom large and every other alternative for the establishment of peace has failed. Hence the Gandhian perspective needs a fair trial. This vision is more important also because it cures the root cause of conflict without aiming at a mere reform at a superfluous level. It is based on the fundamental principles of the reform of individuals which is so vital for a long-term peace. Gandhi's ideas may seem a little bit difficult to be implemented, but they still constitute the easiest alternative available to the present generation.

Thus, for a successful implementation of his idea of peace, however, there is a need to have the firm conviction about the desirability of peace. This is possible only through reading and practicing Gandhism and communicating it to humanity at large. Though the process to reach the goal will be very slow, yet a non-violent world order based on justice, equality, and freedom for all the nations can be built eventually.

Thus, it can be concluded that Gandhian vision of realizing peace is not limited to management of crisis, rather believe in conflict resolution through the development of complete harmony in the society. Besides, he was not in favour of the establishment of negative peace, i.e., devoid of war, rather he wanted to evolve positive peace on strong edifices based on removal of basic threats to peace i.e. illiteracy, diseases, poverty, hunger etc. Thus he visualized peace not only in the existing milieu but also spiritualized to the highest pedestrian concerning all humanity of present as well as future times. This can be attained through his staunch conviction and belief in the principles of satyagraha and non-violence. Besides, he advocated the strategies of harmonious realization of conflicts through the method of trusteeship, ecological protection and constructive approach for the collective well being of the humanity at large. However, he was well aware with the fact that realization of such peace is not easy, but his conviction for the same has been very profound. Though his process of realizing peace has been criticized as an ‘utopia’, but this utopianism is based on resilience and challenges because it fights with the man made inequalities and injustice which can be done away with. Real problem, however, does not lies with his methods but to find out a real satyagrahi, as conceived by the Gandhi, who can work for such transformation with conviction and commitment adhering the values of truth, non-violence, self sacrifice etc. Therefore, need is not to criticize and ridicule Gandhian percept of peace, rather to understand and implement it as it is the only alternative available in contemporary world based on WMDs and globalization having potentials for creating the threats of annihilation of humanity and perpetuating huge disparities respectively. Thus, Gandhian vision of peace not only transcended parochial outlook, but also comprehensive in its scope and spiritualized it to the higher level applicable in the present and times to come.

Acknowledgement

This paper is revised version of my presentation at International Conference on - Realising Global Peace – held from 24–26 June 2014, organized by All-India Philosophy Association, BAPS Swaminarayan Research Institute (London), and Indo-Hellenic Society for Culture and Development (Greece).

References1.

For details see, Biraja

Shankar Rath

“Gandhi and International Conflict Resolution,” in

Anima

Bose

, ed., Peace and Conflict Resolution in the World Community, New Delhi, 1991, pp. 121-23.

Funk

Nathan C

“Peace Paradigm: Five Approaches to Peace”, Gandhi Marg, vol. 24, no. 3, October-December2002.

In this direction numerous volumes were published under the World Order Models Project (WOMP) series and by various scholars independently. Prominent works among them are: Rajni Kothari, Footsteps into the Future, New Delhi, 1974;

Mazrui

Ali A

, A World Federation of Cultures, New York, 1971; Richard Falk, A Study of Future Worlds, New York, 1971;and, his, Exploration at the Edge of Time, Philadelphia, 1972; Johan Galtung, The True Worlds: A Transnational Perspective, New York, 1972;

Mendlovitz

Saul H

, ed., On the Creation of a Just World Order, New Delhi, 1975;

Jagdish

Bhagwati

, ed., Economics and World Order: From the 1970s to the 1990s, New York, 1972; Mazrui

Ali A

and Hasu

Patel

, eds., Africa and World Affairs, New York, 1973; Grenville

Clark

and Sohn

Louis B

, World Peace Through World Law, New York, 1966;

Harnam

Singh

, ed., Studies in World Order, New Delhi, 1974; and

Hedley

Bull

“Models of Future World Order,” India Quarterly, vol.31, no.1, January-March1975.

For details see, Gandhi

M K

, Non-Violence in Peace and War, (2 Vols), Ahmadabad, 1942 & 1949.

Thomas

Weber

“Gandhi and Peace Research”, Gandhi Marg, vol.36, no. 3, 51999.

Satchidananda

Murthy K

and Bouquet

A C

, Studies in the Problems of Peace, Bombay, 1960, p.195.

Waltz

Kenneth N

, Man, The State, and War: A Theoretical Essay, New York, 1954.

For details see, Yadav

R S

“Gandhian Prospective on Indian Nationalism”, Journal of Gandhian Studies, vol. 3, no. 3, 2005

Yadav

R S

“Gandhian World Order Model: An Alternative Paradigm for Peace”, Gandhi Marg, vol.17, no. 4, January-March1996, p. 466.

10.

Yadav

R S

“Gandhian Vision of World Order”, in

Vidya

Jain

, ed., Peace, Non-Violence and Gandhian Concerns, Jaipur, 2011, pp. 125-126.

11.

Gandhi

M K

“Non- Violence”, Young India, 931922.

12.

Gandhi

M K

“Why Against Violence”, Harijan, 21Sept.1934.

13.

Gandhi

M K

“The Greatest Force”, Harijan, 12101935.

14.

Gandhi

M K

“Problems of Non-Violence”, Navjivan, 981925.

15.

Gandhi

M K

“God of Love, Not War”, Harijan, 591936.

16.

Harijan

, 361939, p. 145.

17.

Young India, 26111931, p. 369.

18.

Harijan

, 25101952, p. 301.

19.

Important Marxist Critics include --

Dantwala

M L

, Gandhism Reconsidered, Bombay, 1945; Hiren Mukherjee, Gandhi: A Study, New Delhi, 1960; and E.M.S. Namboodiripad, The Mahatma and the Ism, New Delhi, 1959.

20.

Non-Marxist Critics include --

Anjaria

J J

, An Essary on Gandhian Economics, Bombay, 1945; Gunnar Myrdal, Asian Drama: An Inquiry into the Poverty of Nation (3 Vols.), New York, 1968; and Jawaharlal Nehru, An Autobiography, London, 1958.

21.

For details see, Raghavan

Iyer

, ed., The Essential Writings of Mahatma Gandhi, New Delhi, 1993, pp. 375-418.

22.

Gandhi

M K

, My Experiments with Truth, Ahmadabad, 1927, p. 273.

23.

Iyer

, n.21, p. 418

24.

Paige

Gleen D

“Gandhi's Contribution to Global Non-Violent Awakening”, Jain, n.10, p. 10. (Emphasis in original)

25.

Grover

D C

“Dimensions of Gandhian Satyagraha in Contemporary World,” The Indian Journal of Political Science, 101968, pp. 232-34.

26.

Case

C M

, Nonviolent Coercion: A Study of Methods of Social Pressure, London, 1923, pp. 404-05.

27.

Carr

E H

, Conditions of Peace, New York, 1942, pp. xxiii-xxiv.

28.

Yadav

R S

“Gandhism and Contemporary World: A Study in its Relevance” in

Dube

M P

, ed., Gandhi: Practical Idealism and Strategies of Inclusion, New Delhi, 2011, pp. 266-273.

29.

Young India, 26111931, p. 369.

30.

Gandhi

M K

, For Pacifists, Ahmadabad, 1949, p. 88. Also see, Harijan, 1121939.

31.

Harijan

, 1651936.

32.

Richard

Smith Beal

“Faint Light on an Uncertain Prospect: Gandhian Insights on World Order,” Gandhi Marg, 71979, p. 214.

33.

Gaur

V P

“Modern Search for Peace: The Gandhian Way,” Gandhi Marg, vol.14, no. 2, July-September1992, p. 385. Also see

Durganand

Sinha

“Ahimsa as Conflict Resolution Technique and Instrument of Peace: A Psychological Appraisal,” in Bose, n.1, pp. 57-58.

34.

See Stephen

King-Hall

, Defence in the Nuclear Age, London, 1959 cited in Murthy

K S

and Bouquet

A C

, Studies in the Problems of Peace and War, Bombay, 1960, p.202.

35.

For the justification of nonviolence in contemporary times se, Kathleen Lonsdale, Is Peace Possible?, London, 1958; Stephen King-Hall, Defence in the Nuclear Age; Murthy

K S

and Bouquet

A C

, Studies in the Problem of Peace and War; and,.

Anima

Bose

, ed., Peace and Conflict Resolution in the World Community, New Delhi, 1991,

36.

Harijan

, 16111947..