MGP 005

UNIT 1 WHAT IS PEACE?
Structure
1.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
1.2 Defining Peace

1.3 Types and Levels of Peace
1.4 Means of Creating and Sustaining Peace
1.5 Peace for What and How?
1.6 Summary
1.7 Terminal Questions
Suggested Readings
1.1 INTRODUCTION
I am convinced that a non-violent society can be built only on the foundation of harmony
and cooperation, without which society is bound to remain violent. If we argue that this
cannot be done it will mean that a non violent society can never come into being. In that
case our entire culture would be meaningless.
Mahatma Gandhi
Peace is essential for individual well-being. Peace is an integral part of normal social life and
relations. If peace is lost, man’s existence loses its smooth, flawless tenor. With peace lost,
man’s equanimity, too, is adversely affected, if not completely lost. Uncertainty increases,
doubt in man’s capacity to cope with life’s problems raises its ugly head, and social relations
tend to be clouded with feelings of insecurity. It is not, therefore, surprising to find disturbed
men begging for peace of mind and people in general hoping for the early return of peace if
war breaks out. All this shows that peace is an essential condition for both the individual’s
personal life and social relations.
Despite the centrality of peace for a regular and regulated existence of man, historical writings
have generally taken it for granted. Peace is not celebrated in historical writings. History has
highlighted the disturbance of peace and the waging of war. The result is that it is violence that
catches the eye of the historian; it is virulent wars that become topics of discussion in history;
and it is the deeds of heroes that are told and retold in historical records. The historical record
is generally written as the story of the rise and fall of empires, a chronicle of reigns, wars,
battles and military and political revolutions. The essential fact that central to the process of
production and reconstruction of any society are the bonding activities that prevent society to
break apart is lost sight of. These bonding activities underlie the tasks of daily life. And daily
life revolves around raising and feeding families and organising the work of production and of
meeting human needs, interspersed with times of feasting, and celebration of human creativity
in poetry, song, dance and art. It also consists of helping others and being helped by others
in times of need.
If peace nourishes, sustains and enriches life, both personal and social, war destroys life,
12 Introduction to Peace and Conflict Resolution
impoverishes society and ravishes natural resources. However, the glorification of the warrior
in history has a powerful effect on human psyche and self-image of man. It leads to viewing
the struggle for power as the basic attribute and theme of human existence. Current high levels
of reported local and national inter-ethnic and inter-cultural violence and high levels of military
preparedness for interstate violence on every continent, confirms this view. Yet a closer
inspection of the record of civilisational progress suggests a different basic model of human
existence that underlines the possibility of a nonviolent and peaceful mode of living and
integration with the promise to remove the spectre of violence and war and to clear the way,
if not for Immannel Kant’s “Perpetual Peace”, then, certainly for durable and salubrious peace.
This model is that of a peaceful society which relies on peaceful methods of conflict resolution
for preventing conflicts from becoming violent. Thus peace is at the heart of this model and
in the hearts of the people as well. This is corroborated by the fact that the desire for peace
is not only sine qua non of everyday life but also a universal aspiration. In the writings of
secular and religious nature, the hope is expressed of a paradise, a bahishta, a swarga where
peace prevails eternally and rivers of milk and honey flow perennially. Moreover, humankind
has now reached a stage in which elimination of violence, especially massive violence, both
for the humankind itself at times of war and for nature for supplying the needs of development,
has become imperative. The stark alternative to peace is the impending extinction because of
availability of destructive weapons. Since isolation is a practical impossibility, the problem of
developing a violence-free society has become global.
Aims and Objectives
This Unit would enable you to understand
 Definitions of peace and their distinctiveness
 The need for peace for developing a violence-free society
 The need of maintaining peace at the individual, societal and state level
 The means appropriate for sustaining peace.
1.2 DEFINING PEACE

Before a precise and definite definition of peace is attempted, it is necessary to clarify certain
issues that prevent a clear understanding of what peace really is. Up until hundred years ago,
peace as a subject of theoretical discussion was almost nonexistent. Peace was simply treated
as a condition that followed the cessation of wars. Peace as an autonomous subject, not as
an appendage of war, does not have a very long career. As Encyclopedia Britannica (1911)
makes it clear, the subordination of peace to the main subject of war, at least in international
law, was the main trend. When peace emerged as an autonomous subject and as an object
of theory generating contemplation about a hundred years ago, certain other difficulties clouded
its clear understanding, two of which need to be identified here.
There is no agreed upon definition of what ‘peace’ in reality means. This is evident from the
fact that, broadly speaking, peace has been defined in two different ways: One, to equate
peace with the absence of non-peace. Definitions of peace in terms of a condition opposite
of war are 6what Rapoport calls “definitions by exclusion”. 1For example, peace has been
viewed as “respite from war”, quiet from suits or disorder,’ 2rest from commotion”, etc. The
range of definitions associated with the word “peace” does not give us any precise idea of
what peace practically means. The question as to what kind of situation or social condition
What is Peace? 13
can qualify for peace remains unanswered. The definitions inform us as to what peace has
meant at various times or places to the people and what different scholars or compilers intend
peace to mean. Peace is a value loaded term; people see different things at different places
and times in the word ‘peace’.
Two, in contrast to negative, descriptive definitions, there are positive definitions which posit
a particular condition to be qualified by the term ‘peace’. Positive definitions seek to remove
the deficiencies that negative definitions of peace suffer from. For example, the reference to
the absence or cessation of war concretely means the absence of violence. However, the
absence of violence, as Galtung observes, “should not be confused with absence of conflict:
violence may occur without conflict, and conflict may be solved by means of nonviolent
mechanisms.” 3It is true that positive definitions do emphasise the primacy of peaceful, nonviolent
means of conflict resolution. However, most advocates of peace and nonviolence are not clear
about the goal which is envisaged to be realised through peaceful means.
The emphasis on peace and nonviolence does not, in a majority of cases, indicate what final
condition or objective peace and nonviolence are to realise. Different schools of thought and
groups of activists visualise different conditions that, for them, would signify peace. For
example, pacifism, an important stream of philosophical thinking and a strong social movement,
envisages the penultimate goal as the purging of the human psyche of aggressiveness, as
rejection of violence by human individuals as means to whatever ends. Thus the end of the
rejection of violence remains unspecified. In contradiction to this, peace advocacy emphasises
organised action that is assumed to promote condition that would prove conducive to peace.
These may range from massive demonstrations against threat of war or actual war to deterrence
by massive armament.
The second difficulty relates to the question of perpetual or abiding peace. Supposing that
violence has been banished and peace prevails. Does not this mean the freezing of a particular
kind of status quo for eternity? But is not such a peace conducive to oppression and tyranny?
To make a particular kind of status quo permanent is to block change at its source; the
continuity of the same condition day after day assumes the status of a sacred value and
becomes the paramount duty of everyone to defend status quo. The preference for a stable
society rules out change; however, change is as important an attribute of man’s existence as
stability. Moreover, the very stability may create conditions which are favourable and good for
some and unfavourable and bad for others. Such a situation is the seed-bed of conflict
signaling the need to introduce necessary change.
If this signal is ignored, the way is paved for the explosion of violence. It is necessary not only
to recognise the need for stability but also allow for the possibility of change. Unless this is
done, peace becomes oppressive and may lead to the possibility of violence and war. Peace
has been made into an absolute, a significant factor for its own sake. It is true that excessive
flux is harmful. But it does not mean that it must be eliminated, ruled out forever. Rather,
instead of being completely ruled out, one should aim at controlling it and regulating it. If peace
is made an absolute, it will inevitably plunge mankind into the tyranny of war. The aim should
be creative peace, peace that allows the process of shifting balance in movement. Thus peace
is not a static thing; it is a supreme example of balance in movement. It is a dynamic thing.
1.3 TYPES AND LEVELS OF PEACE

If conflict cannot be ruled out even when violence and war have ceased to be an operative
strategy, then undisturbed, continued peace depends on the degree to which the propensity
to use nonviolence for resolving conflict has taken firm roots. It is quite possible that this
propensity may exhibit gradations; it may be nonexistent or may exist only weakly or may have
become a firm and unshakable attribute of a social order. And since the social order and
individuals, who form an integral part of it, are interdependent, the question whether any
individual has this propensity fully, only partly or none at all will depend on the nature of the
social order or group of people at any level of collective existence. These two aspects of the
question of peace make it possible for us to examine it from two perspectives: an axis formed
by the relationship between negative and positive peace, on the one hand, and the means used
to resolve conflict, on the other. The other perspective involves the relationship between peace
and levels of collective human existence.
Two different kinds of peace can, following Galtung, be identified here: one, negative peace
and the other positive peace. Negative peace refers to the absence of organised violence
between human groups at any level of collective existence, while positive peace underlines a
pattern of cooperation and integration between major human groups. And since the possibility
of conflict does not rule out the possibility of the use of violence for resolving conflict, the
relationship between conflict and means of its resolution yields four fold classification of
relations between human groups: war, that is organised group violence, negative peace,
where there is no violence but no other form of cooperation either; positive peace, where
there is some cooperation interspersed with the occurrence of violence; and unqualified
peace, where absence of violence is combined with a deeply ingrained pattern of cooperation.
Since the situation of war is not peace, it is of no interest for this discussion.
There are various levels of collective existence at each of which peace becomes necessary for
any society to be qualified as peaceful. At the primary level stands the individual, who is driven
by the need to live in a group not only to assure his survival but also to make his life materially
comfortable and psychologically contented and happy. Groups, however, vary in size and
quality; they range from a nuclear family to the entire world. This variation can be seen to
yield, for our purposes, mainly three levels: the level of human groups, for example, peasants,
dalits, army, etc. and the level of the international system of nations. Galtung talks of the
emerging level of the world state. However, since it is still in the womb of possibility, it does
not concern us here.
Each of these levels can be and usually is afflicted with unrest, tension and not infrequently
conflict and violence. The occurrence of this situation demands action, both ad hoc and
institutionalised, for correcting it and restoring peace. As such, it is necessary to identify both
the reasons why a situation of non-peace comes into being and how this situation can be
satisfactorily amended. At the individual level, if a person is experiencing inner conflict, for
example, between what to do or not to do, 4he may engage in aggressive behaviour with a
view to releasing his tension. Such a conflict is essentially moral and can be induced by both
moral and non-moral, that is, economic, social, etc. factors. But all these factors boil down
to the question of doing or refraining from doing something.
At levels higher than that of the individual, there are two levels where peace should not be
allowed to lapse. The first level consists of major human groups that we know as nations or
nation-states. Every state harbours within its borders a plurality of groups differentiated on the
basis of race, language, religion, socio-economic status, political convictions, regional identity,
etc. Two things need to be noted about these groups. First, any one of the factors mentioned
above can become the basis of group formation. What is important in this connection is the
degree of relevance that each of these factors assumes in a particular sociopolitical situation.
That is why the vantage point from which persons view their environment becomes a crucial
What is Peace? 15
ground for the formation of a group. As such, the ground for the formation of groups is,
therefore, variable because of the situational context making a particular factor quite relevant
for group formation.
Second, diversity is the characteristic of all societies, including the emerging world society.
Diversity, however, is not in itself a factor of major importance in the disturbance of peace.
What makes it important is the politicisation of diversity. And the feeling of being discriminated
against in respect of access to various societal resources causes politicisation of diversity. The
feeling of discrimination is engendered when inequality in the distribution of resources induces
a strong sense of deprivation. Attempts to remove deprivation provoke resistance on the part
of those who are fortunate to have more of wealth, power and prestige than others. This
resistance creates tension and tension tends, in due course, to graduate into conflict and
violence. Thus inequality in the distribution of such societal resources as wealth, power and
prestige is one of the potential factors in the formation of groups leading eventually to the
politicisation of traditional referents of identify formation. When groups form and situations
make them oppose each other, it becomes quite clear that the various groups do not share
anything in common except the fact that they share the same habitat.
The loss of commonality is indicative of the fact that any issue can become politically relevant
because different groups tend to view it from their own differential vantage points. A political
issue can become contentious if a sense of unfairness and injustice pervades the collective
psychology of groups. And a contention of the emergent conflict is delayed or impeded. Such
a contingency strikes both national society and the world system of international relations.
However, what needs to be re-emphasised is that diversity in itself does not pose any threat
to peace; what poses threat to peace is the politicisation of diversity, which is caused by the
strong perception of deprivation by different groups.
In the case of national societies, the disturbance of peace affects in a major way only those
within their boundaries. In the case of the international system of nations, such a situation
affects a large number of people in different parts of the world. In the cases both of national
societies and world system, the root causes are (1) the claims of entitlement either in terms
of conserving what one has or a ‘right’ that is, the claim to something and (2) the ambition
to get more than what one can rightfully claim to be one’s own. As long as inter-personal,
inter-group and international relations are based on the principle of moderating the desire for
obtaining ever more control over societal resources, social life and relations remain peaceful.
But when the limits of moderation are crossed, conflict and violence result. In the Indian
tradition, the eruption of violence is seen to be grounded in the subservience of dharma
(righteousness) and Kshatra (power). Such subservience makes power free of all controls
and, as a result, it becomes self-aggrandising.
Such is the case in modern times because the centrality of the fulfillment of ordinary life needs
concerned with the acquisition of wealth, power and status has pushed spirituality and morality
to the background. As a result, power, which emerges as the primary means of safeguarding
what one has and what one wants to get, comes to the fore. And the meaning of power in
this context is to bend others to one’s own will. We can see the interplay of power in all
societies today. The search for what Mahatma Gandhi calls “bodily welfare” has pitted man
against man, one class against another and one interest against another. The result is widespread
tension, conflict and violence. It is this situation that Alasdair MacIntyre depicts as “civil war
carried on by other means”.5
In the case of the world system, the possibility of occurrence of organised violence is enhanced
by two additional factors. One, states differ widely in size and the endowment of natural and
other resources necessary to generate and consolidate power for assuring security. Their
continued viability depends on the goodwill and diplomatic and strategic considerations of
major powers. And, two, in the anarchic situation of the international relations, self-help
happens to be the most reliable means of survival. Self-help requires building, consolidating
and extending power base through annexation of territories for the augmentation of resources.
These two factors, when combined with the tendency of self-aggrandisement, create a situation
in which military-industrial competition (due partly to build strategic industries for national
security) has been a key driving force in developing the productive powers of the system, as
well as its horrific destructive capacity for total war.
The two great world wars were the result of this situation. The stalemate in force, created by
the development of nuclear weapons, has removed the threat of total war. Yet localised small
wars continue to take place. The breakdown of peace followed by violence anywhere in the
world carries very harmful ramifications for the people. The expansion of economic activities
has brought different countries closer together and inter-linkage between them has become
very dense. Consequently, if something happens in one part of the world, its impact can be
felt in the other parts. Such a situation makes peace very essential.
1.4 MEANS OF CREATING AND SUSTAINING PEACE

Peace is essential for sustaining a normal tenor of life, a life free from tension and conflict. The
disturbance of peace at any level identified above is likely to have a larger impact no matter
where it is broken. If a person loses peace of mind, others in his immediate and mediate
environments are sure to be affected in varying degrees. If a society is disturbed and is in
turmoil, its members are adversely affected in various ways. And when organised violence
erupts at the level of the world, the lives of the people all around the world are adversely
affected in numerous ways. These three levels are differentiated by the scope and the extent
of the impact that the disturbance of peace creates. However, whenever peace is broken, it
is broken because of the failure of the mechanism of reconciliation and compromise that is set
in operation whenever the possibility of conflict becomes visible. Even after the peace has
been broken, attempts are made to quickly restore peace and let the normal life of everyday
run its smooth course.
Given the central importance of peace for human well-being, certain institutionalised mechanisms
for keeping peace and for foreclosing the possibility of its breakdown have been in place in
all societies. These mechanisms have different forms and characteristics depending on the level
at which they work. For example, in the case of the individual the most notable institution has
been religion. Traditionally, religion was relied upon to help individuals to achieve and maintain
inner harmony. Every religion underlines the necessity of self-transcendence which can be
facilitated if the individual believes that he must identity himself with an entity, God, some
higher principle, some larger human groups, etc- and acts in different life situations guided by
this belief. Since anything larger than the individual but falling short of the divine entity is
discriminatory and divisive, loaded with the possibility of conflict, every religion stresses some
divine entity as the focus of man’s identity, truth, meaning and value.
Belief in some divine entity induces a nurturant attitude towards fellowmen and nature; helps
in the installation of certain social institutions endowed with the authority to judge and control
individual motivation and behaviour and regulate interpersonal and inter-group relations. Religion
is something from which springs forth “a cluster of identities, attitudes, values, beliefs and
institutional patterns that lead people to live nurturantly with one another and the earth itself
without the aid of structured power differentials, to deal creatively with their differences and
What is Peace? 17
share their resources”. 6However, with the ascendance of modernity the role of religion in
man’s life has considerably declined with the result that psychoanalysis is now increasingly
seen to be an effective instrument of reducing, even eliminating, aggression as the source of
conflict. Thus the psychologist’s couch has replaced, to a very large extent, the place of
worship.
The primary role of religion is to forge a compliance system that is reflective of and represents
the normative aspect of a social order. Normative compliance system means simply that there
is an internalised desire to comply; behaviour that is institutionally necessary is internalised as
a need disposition in the personal system. However, the normative system proves ineffective
in many situations. Therefore, it becomes necessary to supplement and / or reinforce it at the
societal level by legal and political means. Legal measures involve coercion, while political
measures represent certain principles legitimising certain practices for settling differences arising
out of claims and counterclaims that involve certain entitlements. Even while the law aims at
outlawing violence as a means of settling differences, its end result is coercion which is taken
recourse to with the hope that it will educate people in right conduct.
Even political institutional means of ensuring compliance with the proper course of conduct,
involve threat of coercion by a centralised political authority. In contradistinction to normative
and coercive means, there is social control, which is said to be non-coercive. This method is
trade or contract. Trade or contract is supposed to be an effective means of achieving
integration of people and places and, as integration progresses, peaceful relations among the
people concerned are supposed to prevail. Social control based on trade is relatively free
from internal violence, either overt or structural. Contractual relations are based on quid pro
quo and it is profitable to comply with the terms of the contract. As a matter of fact,
contractual relations are supposed to cultivate the virtues of honesty, tolerance and modesty,
virtues that are the fountainhead of non -violence.
These methods of securing compliance pertain largely to a society. At the level higher than the
national political unit, the methods of maintaining peace involve four major institutional
mechanisms. These mechanisms concern relations between nation-states and are supposed to
promote peaceful relations among them. These mechanisms are balance of power, hegemony,
disarmament, and some kind of world organisation. Balance of power takes its inspiration
from the natural science principle of equilibrium. It signifies “…..stability within a system
composed of a number of autonomous forces. Whenever the equilibrium is disturbed either
by an outside force or by a change in one or other elements comprising the system, the system
shows a tendency to reestablish either the original or a new equilibrium”.7
The equilibrium is maintained by the efforts of the states to mobilise power resources to an
extent that are enough to deter other states from disturbing peace. This can be done either
singly by a major power by enhancing its capacity to resist aggression and mount invasion or
by different small or weak states through alliance. Contrary to this is hegemony which symbolises
concentration of power in one nation or an alliance. Such terms as Pax Romana or Pax
Britannica reflect a conjecture that peace can be kept by amassing power by one state or
a combination of states. The assumption is that it will not only deter other states from attacking
other countries but also that the hegemonic power will be able to penalise the aggressor. The
possibility of punitive action, it is hoped, will help keep peace. Another method of preventing
the disturbance of peace is disarmament. It is based on the assumption that if there are no
lethal weapons, there is no possibility of violence, at least, organised violence. This sentiment
is best expressed in the Bible, Isaiah 2:4, which says: “And they shall beat their swords into
ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks…..” With respect to international relations,
serious efforts are made to achieve disarmament, especially in view of the development of
highly destructive weapons capable of achieving total destruction.
1.5 PEACE FOR WHAT AND HOW?

As indicated earlier, absence of violence should not be constructed as the absence of conflict.
Nor does the commitment to save the mankind from the scourge of war promises to banish
violence with regard to resolving conflicts. Even if the scourge of war is successfully removed,
violence may be resorted to as long as the root cause behind the propensity to use violent
means for conflict resolution persists. As the preamble to the UNESCO Charter declares,
“Since war begins in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace
must be constructed”. But then, the question, “how the defenses of peace can be constructed
in the minds of men?” must be squarely faced. Obviously, the foundation of such defences can
be none else than inner harmony which is realised when the phenomenon of aggression, of the
propensity to use violence, is rooted out of man’s interior.
This raises the question whether inner harmony can provide the firm basis for banishing war
between nations. Galtung replies in the negative. He argues that “Wars between nations take
place at the international level; this level is sui generis and requires analysis and reform at
that level.”8 According to him, to make inner harmony as the basis of peace at the world
system of international relations is a confusion of levels. However, one could observe that had
aggression been becalmed and neutralised in the minds of Hitler and Mussolini and others of
their ilk, wars would not have taken place. But Galtung is right in pointing out to the crucial
importance of conditions obtaining in man’s environment for preserving and sustaining peace.
Thus it is necessary to ask: What are these conditions that must prevail to allow peace a
chance? But, then, we have to answer the final question in this connection: What end is peace
to serve? It does not need any proof for the argument that peace is essentially a condition for
man to enjoy the fruits of a good life. But, then, what is meant by good life?
It is this last question that forces us to see the need of the prevalence of compatibility between
man’s interior and the external world as well as the crucial linkage between different levels of
man’s world. It also makes it necessary to link the question of what is good life to Sorokin’s
distinction between two types of cultural modes of living. The distinction that he makes
between ideational / idealistic and sensate / materialistic types of culture has a great bearing
on answering this question: What is peace? The basic difference between these two types of
culture lies in the source from which a person derives the standard of his living. This standard
can be derived from the nature of man himself or from a transhuman source that transcends
the limitations of contingent human experience.
If the standard is derived from man’s nature itself, then, man turns out to be simply a body-
mind complex. It is then the appetites of the body, that is, desires and their satisfaction that
determines the mode of man’s existence. In the process of satisfying these desires man
becomes externalised; this signifies that his material interest replaces man’s inner-being and he
becomes the reflexive creature of external, largely material, objects which attract or repel him.
He develops an instrumental perspective on the external world and treats it as one of potential
means with a view to control. The need to control the external world makes power the central
drive in life. With this, social life and relations are characterised by competition and the
tendency of man to profit, as Rousseau puts it, by the misfortune of his neighbours. Pervasive
competition to get ahead of others in the struggle of life breeds aggression in the minds of men
and violence becomes one of the means of getting what one wants.
What is Peace? 19
In contradistinction to this, the ideational / idealistic type of culture derives the standard of
man’s living from a transcendental source. This source, usually, the divine entity, engenders a
belief system or cosmology from which are derived specific conceptions that are held and
shared by the members of a society, both implicitly and explicitly, about the nature of humans,
the world here and now, the world beyond, and the God and spirituality. Since all men are
considered to be the children of God, there develops an attitude of respect towards others
as well as the awareness of recognising and safeguarding their integrity. This is instrumental in
building a strong linkage between individual and community interests; high identification with
the community induces individuals and groups to give equal preferences to their own as well
as the community interest. This induces a preference for joint problem solving; this, in turn,
leads to the development of institutional devices for resolving conflicts through non-violent
means. Thus there is an emphasis on the need of the restoration of social harmony and conflict
avoidance. Through the process of enculturation, this cluster of beliefs and practices is passed
on to future generations. As a result, the ethos of this culture is to suppress aggression and
minimise the incidence of violence. That peaceful societies do even now exist is supported by
anthropological studies.9
Trust and natural respect along with the respect of the right of others are some of the
characteristics of a person who eschews non-violent means of resolving conflicts that arise due
to differences in views. Such persons are the pillars of peace. By the same token, avoidance
of violence and the recourse to institutionalised mechanisms of conflict resolution based on
non-violence ensures peace as balance in movement. As such, conditions that sustain peace
as balance in movement must constitute the necessary elements of a good life. These conditions
of good life rely more on internal discipline than on external controls. And different measures
used to sustain peace at different levels of human world fail to keep peace because they rely
more, even exclusively, on external control.
1.6 SUMMARY
Peace is essential for individual well-being and is recognised as an integral part of normal
social life and relations. With loss of peace, man’s equanimity is adversely affected, and clouds
the man’s capacity to cope with life’s problems as well as his social relations spreading in him
a sense of insecurity. Peace is an essential condition for both the individual’s personal life and
social relations. Historical writings have focussed less on peace and more on war and recorded
the events of the rise and fall of empires, a chronicle of reigns, wars, battles and military and
political revolutions. Peace is necessary to nourish, sustain and enrich life, both personal and
social. This Unit has dealt with a comprehensive meaning, types and conditions for peace to
prevail and sustain it as well. Trust and the respect of the right of others are some of the
characteristics a person should develop to eschew the non-violent means of resolving conflicts
that arise due to differences in views. Such people and the non-violent methods ensure the
continuance of peace.
1.7 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

1. The situation of non-war can be characterised as peace. Comment.
2. What are the different ways in which peace has been defined? Elucidate the merits and
demerits of different definitions.
3. What are the different means employed to keep peace at different levels of human world?
4. What is the meaning of peace as balance in movement and how can this be ensured?
SUGGESTED READINGS
Bernstein, E., et al, Peace Resource Book, Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, M.A.,
1986.
Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace and Conflict, Academics Press, San Diego, 1992, 3 volumes.
Fry, D.P, and K Bjorkqvist., (eds), Cultural Variation in Conflict Resolution: Alternative to
Violence, Mah wah, N.J. Erlbanm, 1997.
Galtung, Johan., “Peace”, in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Macmillan and
the Free Press, New York, 1968.
Kant, Immanuel., Perpetune Peace: A Philosophical Essay, Swan Sonne, London, 1902.
UNESCO, From a Culture of Violence to a Culture of Peace, UNESCO, Paris, 1996.
UNIT 2 UNDERSTANDING PEACE, WELL-BEING
AND JUSTICE
Structure
2.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
2.2 Meaning of the Terms

2.3 Meaning of Peace
2.4 Significance of Well-being
2.5 Justice and its Meanings
2.6 Worldviews on Peace, Well-being and Justice
2.6.1 Modern Worldview of Peace, Well–being and Justice
2.6.2 Traditional Worldview of Peace, Well-being and Justice
2.7 Summary
Suggested Readings
2.1 INTRODUCTION
No civilized society can thrive upon victims whose humanity has been permanently
mutilated.... Those we keep down inevitably drag us down ... we insult our own humanity
by insulting man when he is helpless and where he is not of our kin.
Rabindranath Tagore
One of the components of the UNESCO’s Culture of Peace Programme stipulates the ending
of the exploitation that has characterised the culture of violence and war (slavery, colonisation
and economic exploitation). It further stipulates to replace culture of violence by cooperation
and sustainable development for all. This component distinguishes the culture of peace from
static conceptions of peace which perpetuate the violence of the status quo and links it
intrinsically with social justice and the changes necessary to attain and to preserve it.1 This
component of the UNESCO’s Culture of Peace Programme draws our attention to three
important factors. First, the conception of peace the programme projects is not merely the
absence of violence. Eschewing the idea of negative peace, that is, the absence of violence,
it posits a dynamic conception of peace. This conception posits the idea that a society must
have the capacity to solve problems without resort to violence. Second, for the creation and
preservation of positive peace requires equitable, if not equal, distribution of economic resources
so that material needs of every person is assured. And, lastly, if these two conditions prevail
in society, social justice will also be assured.
The UNESCO views definite linkages between peace, well-being and justice. Peace is necessary
for human flourishing. Without peace, life becomes a constant struggle, struggle in the interior
of man, and struggle with neither external forces, which the individual cannot see nor control.
Whatever the cause that disturbs peace, the resultant state of affairs is unsettling and threatening
to human composure. The reason for this lies in the fact that when peace is disturbed,
predictability is lost. Once the normal tenor of life is breached, psychological stress combines
with material difficulties to incapacitate the individual in meeting the challenges of life.
It is also clear from the UNESCO’s Culture of Peace Programme that for the preservation
of peace equitable distribution of economic resources is a necessary condition. But can it be
said that the prevalence of peace, even positive peace, is necessary for human well-being and
justice? Two questions can be raised in this connection. First, what is meant by sustainable
development? In general, it refers to a kind of development that does not allow destruction
of natural resources; it must stop at a point where the danger of ecological degeneration arises.
This further means that the fulfillment of needs must stop at a level where transformation/
manipulation of nature does not harm nature. If this is true, then, where does that level lie?
Also, if an eco–friendly attitude is required to fix that level, how is that attitude acquired?
Secondly, in relation to the necessity of positive peace for ensuring human well-being and
justice, how is the capacity to find solution to an emergent problem with the possibility of
violence, earned? In this context, we have to be clear about the substantive meanings of such
terms as “peace”, “well being”, and “justice”. It means that one can put any content in these
terms depending upon ideological inclination individual predilection and zeitgeist. Hence the
necessity to understand them.
Aims and Objectives
This Unit will enable you to understand
 World views, beliefs systems underlying conditions salubrious to peace, well being and
justice;
 Alternative ways of viewing man and his world;
 A critical appraisal of worldviews and belief systems;
 Relationship between peace, well-being and justice.
2.2 MEANING OF THE TERMS

In view of the questions raised above, it is necessary, first, to clarify the substantive referents
of the terms that constitute the title of this lesson. Whatever meaning we attribute to these
terms, they have a definite connection with worldviews and belief systems. In addition, there
is also the question of the conditions that must prevail in society to allow a beneficial relationship
to obtain between the real situations these terms denote. It is necessary to explore the
following:
The three terms- peace, well-being and justice that constitute the title of this unit are not very
easy to define. These terms can take on any meaning depending on the circumstances and
personal preference of the person who uses these terms. Thus, these terms have no fixed,
unalterable meanings. Their meaning changes from one person to another depending on the
prevailing fashion of opinion, and ideological commitments. It therefore makes it necessary for
us to give exact signification to these terms before we can talk sensibly about their
interrelationship. In addition, we should also define exactly the way they are related to each
other. For example, can it be said that in all circumstances when peace prevails, human well-
being and justice will be assured? If not, what kind of relationship obtains between them?
Moreover, can it be taken for granted that peace is an autonomous phenomenon and does
not need nourishment from such sources as say worldview and belief system?
Peace, Wellbeing and Justice 23
2.3 MEANING OF PEACE

To begin with, let us begin with the term “peace”. Peace was taken earlier to mean the
absence of organised violence. This prevented scholars from looking at peace as something
broader than the cessation of hostilities between two or more nation states. As a result, peace
tended to be defined negatively as the absence of war. The fact is that the term “peace” can
also refer to individuals, groups and societies. Two other factors need to be mentioned here.
In the first place, peace can also be characterised as static or dynamic. By static peace is
meant a social situation in which nothing changes and no violence is taken recourse to for
settling differences whenever they arise. In contradistinction to this, dynamic peace refers to
a situation where differences and disputes do occur, but they are settled non–violently.
In the second place, the fact that disputes do occur, but they are settled non–violently suggests
that there can be no eternal peace. But we can very well visualise that there exist peaceful
societies which are characterised by two distinct attributes: one, disposition to eschew violence
for settling disputes and two, certain institutional mechanisms geared to settling disputes non–
violently. Thus disputes do occur not only because of conflicting claims of entitlements but also
because of the feeling that some aspects of the social order are unjust or inappropriate or
downright useless. This calls for change and change is always upsetting. Resistance to change
may invite violence and the possibility of the upsetting of equilibrium. However, the two
distinctive attributes mentioned above come into play in peaceful societies, contentious issues
are satisfactorily resolved, and a new equilibrium is established. This is what is meant by
dynamic peace; it signifies balance in movement. It is this meaning of peace that is important
for our purposes.
2.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF WELL-BEING

The term “well-being” too is subject to different interpretations. Broadly speaking, these two
are completely divergent perspectives, one emphasizing the achievement of felicity through the
ceaseless satisfaction of ever proliferating material needs.2 These material needs are involved
with the process of production and reproduction. The acquisition of wealth, power and
prestige are now counted as the most important factors that everyone should seek to realise.
It is on this basis alone that man can, it is claimed, ever hope to become happy, if not
contented. Contentment is something that must not be allowed to deflect man from the pursuit
of happiness through the satisfaction of material needs. It is also presumed that it is only
through the satisfaction of material needs that the way to cultivating morality, if not sociality,
opens up.
To satisfy his material needs, man has to interact with nature with the help of technology;
interaction with nature gives birth to a system of production that grows hungry for natural
resources as it grows and expands. As economy grows, man’s needs proliferate; this gives
further fillip to economic growth. It is in the process of this dynamic interaction between needs,
technological advancement, and nature that man realises his hidden potentialities, and becomes
moral; that is he develops the capacity of deciding what is worth doing, and what is not. This
perspective creates the notion of order and the idea of what happiness and, therefore, well
being, consists in. Order, on this view, is grounded not in any a priori principle for frictionless
coordination of diverse and usually incompatible interests. It consists in a set of interlocking
elements whose relations can be explained in terms of efficient causation….The order…in
things…(consists) in their meshing without conflict and distortion. Applied to human realm, this
means that man comes to realize natural order when the company of subjects comes to
achieve full satisfaction (happiness), each compatible with others.3
In contradistinction to the view of man as merely a body- mind complex, there exists another
view, which treats man as a member of the cosmos. The term “cosmos” signifies a world,
which is not only fully ordered but also happens to be the source wherefrom man derives his
sense of truth, meaning and value. The real purport of cosmos is not only that it is an exemplar
of order, it is, at the same time, also the source and cause of order in particular beings that
constitute it. It is true that the source of order in the universe is always referred to as beyond
the comprehension of the senses; it is supposed to be something that cannot be known by
man’s ordinary sensory faculties; it can only be experienced. The creator of the cosmos is
considered to be the unseen, the divine being. Its experience is ineffable. It is this ineffable
experience that becomes the source of installing order in man’s interior.
Once man’s interior is ordered, he acquires the capacity of freeing himself from the slavery
of many masters, that is, his appetites and passions. When man’s soul is attuned to the divine
ground of reality, he develops what Plato calls “synoptic vision”, that is, a capacity to establish
a principled relationship among various goods as well as among various components of the
external world. Without it, man’s soul loses its discriminating, regulatory and disciplining power;
appetites and desires fill the gap vacated by the withdrawal or suppression of the ordering
element. Integration of different capacities of the individual as well as with the cosmos is
disrupted; the consequent disorder of the soul leads to what Plato calls polypragmosyne, the
readiness to engage in multifarious activities, which are not one’s proper business and
allotriopragmosyne (meddlesomeness, officious interference.).
The attunement of the soul to the divine ground of reality acts as a transformative influence.
It initiates the process of self-development leading to the ultimate aim in life, that is, self-
knowledge. This brings about a radical transformation in man’s outlook towards his own self,
towards others and towards the external world. The process of self-development is also
instrumental in excavating the soul from its entombment in the passions of the body. It brings
home the necessity of what Plato calls sophrosyne, that is a capacity by which men learn to
know and remember the limits of human power and ambition.4 The realization of sophrosyne
checks the tendency towards pleonexia, that is self aggrandizement. This further means the
termination of rebellion against God and the death of hybris (the feeling of omnipotence).
Once man is rid of his hybris, he becomes aware of several things. First, he becomes aware
of the fact that he must put his interior in order by curbing the waywardness of Id and put
his passions under strong leash. The capability to put one’s passions under leash is symptomatic
of the man’s capacity to discriminate between what is proper to do and what he must not do.
Second, the capacity to discriminate has two important referents. One of these referents has
to do with the health of his own self in terms of limiting his wants by curbing his passions. The
other referent is his fellow beings whose interests must not be harmed by his actions. In other
words, he must have the intuitive knowledge of what he must do in order to bring about and
maintain compatibility between the good of one individual and the good of all individuals. And,
lastly, he becomes capable of eschewing instrumental attitude towards nature and consciously
seeks to promote a nurturant view by refraining from despoiling and exploiting nature.
It is, then, obvious that the substantive meaning of well-being is radically different from that
projected by the view of man as merely a body-mind complex. Well-being, in this perspective,
means the establishment of a salubrious balance between man, society and nature. This means
curtailing those wants whose satisfaction signifies voluptuousness, on one hand, and the treatment
of society and nature as potential means for the realisation of one’s purposes, on the other.
To lead such a life is to become swastha in the Vedic sense of the term; that is a person
remains healthy by anchoring his self that is touched by the flash of eternity. It is a swastha
person who is capable of securing his own well-being and that of society and nature.
2.5 JUSTICE AND ITS MEANINGS

Multiple significations are also true of the term “Justice”. To begin with, earlier the term
“justice” was used as equivalent to righteousness in general. It comprised the whole virtue and
signified complete conformity with the approved pattern of moral conduct. Plato saw justice,
for example, in his Republic, as the key virtue that regulates and equilibrates other virtues. Its
functions were envisioned by Plato to achieve harmony and to maintain equilibrium. To do
these things, reason (sophia) must rule within the psyche and reason’s embodiment (the elite
guardians) must rule within the state. Justice results from each element in society doing the
appropriate task, doing it well, and doing it only. When we come to Aristotle, we find him
restricting the term’s reference to a particular virtue, distinguishing, for example, between
justice and equity or between justice and charity.
Later, Plato’s influence can be seen in philosophical writings, which concentrated on the
tension between (a) justice as an impartial application of established substantive rules and (b)
Justice as an ideal criterion for judging and evaluating such rules. In whatever sense we
choose, both of them involve what we know as substantive justice. However, there is yet
another extremely important logic in which the term “justice” is latterly used. According to
common experience, in every species of economic and social activity, the problem of justice
is at least as likely to arise out of, say, being condemned without a hearing as out of being
condemned under an unfair substantive law. In short, it lacks a procedural aspect; in the
absence of correct procedure, any concept of justice may readily become a mockery.
It is, therefore, necessary to consider justice to be residing also in the correctness of procedure
for judging any issue. Procedural justice consists in employing correct methods to develop
rules of conduct to ascertain the facts of a particular case, or to devise a total appreciation,
absorbing rules and facts into a final dispositive judgment.5 It is true that errors in interpreting
laws and facts abounded earlier. However, since the eighteenth century, judicial processes
have undergone noteworthy reforms and advances. The procedural criteria compendiously
known as “due process of law” have improved sufficiently in most countries, especially in
mature democracies. What the due process of laws signifies is that no one must be accused
of violating a rule of behaviour unless he could have ascertained the existence and meaning
of that rule before he committed the challenged act. When accused, a person must be told
the ground on which he is accused. The accused is entitled to have a fair opportunity to collect
and present his own evidence, of course, with the help of a counsel. He is also entitled to a
fair and free trial. Moreover, even if a person has been found guilty, he must be given the
opportunity to go to higher courts for reconsidering the case and correcting any serious error
that comes to light.
Given these different connotations of the term “justice”, our task here is to determine which
one meaning should we opt that suits most in the modern age with its emphasis on freedom
and equality. Procedural justice comes into effect only after laws relating to proper conduct
have been passed by the legislature of a country. The basis of procedural justice is to fit a
particular law to certain facts for arriving at a particular decision. Procedural justice is concerned
only with applying a particular law to a particular set of facts under dispute; it does not
concern itself with the question whether a particular law is proper or not. The question of the
validity of a particular law is beyond the understanding of procedural justice. Given this, it is
quite conceivable that an impartial administration of justice can comport with an oppressive
system of substantive law. It is true that the application of procedural justice highlights certain
deficiencies in substantive law. As a result, substantive laws can be examined, reframed and
improved upon. However, the fact should not be ignored that a particular law, at any moment,
signifies a balance between contending socio–economic and ideological forces. Most often it
symbolises the victory of a particular preference over any other preferences and of one power
configuration over other power configurations. It is, therefore, necessary to go beyond the
mere procedural justice.
It is apt to recognise Aristotle’s distinction between distributive justice and commutative or
corrective justice. The former applies to the allotment of honour, wealth and other social
goods and should be proportionate to civic merit. Commutative justice concerns remedial
measures when two contending parties engage into a dispute over the merit of voluntary
exchanges outside the law courts. Distributive justice is concerned with meritorious achievements
of persons distinguished by some excellence. It is basically concerned with honouring meritorious
persons who are distinguished and distinct from common men. Similarly, Aristotle’s commutative
justice refers only to certain feuds between persons about entitlement and the court when it
is approached for decision, rules not according to any moral norms, but according to the law
of the country. Aristotle treated justice as immanent in positive law and gave it a markedly
more effective function. However, we should note two difficulties here. First, as has been
already pointed out, the administration of law may go along with a very oppressive legal
system. Second, none of the senses of justice in the Aristotelian framework deals with the
pattern of distribution of social goods that is seen to be just because it takes into account
needs and merits of the members of a particular society.
2.6 WORLDVIEWS ON PEACE, WELL-BEING AND

JUSTICE
What is it that determines whether a particular pattern of distribution of social goods, according
to needs and merits, is just? The trouble here is that while merit can be determined objectively,
needs cannot be so determined. Needs are subjective and there are no objective methods to
ascertain them and measure them. Any so-called objective method will prove awfully inadequate
because the standard of measurement will miss variations in needs articulation and needs
fulfillment. Do we then say that it is a problem that cannot be resolved and must be so? We
should seek to resolve this question by linking the question of the relationship between needs
and justice with worldview.
In order to see the connection between worldview and societies, we have to view it as a
deeply embedded soul of all individual members (as reflected in the substratum of their life
activities). It is because of this that society is capable of making and sustaining the awareness
of its members of their identity, ideals, rights and duties. It is also because of this that it is
capable of providing them with the opportunity (and the means) of living their lives and
engaging in action in ways sanctioned by it. In the words of Pandey:
Every individual finds himself related with a tradition of knowledge and understandings as well
as a network of relationships that are larger than their finite existence. If this tradition of
knowledge and understanding can be characterized as culture, then, the network of relationships
can be called society. Man as a being, who is endowed with consciousness, is in this sense,
a resident of a socio-cultural cosmos that has an external form and internal consciousness.6
If the external aspect of society is concerned with the organisation of work and play, the
internal aspect, that is, the world of culture denotes principles and processes that give the
world of work and play a definite shape. The internal aspect also controls relationships that
develop among the members of the society. There is yet a third aspect that animates most
societies. This is the aspect of society that symbolises its connection with a transcendental
entity by virtue of which a society claims to be the representative of truth. As Voegelin notes:
Human Society is not merely a fact or an event, in the external world to be studied by an
observer like a natural phenomenon. Though it has externality as one of its important components,
it is as a whole a little world, a cosmion, illuminated with meaning from within by the human
beings who continuously create and bear it as the mode and condition of their self-realization.
It is illumined through an elaborate symbolism, in various degrees of compactness and
differentiation- from rite through myth, to theory and this symbolism illuminates it with meaning
insofar as the symbols make the internal structure of such a cosmion, the relations between
its members and groups of members, as well as its existence as a whole, transparent for the
mystery of human existence.7
Thus every society has a symbolic aspect. The self-illumination of society through symbols is
an integral part of social reality, and one may even say its essential part, for through such
symbolisation the members of society experience it as more than an accident or a convenience,
they experience it as of their human essence. And, inversely, the symbols express the experience
that man is fully man by virtue of his participation in a whole which transcends his particular
existence, by virtue of his participation in the Xynon the shareable commonality, as Heraclitus
called it. The whole in which man participates is, of course, the cosmos as the projection of
the transcendent entity itself. The term “cosmos” conveys three fundamental ideas. In the first
place, it denotes that there are several worlds beyond the phenomenal world, the world of
here and now, all of them linked in an organic relationship with each other. In the second
place, the term “cosmos” signifies that it is….” the perfect example of order, and, at the same
time, the cause of all order in particular, which only in degrees can approximate the whole.”8
In the last place, man is just one instance of particulars that compose the whole. As a part
of the whole that is larger than the totality of the perceptible phenomenal world, man is not
self-complete and, therefore, not perfect. He becomes complete and perfect when, as Cicero
observes, he “contemplates and imitates it,”9 particularly the source of order inherent in it.
It is this contemplation and imitation of order inherent in the cosmos that constitutes the
mainspring of the internal, or, rather, the cultural aspect of any society. As every society usually
but not necessarily can be viewed as composed of three layers. These three layers can, for
the sake of convenience, be identified as (a) world-view engendering a belief system, (b) an
interior world manifesting a cultural pattern that determines and regulates the world of work
and play; and (c) the exterior aspect constituted by the structure and processes of work and
play.
2.6.1 Modern Worldview of Peace, Well-being and Justice

Almost all traditional societies displayed all these three layers, which refer to different aspects
of social organisation. However, in recent times, beginning from seventeenth century, many
societies turned their back upon their connection with the cosmos. As a result, man emerged
as a secular being, who depended on his own capability and power to refashion himself and
his world in accordance with his own preferences. However, in the process, the idea of
common humanity tends to be destroyed. With it man also loses his wholeness. A fragmentary
idea, such as, a European, a labourer, or belonging to a particular race etc, replaces the
universal idea of man. And the fragmented idea of man is attributed with universality and
wholeness. What should also be noted in this connection is that when man is de-linked with
divinity, he claims to become God-like and arrogates to himself the responsibility of re-
ordering the world so that it becomes useful to him. This is clearly reflected in the fact that
God becomes the function of man.
In the nineteenth century, Feuerbach’s “psychology of projection” sharply pointed to this. All
religious ideas, especially the idea of God, were conceived by Feuerbach as a projection of
contents of the human mind into the beyond. But when we come to Marx, we find man himself
being declared as the surrogate of divinity. Marx pulled the psychological projections into man
and man himself as God. As God, he claims absolute freedom, but he is, at the same time,
hedged in by freedom enjoyed by others; he seeks to shape and refashion the conditions of
his own existence, but he is externalised in the process of interacting with the external world
and emerges as a function of the world; he claims to secure happiness by amassing wealth,
but he is reduced to the status of what Iris Murdoch calls “broken totality” and becomes the
prisoner of his own avarice and suffers if he encounters setbacks.
The regnant worldview is claimed to open up the highway for all to enjoy heaven on this earth,
a heaven forged of worldly pleasures. However, the highway is unending and the heaven tends
to slip out of reach when it seems very close. Thus the conception of well-being that is
dependent on the extent to which a person is able to satisfy his ordinary life needs proves to
be a chimera. Moreover, this worldview grants freedom to everybody; however, not everybody
is equipped with the same merit and capacity. As a result, there exists wide gap between the
efficacy and effectiveness of one person and that of others. This differential endowment of
efficiency leads to a situation where acute inequality in the distribution of social goods reigns.
As a consequence, inequality of possession in a situation where equality of possession is
deemed to be an ideal that must under-gird the social order means perpetuation of injustice.
And when justice is denied, conflicts become endemic and pervasive. And when peace is
disturbed well-being and justice too become scarce.
When everybody is driven by the energy of his desires to seek what he wishes to have, it is
claimed that personal as well as collective good will be adequately served. On this view, the
one dynamic element in society is the self-defining subject, who as the centre of energy,
enterprise, and creativity, serves to promote collective good by promoting and realising his
own self-defined purposes. Collective good is nothing other than the sum-total of individual
goods. In this perspective, individual actions are the expression of will caused by desire;
according to this, the chain of parochial reasoning always terminates in some “I want” or “it
pleases me.”10 Decisions made by individuals must not be influenced by any source external
to him. However, actions that please individuals need not satisfy the condition that they prove
compatible with actions that other persons may decide to take. To the extent that this happens,
that is, if actions of different individuals do not prove compatible, social concord is likely to
be disturbed. It is all the more likely in view of the central importance of satisfying desires for
securing felicity, the only consideration of the individual is to see that his desires are fulfilled.
This exclusive concern with satisfying one’s own desires does not induce the individual to take
into account whether whatever he wishes to do is harmful to others or not. In such a situation,
auto-control is sure to erode leading again to the possibility of the disruption of social concord.
In addition to the disruption of social concord, there is also the possibility of justice being
tampered with. Given the centrality of the possession of earthly goods, everybody must claim
to have a certain share in collective resources whether a person deserves it or not. This is what
in the social science literature has been described as claims of entitlement. These claims are
justified on several grounds. However, Aristotle termed it pleonexia (self- aggrandisement)
signifying a claim for certain goods even when a person’s merit did not justify it. This is surely
to create a big gap between merit and reward making distributive justice a mockery. As a
consequence, it is likely to breed dissatisfaction, disquiet and dissension.
2.6.2 Traditional Worldview of Peace, Well-Being and Justice

It is quite clear, then, that a worldview that pins its hope for securing peace and assuring well-
being and justice by promoting and safeguarding individual interest, only frustrates this hope.
The principal reason for this, as Immanuel Kant realised long ago, is that it makes discord
integral to human existence. It is for this reason that we must take a look at traditional
worldviews in order to examine whether they are at all helpful for establishing peace, promoting
well-being and securing justice. It was indicated earlier that most traditional worldviews are
characterised, in contrast with the modern worldview, by three layers of attributes. By dint of
this characteristic, society comes to be viewed as a cosmion. The most distinctive feature of
a cosmion is its rootedness in the divine ground of reality. By virtue of this, it offers to its
members the opportunity to attain his/her higher nature by disciplining and controlling its base
nature. If this opportunity is properly exploited, man can attain internal harmony, which then
becomes the basis of harmony without, that is, between man and society and man and nature.
Internal harmony is the only basis on which integration of man with the larger order becomes
possible.
To be integrated with the larger order is to sustain a social order as a cosmion. Such a society
underlines the fact that society is a civilisational unit that constitutes an arena where human
consciousness, intentions and purposes receive definite shapes and direction. The shaping of
human consciousness, intentions and purposes is not haphazard or ad hoc; instead it is inspired
and informed by the vision of the cosmic order. As a replica of the cosmos, the social order
is not only based on the principles that are seen to underlie the cosmos, the meaning man
derives from these principles for informing and regulating his life and social relations but also
aims at celebrating these principles and values, preserving them in institutional arrangements
and social practices. In such a society a person does not live life; he becomes able to lead
life towards attaining a higher purpose.
When a person is conscious about his linkage with the divine ground of being, he treats every
life activity as the vehicle of refreshing and renewing his attunement to the divine ground of
reality. The worldview that gets its inspiration from its groundedness in the transcendental
entity forges a society that treats cooperative, interdependent and harmonious relationship
among its different constitutive components as necessary. It is such a social order that
Coomaraswamy calls a sacramental order in which there is need and place for “all man’s
work; and there is no more significant consequence of the principle, work is sacrifice, than
the fact that under these conditions…every function from that of the priest and the king down
to that of the potter and scavenger, is literally a priesthood and every operation is a rite”.11
The social order, is thus, conceived to be a system of interdependent, cooperative and
harmonious relations. The individual person is not a competitor for access to and control over
scarce material resources, but co-partners in managing the resources in such a way that the
minimum needs of everyone are fulfilled. Another distinctive mark of such a society is that,
while immersion in materiality is considered to be inimical to the pursuit of higher life purposes,
the fulfillment of ordinary life needs is not considered undesirable. As a matter of fact, the
fulfillment of these needs is supposed to be infra-structural for the pursuit of a higher life
purpose. Further the fulfillment of these needs is subordinated to the pursuit of higher life
purposes. The subjugation of the conduct of pragmatic affairs of life to morality is what proves
to be the constitutive principle of social life and relations.
Well- being in such a society does not lie in the ceaseless process of satisfying one desire after
another. What happens in such a society is that the worldview that underlies it and the belief
system that it engenders puts a break on desires and allows cooperation and harmony to
prevail and flourish. Thus, when competition is replaced by cooperation, the fear that a person
may be left far behind in the race of life is overcome; contentment then constitutes a principal
attribute of human existence. And as far as well-being is considered, it lies in the extent to
which a person succeeds in blending the pursuit of a higher life purpose with the management
of the pragmatic affairs of life. Moreover, when society happens to be a system of cooperation
and harmony, justice lies in everyone performing his assigned tasks well. What makes justice
possible is the attitude of refraining from encroaching upon the area of other’s responsibility.
2.7 SUMMARY
When well-being and justice are served, peace too, becomes enduring. Thus, it is not necessary
that the prevalence of peace will automatically guarantee human well-being and social justice.
What is certain is that when well-being and justice prevail, peace is sure to prevail. These
three can take on any meaning depending on the circumstances and personal preference of
the person who uses these terms. Thus, these terms have no fixed, unalterable meanings. Their
meaning changes from one person to another depending on the prevailing fashion of opinion,
zeitgeist, and ideological commitments. It therefore makes it necessary for us to give exact
signification to these terms before we can talk sensibly about their interrelationship. In addition,
we should also define exactly the way they are related to each other.

1. “Peace is necessary for well being and justice.” Give your reasons justifying this statement.
2. Discuss the meanings of justice at length.
3. What does the term “society” mean and what are its attributes?
4. In what social situation can peace, well being and justice be assured and why?
End-Notes
1. For details of the UNESCO’s of Peace Programme, see Elsie Boulding, “Peace Culture” in
Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, and Conflict (San Diego: Academic Press, 1999), p.654
2. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
3. Charles Taylor, Hegel and Modern Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979) p.75
4. Warner Jaeger, Paideia (New York: Oxford University Press, 19 65), pp. 44-45 5 “Justice” in
International Encyclopedia of social Sciences (New York: Macmillan and the Free Press, 1968),
vol. 8, p. 343.
5. Gobind Chander Pande, Bharatiya Samaj: Tattwik aur Aitiasik Vivechana (New Delhi: National
Publishing House, 1994), p.37.
6. Eric Voegelin, The New Science of Politics: An Introduction (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1987), p.27
7. Hans Jonas, The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God and the Beginning of Christianity
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1963), p.242.
8. De Natura Deorum, II.II.II Quoted in Jonas, ibid p. 245.
9. Alasdair MacIntyre, Whose Justice? What Rationality (London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd,
1988), p.21
10. Anand K. Coomaraswamy, Hinduism and Buddhism (Delhi: Munshiram Manohar Lal Publishers,
1975), p.27
SUGGESTED READINGS
“Justice” in International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, Macmillan and the Free Press,
New York, 1968.
Alasdair MacIntyre., Whose Justice? What Rationality? Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd.,
London, 1988.
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, (J.A.K.Thomson, Translation), Penguin Books, Baltimore,
1965.
Charles Taylor., Hegel and Modern Society, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1979.
Thomas Hobbes., Leviathan, Dutton, New York, 1956.
UNIT 3 PEACE AND PARTICIPATORY
DEMOCRACY
Structure
3.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
3.2 Relation between Peace and Democracy

3.3 Man as Homo Politicus
3.4 Rift in the flute
3.5 Mending the Rift: Participatory Democracy and Peace
3.6 Summary
Suggested Readings
3.1 INTRODUCTION
I am convinced that for practical as well as moral reasons, non-violence offers the only
road to freedom for my people.
Martin Luther King Jr.
Peace and Participatory democracy: two ideals that mankind swears by, hopes to achieve and
seldom realises. Peace has, althrough the history of mankind, been coveted as an ideal and
has been frequently broken either by internal turmoil or external wars. Similarly, participatory
democracy was once an actualised dream, especially in Athens, but was disrupted either by
internal conflicts or by the rise of monarchies and autocracies. Democracy as we know it
today, arose only three centuries ago. Today the idea of democracy is universally popular.
“Most regimes, Dahl notes, stake out some sort of claim to the title of ‘democracy’ and those
who do not, often insist that their particular instance of non-democratic rule is a necessary
stage along the road to ultimate “democracy”. He further observes that “in our own times,
even dictators appear to believe that an indispensable ingredients for their legitimacy is a dash
or two of the language of democracy”.2
As Federico Mayor, the former Director–General of UNESCO, puts it: “For the world over,
it is increasingly the focus of (the people’s) hopes for a brighter future and aspirations for a
life of freedom and dignity.”3 Democracy represents a universal and irresistible force, which
has overthrown the feudal system and vanquished mighty kings. In its onward march since its
inception in its modern embodiment, the democratic idea has been universally and irresistibility
victorious. But can we say the same about peace and non-violence? However, the joint
occurrence of peace and participatory democracy, especially when we do not restrict the
meaning of ‘participatory’ to the act of voting in elections, has yet to become a reality. They
remain simply ideals to be realised. As Gleditsch observes, “Most countries, even many that
are not themselves highly democratic or very peaceful, pay lip service to these ideals, as do
the United Nations and other international organizations”.4
In view of the fact that the ideals of the joint occurrence of the ideals of peace and participatory
Peace and Participatory Democracy 33
democracy, it can be asked: Is the joint occurrence of these two ideals simply a utopian
dream? Or, if it is felt necessary that, for the good of the mankind, the realisation of these
ideals together is essential, under what conditions can it become possible? Moreover, it must
also be asked whether these two goals are compatible with each other or even whether they
mutually support each other? Given the concerns articulated above, three interrelated facets
of the questions raised above need to be examined. The first concerns the identification of the
substantive referents of the terms “peace” and “participatory democracy,” if we do not take
the act of voting in elections alone as the distinctive characteristic of participatory democracy.
This is necessary in order to avoid the confusion that is likely to arise when democracy as we
know it that is formal, representative democracy, is interchangeably used with participatory
democracy. And, lastly, it is necessary to identify the conditions under which the joint occurrence
of peace and participatory democracy becomes a reality. Reference here is to certain socio-
political conditions, which are essential for making the realisation of the two ideals, i.e. peace
and participatory democracy possible. These conditions are associated with the kind of world
of pragmatic affairs that is thought to be absolutely necessary for human well-being. The
management of pragmatic affairs may be inspired by competition or collaboration. Both of
these modes of management of pragmatic affairs of man have differential impact on both peace
and participatory democracy.
Aims and Objectives
This Unit would enable you to understand:
 The substantive referents of participatory democracy.
 Development, social order and peaceful democratic existence.
 Critical examination of developmental models.
 Differential impact of development models on peace and participatory democracy.
3.2 RELATION BETWEEN PEACE AND DEMOCRACY

Gleditsch explores the relationship between peace and democracy at four different levels:
dyadic, that is, between two democratically organised political systems at national level,
system level and intrastate level. For his analysis, he has relied upon statistical data involving
interstate relations, used in co-relational analysis by, for example, S.A. Bremer5 E.N. Muller6.
J.D. Singer, and M. Small7 and others. Construction of indexes of peace and war and their
co-relation are relied upon to yield reliable conclusions about the relationship between peace
and democracy. If organised military action with annual battle deaths exceeding 1000 has been
declared as war, countries enjoying universal suffrage, full freedom of speech, etc. are treated
as democratic. The results obtained from this analysis only present a mixed picture. At the
dyadic level, however, the conclusion that democracies rarely fight one another seems to be
quite impressive.
A secular tendency towards statistical regularity confirming a positive relationship between
democratic countries and rarity of war between them seems to obtain. However, explanation
for this relationship is not very convincing.8 It is this regularity that prompts Rudolph Rummel
to pronounce that democracy is a general method of non-violence. However, when we come
down to national level, the picture changes radically. The persistence of the empirical finding
that democracies do not fight wars against each other is matched by the lack of relationship
between the political system and war at the national level. Most studies reveal that democracies
participate as much in war as do non-democracies, at least since after the Napoleonic wars.
One possible explanation for this might lie in the fact that democracies have to fight when
attacked by non-democracies. However, instances of democracies declaring war against non-
democracies are not lacking.
Coming to the national system level, what needs to be noted first is that since the last 150
years, there has been a process of increasing democratisation. The process has not, however,
been monotonic; rather, there have been waves of democratisation, in Samuel Huntington’s apt
phrase. If the statistical finding that democracies do not fight unless a war is imposed upon
them is true, an intriguing question can then be posed: Will war be abolished if all the countries
in the world turn democratic? We return to this question later. However, on the basis of the
evidence available, there seems to be a paradoxical relationship insofar as most studies come
to the conclusion that democracies participate in war just as much as countries with other
political systems. The reason for this perhaps lies in the fact that the initial process of
democratisation is likely to be accompanied by an increasing frequency of war in the system
as a whole. Only when a certain threshold is crossed further, democratisation is likely to lead
to decreasing frequency of war in the system.
Insofar as the intra state level is concerned, most of the wars since World War II have been
civil wars. During the period from 1989 until 1996, Peter Wallerstein and his colleagues at
Uppsala University have identified a total of 101 armed conflicts occurring in 68 different
locations, most of them in the Third World and all but a handful of them domestic. If the idea
of democracy is the “method of non-violence,” it would seem that democracies, whether old
or new, should be able to resolve their differences non-violently, thus eliminating the probability
of violence, organised or not. However, this does not seem to happen. One of the hypotheses
advanced to explain this phenomenon concerns the theory of resource mobilisation. It is
argued that the openness that democratic system allows encourages political activities of all
kinds including those of the claims for entitlements. This requires even more resource mobilisation
for satisfying demands processed in the political system. Failing in this, conflict and violence
are likely to erupt.
It is not necessary that all such demands be expressed through political institutions. As such,
a certain degree of conflict may be the price that democracies would have to pay for individual
freedom that they permit. Thus, it is argued that the more democratic a state, the more likely
it is that socio-political interests express political protest, non-violently as well as violently. It
is precisely because of this that the democratic wave9 after the end of the Cold War has
resulted in some new conflicts, because liberalism has permitted the open expression of old
hostilities, which were previously repressed by autocratic forces. It is against this background
that Edward Muller and Erich Weede conclude that domestic violence is likely to be low not
only under very strict authoritarian rule, but also in highly democratic countries. In the former
there is no opportunity to form an opposition, and any rebellion is nipped in the bud before
it develops into an organised force. In democracies there is no motive for rebellion, because
conflicts are handled in non-violent ways.
Muller and Weede argue further that in the in-between societies, the semi-democracies in
particular, of its demands and the political bargaining–the opposition is able to organise. But
it is unable to get full recognition for the legitimacy of its demands. Also, the bargaining process
is skewed in favour of the executive authority. In this in-between area, the armed rebellion may
seem justified and may offer greater promise of change than to wait for the rulers to change
their ways peacefully. This conclusion is supported by empirical studies since civil wars and
acts of terrorism have not infrequently taken place in some democracies. Some instances of
terrorism have been supported politically and financially from non-democratic neighbouring
states. However, Jan Oscar Eugene links the occurrence of terrorism to flaws in the practice
of democracy and a relatively recent legacy of authoritarian rule. He thus concludes that
stable, well established and “inclusive” democracies are generally free of significant political
terrorism.
It is clear from the analysis presented by Gleditsch that no firm conclusion about a positive
relationship between peace and democracy can be arrived at. Insofar as the conclusion that
democracies do not fight each other is concerned, it cannot be relied upon to predict and
profess that if every country adopts democratic institutions, war and violence will cease. As
Gleditsch observes:
The major means of promoting the expansion of democracy will remain economic and political
rather than military. These means of influence are slower and less dramatic, but they may also
have a lower probability of back firing. At the end of the day, democratization is probably
mostly a matter of internal forces, and the outside world may have limited influence over this
process. Only, then, can a world wide democratic peace may be built on a solid foundation.10
The hope, that a peaceful world after the world will emerge has been democratised is based
on shifting sand. Three important reasons can be advanced for this conclusion. First, this hope
is the artifact of statistical manipulation insofar as indicator of democracy covers only the
shadow of real democracy; change the components of the indicator and we will have a
different result. Also, as the analysis above shows, newer democracies have not been free of
violence. Failing to find a satisfactory result, the hypothesis of mature and not so mature
democracy has been introduced to explain anomalies. Last of all formal, representative
democracy has been confused with participatory or substantive democracy.
3.3 MAN AS HOMO POLITICUS

With the emergence of the state, a fissure appeared between the private and the public aspects
of the individual’s existence. As long as highly centralised, large states did not see the light of
the day, individuals in smaller communities combined the roles both of a private person and
a responsible citizen. But when the state appeared, these two aspects of the individuals were
split asunder. With the rule of one (that is, monarchy) or a few (that is, aristocracy), the
individual looked after his own pragmatic affairs without bothering about public affairs unless
it concerned his immediate environment. However, arbitrary rule and heavy taxation provoked
the people to regain political sovereignty lost to the king or the aristocracy. A long struggle
ensued carried on first by the politically alert and knowledgeable gentry and later by the
people themselves. People did win the right to rule and democracy reappeared on the world
scene. However, the victory of democracy meant the surrender of political power of the
people to a chosen few. This is what Peter T. Manicas calls the victory of “democratic
ideology against democracy”. 11
The victory of democratic ideology was contrived by James Madison and celebrated by
political pundits. What this victory substantively meant was to divest the people, the demos,
of their sovereignty and locate it in a few persons who are claimed to represent the people.
But this divestment was, as experience shows, done on false pretext. For James Madison,
factionalism seemed to be the greatest stumbling block insofar as the rule by a faction and that
also by a permanent factional majority was sure to impose its own perspective on the people.
Madison termed this to be a rule in which the passions of one faction triumphed over the
passions of other factions. Madison’s solution to this problem was to prevent the formation
of a permanent majority by a resort to two institutional devices.
Madison treats factions as a source of distortion in the political system. When a faction
becomes a durable majority, “the form of popular government enables it to sacrifice to its
ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens”.12 Two measures-
delegation of authority and extension of territory- would, in Madison’s view, control the ill
effects of factional competition. The first was to replace direct democracy by representative
democracy and the second was the extension of territory by carving out constituencies from
where representatives could be elected. The delegation of authority through representative and
extended territory for mobilising support would, it is claimed, protect the rationality of politico-
administrative decision-making by separating it from the process of legitimising political will
formation. This means restricting the role of the citizen to the selection of rulers through
election. It would, it is claimed, ensure the election of those “whose wisdom may best discern
the true interest of the country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely
to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations”.13 The expansion of territory “would
prevent the formation of permanent majority and therefore render factional combinations less
to be dreaded…..”14.
The victory of democratic ideology against democracy reflects at once a bias in favour of the
elite and a suspicion about the common man’s capability to make wise decisions. This suspicion
involves two grounds. One, it is argued that industrial civilisation has pervaded most aspects
of the people’s life. This has signified the extension of what Max Weber calls rationalisation,
that is, joining means to ends for better result. As a result, the way has been paved for
conjoining the spread of capitalism with the advance of bureaucracy. This has made the
increased role of expertise, science and technology indispensable in modern life. As Anthony
Giddens notes:
The further expansion of capitalism thus completes the disillusionment of the world (through
a commitment to scientific ‘progress’), transmutes most forms of social relationship into conduct
that approximates to zweickrational (through the rational construction of tasks in bureaucratic
organizations) and advances the spread of norms of an abstract legal type which, principally
as embodied in the state, constitute the main form of modern ‘legitimate order’.15
The hint is very clear. The complexity involved with the management of industrial society is
such that it debars the common man, who has no knowledge of science and technology or
business management, from participation in making public choices. Folk wisdom or the common
man’s judgment is no more an apt instrument of the determination of public policy. Direct
democracy is, therefore, out of the question. Universal participation installs the rule of fashion,
of fleeting opinions and of powerful interests, as such, in the seething, surging and highly
volatile sea of changing and shifting opinions, where the ship of the state will always be
buffeted. And lack of consensus will afford it no resting place. If Giddens is influenced by the
complexity of the industrial society for reducing the sovereign people to the modest role of
periodically uttering “ya” or “nay”, Joseph A. Schumpeter brands the citizen, the demos, as
rank illiterate in politics.
Schumpeter’s justification for limiting the role of the people to accepting or rejecting the men,
who are to rule them, is based on his perception that politics is business. In addition, he also
is convinced that citizens qua political man are incompetent and become primitive when they
enter the political field.16 His castigation of the voter as a political illiterate emanates precisely
from his judgment that politics is business; this, in effect, reduces the role of the citizen to that
of acclaiming the selection of “ruler managers” in the open market of electoral politics.
Democracy, for Schumpeter, signifies only an institutional arrangement for arriving at political
decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle
for the people’s vote.17 Essence of democracy lies not in the ability of citizens to rule but in
their ability to replace one government by another in order to prevent the formation of a
permanent majority and thus, able to check the threat of tyranny.
In essence then a system, which was meant to be ruled “by the people, of the people, and
for the people” has been reduced to market mode democracy. It is, as Fred Hirsch remarks:
Essentially a choice exercised periodically by the mass of the people among alternative and
open ruling elites, who, in turn, are induced by the force of competition (from rival elites) to
offer policies tailored to attract electoral support. The political arena in this approach is akin
to the market mode for the fulfillment of personal wants. It is an extension of the departmental
store – and the problem is to find managers who can undersell the rest of the street.18
The arguments that have been advanced to degrade direct democracy into formal, representative
democracy, as noted earlier, are, to say the least, frivolous. As experience has shown, neither
citizens are politically illiterate nor are rulers always politically sagacious or above their narrow
self-interest through which public choices are made. It is therefore strange to argue that
participation of citizens must be limited. Similarly, to argue that full participation by citizens in
political processes must be limited to their periodical acclamation of the rulers is to make
citizens passive. As such participation that is considered to be instrumental in the development
and maturation of zoon politicon (political man) has come to be treated as a disturbing factor,
a factor that is supposed to let passions encroach upon a field that must be nurtured and
nourished by rationality. It should also be pointed out that when man, supposed to be all
powerful, has been reduced to the size of a pigmy unable to stave off the encroachments on
his autonomy by the state, which has acquired more and more power in recent times, it is
intriguing to find that a political system, which promises to make everybody, a ruler ends up
by locating power and authority in only a few hands.
3.4 RIFT IN THE FLUTE

Restriction of participation is justified in the name of the stability and the ability to govern
democratic political order. The impetus for this derives from the insistence that economic
development is the foundation on which developments in other areas rests; economic
development is also claimed to be instrumental in the realisation of man’s hidden potentialities.
This possibility turns into actuality when individuals engage into self- regarding actions, that is,
their main concern for acting is to safeguard and promote their own interests irrespective of
the consequences their actions may have for the well-being of others. All self-regarding actions
are grounded in calculative reasoning since the main concern is to weigh benefits against costs.
Thus the end result that self-regarding action is supposed to yield is two fold: happiness and
actualisation of potentialities.
At the level of the political system, it means the maintenance of productive forces for turning
out more and more goods and services. This is necessary to cope with the rising expectations
and, consequently, the demands for material benefits. Dynamic interaction between these two
factors sets the context for the functioning of democratic political system, in general, and for
popular participation in governmental process, in particular. Given the liberal perspective on
democracy and industrialisation, it is both natural and rational for individuals to compete
among themselves for privileged access to scarce material resources for ensuring their own
felicity. In this competition the individual fails to confront in his own actions:
The distinction between what is available as a result of getting ahead of others and what is
available from the general advance shared by all. The individual who wants to see better has
to stand on tiptoe. In the game of beg your neighbour, that is what each individual must try
to do, even not all can.19
This introduces a mismatch between the good of one individual and the good of all individuals.
This mismatch is symptomatic of erosion of morality with the consequence that the fabric of
social cooperation becomes fragile and finally gets shattered. The pursuit of private and
essentially individualistic goals must be girded at key points by a strict social morality which
the system erodes rather than sustains. Such a situation engenders contradictory pressures on
democratic political system. Freedom of choice cannot be excessively curbed or altogether
suppressed. However, the exercise of freedom by isolated individuals, in a situation where the
connection between individual and aggregate advance has broken down, breeds social conflict.
This conflict turns not infrequently into violence. This involves increase in the capacity of the
system to perform well not only on the economic front but also on the political front for
material benefits and political participation.
This, however, becomes difficult for various reasons. First, there are definite limits, both
physical and social, to economic growth. Even if these limits are somehow surmounted, rising
affluence itself will stimulate the demand for those goods and services which cannot be easily
satisfied, or can be satisfied only for a few. This will intensify competition in a system of
imposed hierarchy (of wealth, power and prestige) that confines socially scarce goods to those
on the higher rungs of distributional ladder, disappointing the expectations of those whose
position can be raised only through a lift in the ladder as a whole. Thus prosperity for all
remains a chimera and acts as a snare. Democratic politics based on economic liberalism is,
in this sense, a victim of its own propaganda: it evokes demands and pressures that cannot
be contained.
We should also note that philosophy of economic growth in form or other has always been
central to political democracy. The relative quietude in democratic politics is purchased in
considerable measure through a growing economy. But two factors have increasingly shattered
the quietude. First, growth always includes decline and instability, which translates into human
dislocations and suffering. The difficulty is that governments have neither mastered the self-
discipline nor risen to the challenge of educating their citizens concerning the principles of
action required to confront economic uncertainty. Two things have aggravated the difficulty
further. One, liberal democratic order takes cognizance of inequality of possession, but hopes
to get over it with the help of equality of opportunity. However, the initial inequality puts paid
to the hope of reducing, if not wiping out in equality. As a matter of fact, the gap between
the rich and poor widens in the course of economic growth. This produces deleterious
consequences for the peaceful conduct of democratic politics. As Robert A. Dahl notes, it
produces “inequalities in social and economic resources so great as to bring about severe
violations of political equality and hence of democratic process”.20 Two, economic difficulties
are further aggravated, on the one hand, by ups and downs in global economy and on the
other hand, by global economic interdependence, which makes evidence the limits of states
and their governments.
The combinations of factors elaborated above create social maelstrom; however, the ministrations
of political figures appear ineffectual. Moreover, the need to acquire political power forces the
leader to adopt appeasement strategies that promises of ever more benefits. However, they
create a spiral of ever greater promises and steeper expectations. As a result, disjunction
between individual preferences and collective goals occurs. This makes it difficult to find a way
to order goals either rationally or democratically. At best the leaders can help at the margins
by enforcing the law and targeting programmes of assistance for those who can be helped;
they can neither compel nor transform the majority whose creature they ultimately remain. At
worst, they accelerate the process of disintegration through the recurrently competition for
votes that can only be obtained by over-promising than what can be achieved.
The social maelstrom, however, continues and deepens conflict surface; peace is disturbed
and democratic politics gets distorted. The lack of participatory democratic process exposes
the system to threats of turmoil, or even jeopardy. Without political participation, insufficient
support will be forthcoming to sustain the democratic method from a variety of potential
threats. These threats range from jeopardy of procedural safeguards by governing elite seeking
to perpetuate their power to the pressing of political demands that exceed what the system
can provide. Thus people want peace and well-being but the formal democracy grants them
only uncertainty and conflict.
3.5 MENDING THE RIFT: PARTICIPATORY

DEMOCRACY AND PEACE
The preceding analysis makes it evident that democracy neither ensures peace nor does it
avert threats to its own continuance. The principal reason is the divestment of the people of
their sovereignty and restricting their participation to simple acclamation of the selection of
rulers through periodical elections. Does this, then, mean that if full participation of the people
in the making of collective decisions is allowed, peace- eternal peace- will reign? In order to
find a satisfactory answer to this question, two further questions need to be answered. One,
if participatory democracy is an indispensable condition for the vigour of democratic life and
relations and for ensuring peace, does not the Panchayati Raj system currently operative in
India provide an adequate institutional format to ensure peace? If not, what, then, is necessary
to promote participatory democracy?
To facilitate participatory democracy is to carry out decentralisation of the polity. Decentralisation,
in turn, is to restore to the people their sovereignty usurped by the state. Broadly speaking,
two different perspectives on decentralization are of interest here. The first perspective underlines
the need of the people sharing in the responsibilities of public life. When they participate and
act in public life, they stand outside their own narrow self-interest and speak on behalf of the
common interest. “In and through political life men’s true individuality can be cultivated within
an ensemble of responsibilities sharing in tasks of deliberation and executing public decisions,
and so on that encourage them to see what is good for themselves and desirable for others
in general.”21 In this perspective, full participation in public life is a necessary condition for man
to become truly human. Such participation can be ensured only in a small, intimate community.
The vicissitudes of history have, however, put paid to small communities. Political communities
have become so large that direct participation by the people in making public choices has
become impossible. It is in this context that the second alternative comes into operation. It is
argued that in this situation only politico-administrative decentralisation is possible. Constitutional
Amendments 73 and 74 guarantee only this. What they do is a set of three things. First,
panchayati raj has been made a permanent institution with a fixed tenure and regular reconstitution
through elections. Second, they have ensured representation of the scheduled castes and tribes
by reserving certain proportion of seats on panchayati raj bodies. And, lastly, the representation
of women has also been guaranteed by allowing them a particular proportion of seats on
panchayati raj bodies.
However, the Panchayati Raj system suffers from certain limitations. First, it has been authorised
to raise taxes for undertaking some public works; however, it becomes politically difficult to
do so. Second, no panchayat has its own resources; the resources it can have are funneled
to them by state and central governments for completing certain projects sanctioned by these
governments for which the panchayats are allocated certain financial resources. These resources
cannot be used for purposes other than they are meant for. The greatest limitation panchayat
bodies suffer from is their inability to plan something entirely different from or opposed to the
planned development strategy carved out by the central government. In essence, then, they
signify nothing more than politico-administrative decentralisation of certain functions.
The greatest hindrance to complete decentralisation is posed by the belief that the size of the
polity makes it difficult for installing participatory democracy. It is true that participation is felt
to be necessary for invigorating democratic politics. For example, scholars like C.B. Macpherson
and Norberto Bobbio recognise that participation of the people in making collective choices
is necessary. However, for them, the crux of the problem is the size of the polity that prevents
face-to-face communication from becoming a reality.22 As such, representative democracy,
especially at the national level, becomes necessary. What this point of view ignores is the
necessity of complete decentralisation, not of politico-administrative variety alone, but of
economic power, allowing local communities to manage their own affairs cooperatively and
harmoniously. M.K. Gandhi has already offered a model of this kind of decentralised polity.
At the heart of such a polity is the development in the people the capacity to resist tyranny
and fight arbitrariness.23 This capacity can develop only when the individual exercises self–rule
(i.e self-control). Unless humans are essentially self-governing beings, there can be no case for
self-governing societies. Self-rule, then, lays the foundation for political self-rule.
This requires an alternative political arrangement in keeping with the true democratic ideal; that
is, a radically decentralised and layered arrangement of building blocks, in which constituent
units yield increasingly specific powers as territory and scope, is enlarged. Pursuing a simple
life, self-reliant and self-governing local communities are to constitute the base of national
political life. It is at this level that full participation of the people in making collective choices
is institutionalised. It is this participation that enables people not only to rule and be ruled, but
also to work jointly, cooperatively and peacefully to solve their problems and give effect to
their hopes and aspirations as collective endeavour.
3.6 SUMMARY
The preceding discussion has broadly surveyed some empirical findings related to the relationship
between peace and democracy. The conclusion that was arrived at was not conclusive.
Moreover, it was suggested that the variety of democracy that was juxtaposed against peace
happened to be formal, representative democracy, which does not allow full participation to
the people in making decisions that deeply affect their lives. After exploring the reasons, it can
be concluded that for participatory democracy, complete decentralisation is indispensable.
Only then there could be a positive relationship between participatory democracy and peace.

1. What conclusion do some of empirical studies about the relationship between peace and
democracy arrive at?
2. Discuss the characteristics of formal, representative democracy.
3. What prevents formal, representative democracy from ensuring peace and harmony?
4. What kind of institutional arrangement does participatory democracy require and why?
End Notes
1. Robert A. Dahl, Democracy and its Critics,: Orient Longman, New Delhi, 1991, p.2.
2. Ibid.,
3. Democracy in a World of Tension—A Symposium. Ed. Richard MacKean. Quoted in G. Sartory,

Democratic Theory Oxford and IBH Publishing Co., Calcutta, 1965, pp.8-9.
4. Niels Petter Gleditsch, “Peace and Democracy,” in Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace and Conflict,:
Academic Press, San Diego, 2001, p.643.
5. “Dangerous Dyads, Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Interstate War 1861-1965.” In Journal
of Conflict Resolution, 36, 1992, pp. 309-41.
6. “Cross-national Variation in Political Violence, A Rational Action Approach,” Journal of Conflict

Resolution, 34, 1990, pp.624-651.
7. Correlates of war project. International and Civil War Data: 1816-1992. Ann Arbor: Inter-University
Consortium for Political and Social Research, 1994.
8. Gleditsch, op. cit, p. 645.
9. The waves of democracy, especially after the Second World War, involved the countries that were
colonized by European powers. These powers arbitrarily drew boundary lines, created colonies with
mixed populations, etc. After independence, most of the newly independent countries fought with
each other for reclaiming their territories.
10. Gleditsch, op. cit, p.651.
11. Peter T. Manicas, “The Foreclosure of Democracy in America, “ History of Political Thought, IX,
1(Spring 1988), p. 187.
12. The Federalist Papers, No. 10.
13. Ibid, No. 59.
14. ibid, paper No. 60.
15. Anthony Giddens, Politics and Sociology in the Thought of Max Weber, Macmillan, London, 1979,
p.45.
16. Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Harper, New York, 1950, p.262.
17. Ibid, p. 269.
18. Fred Hirsch, Social Limits to Growth, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1977, pp.93-94.
19. Ibid, p. 10.
20. Robert A. Dahl, A Preface to Political Democracy, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1985, p.6.
21. John Keane, Public Life and Late Capitalism: Towards a Socialist Theory of Democracy, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1984, p.116.
22. C. B. Macpherson, The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
1997, p.94.
23. See Young India, 26 January, 1925.
SUGGESTED READINGS
Gleditsch, N.P, and H. Hegre., “Peace and Democracy: Three levels of Analysis,” in Journal
of Conflict Resolution, 41, 1997, pp.283-310.
Gleditsch, N.P., “Democracy and Peace”, in Journal of Conflict Resolution, 29, 1992,
pp.369-376.
Gleditsch, N.P., “Peace and Democracy”, in Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace and Conflict,
Academic Press, San Diego, 2001, pp.643-652.
Keane, John., Public Life and Late Capitalism: Towards a Socialist Theory of Democracy,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984.
Muller, E.N, and E. Weede., “Cross National Variation in Political Violence: A Rational Action
Approach, “ Journal of Conflict Resolution, 34, 1990, pp.624- 631.
Ray, Ramashray., “Parameters of Democracy, and Decentralization: Some Unanswered
Questions” Both in Captive Vision, Ideas as Weapons, Ajanta, Delhi, 1993.
UNIT 4 CULTURE OF PEACE
Structure
4.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
4.2 Need for Peace

4.2.1 Peace and Aggression
4.3 What makes Peace Possible?

4.3.1 External Measures of Compliance
4.3.2 Internal Measures of Compliance
4.3.3 Culture of Peace Defined
4.4 Pillars of the Culture of Peace

4.4.1 Cosmology, Worldview and Belief System
4.4.2 Enculturation
4.4.3 Education
4.4.4 Institutional Mechanisms
4.5 Summary
Suggested Readings
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Just as war begins in the minds of men, peace also begins in our minds.
Preamble, UNESCO
Societies, irrespective of their position on the scale of material prosperity and richness of
culture, can be or have ever been fully peaceful. It is claimed by many that as the level of
material well-being rises and human beings would enjoy the fruits of escalating well-being,
morality would gain in strength; it would be quite possible to control, if not completely
eradicate, man’s aggressive behaviour. As a matter of fact, the whole thrust of the worldview
grounded in liberalism underlines the need for economic development for ensuring eternal
peace. However, the fact remains that the belief in economic development as the sure promoter
of peace is misplaced. As Galtung points out,
...there is nothing that seems to confirm the widely held idea that a major increase in the
standard of living of the world population or a fairer distribution of the fruits of man’s labour
would contribute significantly to a more peaceful world. A better distribution may solve internal
problems but at the same time free resources for external aggression.1
Insofar as interrelation between nation-states is concerned, the rising standard of living poses,
as Galtung underlines, a threat perhaps only to peace at the international level. However, there
is no guarantee that increasing wealth is an effective means of suppressing aggressive behaviour.
It is not the riches that make a society peaceful. History offers numerous examples of peaceful
societies that stand at the bottom of the scale of material well-being; it also confirms that as
men grow rich, they tend to be more aggressive. Thus, the question of what sustains peaceful
behaviour has to be explored not in terms of rising standard of living but in terms of other
factors.
The search of such factors must begin from the recognition that all societies are characterised
by peaceful as well as aggressive behaviour. More generally, peaceableness and aggression
coexist in clusters of attitudes and behaviours present in varying proportions in most societies.
It reflects the basic human need for bonding, on the one hand, and the equally important need
for autonomy, for personal space, on the other. Violent and nonviolent behaviour characterise
every society; it displays a pattern of intermittent violence alternating with relative periods of
peace.
The alternation of intermittent violence and periods of peaceful existence is testimony to the
fact that culture of peace is not that strong to prevent this alternation. But what does the term
“culture of peace” signify? What are the factors that create and sustain culture of peace? Both
peace and aggression find their place in the minds of men. To make the culture of peace
stronger involves the training of mind. However, man lives in society and society’s character
and process have a great bearing on what an individual person thinks or does. It is, therefore,
necessary that there must exist in the society certain institutions and practices that induce men
to be peaceable or prevent a fractious situation to arise or to bring to an earlier end when
it has arisen.
Aims and Objectives
 The meaning of culture of peace
 The modes of controlling aggression
 Supportive structures of culture of peace
 Institutional mechanisms of keeping peace
4.2 NEED FOR PEACE

All through the ages, human beings have hoped and worked for a situation that would make
peace a durable, if not an eternal phenomenon. The need for peace as well as aggression
arises from the very conditions of man’s existence in this phenomenal world. Man needs peace
because its absence does not auger well for the realisation of his life purposes. A person, who
wants to concentrate in order to think about or remember something, will find it very difficult
to do so if he is placed in an extremely noisy environment. Similarly, the pursuit of daily routine
requires a peaceful atmosphere in which stable functional relations could enjoy reliability and
durability. Excessive disturbance in social relations, either functional or emotional, upsets the
smooth flow of life activities. A disturbed social situation generates frustrations and frustration
causes injury to individual psyche and collective well-being. Stability is a necessary condition
for salubrious and fruitful social existence.
Undoubtedly stable social relations are necessary but not a sufficient condition of social
existence. Stability, if it is frozen, tends to fix particular social relations for eternity. It does not
allow innovations, deviance from settled ways of thinking and doing, and blocks change at its
source. However, people want to do something new, something different from what they have
been living with, and experiment with ideas and things that differ qualitatively from the prevailing
ideas and existing things. The need to innovate is a call for change. And ruling out change that
Culture of Peace 45
frozen stability implies, is the source of frustration and therefore aggression. Thus stability and
peace are as necessary for keeping society on an even keel as change is essential for pushing
society forward on the path of development.
4.2.1 Peace and Aggression

For a benign social order, both stability and change are necessary. Change is upsetting and
disturbing. It disturbs established modes of thinking and doing and shatters the sense of
continuity and certainty. It is, therefore, necessary to neutralise the consequences of change
to gently stir established patterns of personal existence and social interactions. If the pace of
change is rough and faster, its consequences might prove dysfunctional; they might radically
alter the character of different social groups, completely upset established patterns of inter-
group relations and consequently, unhinge settled patterns of motivation and behaviour. These
changes are likely to trigger aggression and pave the way for violence. While peace and
stability are preferred, change and violence cannot be ruled out, if circumstances conspire to
make them inevitable. Both continuity and change are necessary for the health of society and
its members.
The important question in this regard is not the perpetuity of peace but the peaceful, nonviolent
resolution of conflict as and when it raises its ugly head. People often clamour for social
change. They identify some aspect of their society, including its institutions, as problematic and
in need of alteration, paving the way for social change. If peaceful methods of bringing about
the required change is resisted and frustrated, violent methods of change may be adopted. The
occurrence of change, especially loaded with the potentiality of breaking peace, creates
situations that may turn out to be violent. However, the capacity of any society to deal with
such situations nonviolently, peacefully, without a resort to violence, is what can be called
balance in movement. It is this balance in movement that makes for peace and forges culture
of peace. Such a peace does not block change and, when the pressure for change becomes
irresistible, it does not lead to violence and shake the social order to its roots. As a result,
society becomes peaceful.
4.3 WHAT MAKES CULTURE OF PEACE POSSIBLE?

The culture of peace is desirable but how it can be achieved must be squarely faced. Every
society has certain norms of behaviour that emphasise peaceful, proper conduct and develops
certain mechanisms to control, regulate and, if possible, eliminate or neutralise the tendency
towards aggression and violence. Broadly speaking, two classes of such mechanisms- internal
and external- can be identified for the purposes at hand. Both internal and external mechanisms
of controlling individual motivation and behaviour aim at promoting and ensuring compliance
with certain standards of personal and social behaviour so that interpersonal, inter-group and
international relations do not turn out to be violent and that if and when contestation promises
to transform itself into violent conflict, whether organised or not, best counsel would block this
transformation from taking place.
4.3.1 External Measures of Compliance
These two kinds of control mechanisms are found in every society; however, they differ from
each other in the sense that while some authority outside the individual himself imposes
external mechanisms, internal control mechanisms depend for their efficiency essentially on
internalised norms of behaviour. Ridicule, reprimand, punishment – these are some of the
examples of external mechanisms; they are expected to instill in the individual a sense of shame
and regret for the infraction of norms of behaviour that society has accepted and expects its
members to adhere to. For example, Jainism, a religion that does not approve violence in any
form, relies on ridicule and reprimand and sanctions the use of such derogatory words as
“dhik”, “ha-ha” etc. to generate a sense of shame and guilt in the person guilty of some
improper conduct.
We all are familiar with the use of slaps and rods in the case of those children who are
supposed to be guilty of quarreling and for their recourse to violent acts. The methods of
controlling and regulating behaviour may not be socially sanctioned, but they are usually
socially practised. In addition, there are certain institutionalised mechanisms that every society,
whether primitive or modern, has access to for enforcing compliance. There are informal
methods of settling violent conflicts. These methods range from mediation to informal methods
of settling conflicts such as caste panchayat and village panchayat. Their efficacy depends on
the fear of social boycott that may leave a person on the limbo of isolation and stoppage of
social relations if milder punitive measures fail to be effective. This method is known as
boycott. A person unfortunate enough to invite collective punitive action of this kind virtually
becomes a non-person.
Besides informal methods of social control, there are institutionalised methods that derive their
sanction from centralised political authority. It is this centralised political authority that prescribes
the lawful, if not moral, behaviour in social interaction and what punishment may follow if a
person is found guilty of infringing the code of conduct formulated by the state. These methods
are legal methods, which derive their sanctity from laws that the legislative assembly of a
particular country enacts. As such, only that infraction comes under legal scrutiny that has been
recognised by law as unlawful behaviour. The police and judicial system are the principal
agencies that are concerned with passing judgments whether the person or persons, suspected
of committing a violent crime, is guilty or not and what punishment must be meted out to him,
if he or they is/are found guilty.
Mechanisms of control seek to emphasise refraining from doing what the society or the
centralised political authority considers to be improper and, therefore, harmful to nonviolent,
peaceful social relations. All these methods imply threat; if the implied threat fails to deter a
person from taking recourse to violence, then punishment follows. Reliance on threat followed
by punishment is integral to external mechanisms of control. Compliance based on coercive
methods is undoubtedly compliance obtained through the use or threat of force, especially
against those who are defined as aggressors. In essence, methods of control based on coercion
exemplify a model of seeking compliance that is based on deviance, detection, conviction,
adjudication and sanctions, whether physical, economic, social and legal. While social methods
presuppose a body of unwritten normative principles and adhoc methods of detection,
determination, sanction, the formal methods presuppose a nucleus of institutions specially set
up for this purpose. Since all these methods imply coercion, Galtung characterises them as
structural violence.
A distinctive characteristic of external mechanisms of ensuring compliance is that they become
relevant post facto, that is, only after a particular activity comes or brought to notice and is
declared as an infringement- lawfully sanctioned behaviour. The punishment it invites is supposed
to be educative in the sense that it will forcefully bring to the consciousness of the aggressor
the fact that he has done wrong and he must not do it again. This is supposed to induce the
aggressor to refrain from repeating it in the future. Thus coercion is treated as a means of
reform which, when accomplished, is supposed to be permanent.
Such a supposition is however based on a very tenuous logic. We all are familiar with the term
Culture of Peace 47
“hardened criminal”, who goes on repeating his crimes no matter how severely or how often
he is punished. Coercion, in his case, proves quite ineffective. The reason is that there is
something like rational commensuration, which signifies that people compare the gain with the
cost they have to pay for a particular action they plan to take. If the cost is lower than the
gain, people would go on infringing approved codes of conduct whether social or political.
The phenomenon of rational commensuration should alert us to the fact that external mechanisms
of ensuring compliance with peaceful means of resolving differences that, when left unattended,
are certain to lead to violence, are by no means sufficient. They need to be supplemented and
strengthened by the cultivation of attitudes that refuse to use violent methods for resolving
conflicts.
4.3.2 Internal Measures of Compliance

The talk of the training of disposition and attitude for sustaining peaceableness underlines the
supreme importance of internal mechanisms of control for not only cultivating peaceableness
but also for making external mechanisms of control more effective, but less frequent, if not
quite redundant. A compliance system based on internal mechanisms of control receives its
relevance from the internalisation of certain values that inculcate and support peaceful behaviour
by suppressing aggression. These values underline the power of peace and are instrumental
in altering patterns in people’s mind based on the violent ways of behaving. They aim at
replacing violent ways of dealing with conflict situations. They induce and prompt people to
replace aggressiveness with peace consciousness that values cooperation, kindness, honesty,
compassion, tolerance, charity and justice. Once internalised, these values prove durable and
are capable of inoculating the people against the attractiveness of violence. Internalisation of
values that engender peaceableness creates an internalised desire to comply with the norms
of peaceful behaviour. It is a behaviour that is institutionally necessary and is internalised as
a need disposition in the personal system.
4.3.3 Culture of Peace Defined

It is now possible to define the meaning of culture of peace. When external measures of
compliance are gradually replaced by internal measures, a society deserves to be called as
peaceful. This movement from external measures of control to internal measures may ultimately
succeed in banishing violence; however, it does not guarantee that society will never experience
conflicts. However, as long as there is a diversity of looking at the world and doing things,
as long as a plurality of social groups exists, and as long as a multiplicity of interests goads
people to act, there will be differences. But when people learn to resolve these differences
nonviolently and act accordingly, it can be said that culture of peace prevails.
Culture of peace signifies not only the training of mind to resist the seduction of violence but
also the manifestation of such a trained mind in sustaining peaceful social relations. What is
very essential for the flourishing of the culture of peace is a mentality that does not treat any
difference as a confrontation; rather it underlines that any difference of views should be treated
as an emergent problem that needs to be solved cooperatively. The term “cooperatively” here
refers to the involvement of the larger group of which the contestants are a part. Such an
involvement ensures a cooperative search for a solution that satisfies the contestants as well
as preserves social harmony and peace. This makes it clear that the internal attitude of
peaceableness must be supported by the external institutional arrangement of society. This will
assure culture of peace to remain vital and vibrant. Thus, culture of peace signifies a state of
mind that abjures violence as well as measures and structures, which promise to solidify and
build trust and interaction among people for avoiding a relapse into conflict.
4.4 PILLARS OF THE CULTURE OF PEACE

Culture of peace is cultivated and nurtured in the minds of men. However, it is kept alive in
civil society, which institutionalises principles and procedures that play an active role in preventing
a social situation from becoming violent. It is thus clear that culture of peace is not synonymous
with a peaceable mind nor it is identical with civil society alone. It is the combination of both
that engenders and sustains culture of peace. Both the peaceable mind and the appropriately
structured civil society are interdependent. Culture of peace is strongly related to civil society.
However, stronger emphasis must be placed on the skills, processes and institutions that
enable non-violent solutions in the face of serious differences and on the attitude and values
that make peaceful behaviour possible. Culture of peace, it is clear, is dependent on two
essential props, self-cultivation that makes internalisation of values supportive of peacefulness
and skills, structures and practices immanent in social order favourable to the maintenance of
peace and nurturing of peace-supporting values.
Given the interconnectedness of self-cultivation for engendering values favourable to peaceful
ways of social relations and skills, structures and practices characterising a society, several
questions need to be answered. First, how does one go about training the mind so that it
develops the capacity to resist and overcome the attractiveness of aggression and violence?
Second, what are the institutional structures and practices that must be successfully activated
to preclude the possibility of differences turning into violent confrontation, on the one hand,
and to peacefully resolve conflicts if they have taken place, on the other? And, lastly, there
have been, of late, several serious attempts to suggest ways and means of generating culture
of peace to assist conflict societies to resume work of reconciliation, begin the necessary
enterprise of building peace, and enjoying peace. One of such programmes is UNESCO’s
Culture of Peace Programme, initiated in 1995.
This programme consists of six components and it is expected that if all these components are
embraced by nations, war-torn societies will turn into harmonious, peaceful societies. The six
components are helpful in elucidating the goals and methods of intentional development of
peace culture. The first component refers to the need to redefine power not in terms of
violence or force, but that of active nonviolence. Peace, as active nonviolence, is considered
not only as a means of controlling aggression but also treated as the instrument of peaceful
change. The second component underlines the need to demolish the structures of hierarchical
vertical authority and the installation of an egalitarian democratic system in its place. Democratic
system is to promote participation by people in making decisions that affect their lives. While
the third component calls for doing away with secrecy and control of information and insists
on the free flow and sharing of information, the fourth component concerns gender inequality
and male domination. It insists on power-sharing between men and women, promoting especially
the caring and nurturing capabilities traditionally associated with and developed by women.
Two more components relate particularly to the need, on the one hand, to call an end of
exploitation that has characterised the culture of violence and war, and on the other, to infuse
in the minds of men the value of initiating the process of mobilisation of people that aims at
promoting understanding rather than defeating an enemy. It is hoped that if all the components
of the programme are embraced without any reservation by people, societies and nations,
culture of peace will supplant culture of violence and consciously and actively pursues a course
that will allow a peaceful society to flourish.
It must, however, be pointed out that all these six components of the UNESCO’s Culture of
Peace Programme are simply goals to be achieved. However, it is not clear how these goals
Culture of Peace 49
are to be achieved. They are goals worthy of pursuit by human beings if they are to live in
peace. However, without pointing to the ways and means of realising them, they do not serve
any significant purpose except to direct us to some ideals that we must live by. There is a
fundamental difference between “knowing virtue” and “having virtue”. We may know what
virtue is; however, our own limitations and situational compulsions, such as the lack of opportunity
could make us unable to actively pursue them. It is also possible that a social order is so
diseased that it does not allow a person to rise above the sunken morality pervading it. It is
important to internalise a process of living that allows a person to illumine the nooks and
crannies of his existence by the light of these ideals.
To live according to the ideals contained in the six components is not possible by embracing
Immanuel Kant’s principle of categorical imperative. The principle does not allow of any
exception to the rule of sticking fast to the norm of behaviour a person has chosen as a guide
to his action in all circumstances. However, life is full of compromises and exceptions have
to be made not for convenience but for preserving peace and harmony. Moreover, a person
is forced by circumstances to choose between competing values and may find it well nigh
impossible to adhere to the principle of action he has committed himself to follow without
wavering. These two factors underline the limitations of drawing a list of virtues worthy of
pursuit by human beings without pointing to the way these values must be cultivated and made
an integral part of one’s existence.
Further, there seems to be confusion between the means and goals in the UNESCO’s Culture
of Peace Programme. Take, for example, the component that stresses the need to redefine
power not in terms of violence or force but as active nonviolence. Man as an economic man
requires him to compete with others for satisfying his material needs. He has necessarily to
rely on his capacity to outrun others in the race of life. It is this need that makes power as
violence or force so central in man’s life today. Without doing away with this conception of
man and mitigating the consequences of the activities of man qua economic man, power in
terms of active nonviolence cannot be redefined.
Also there are such components as pulling down hierarchical structures and erecting egalitarian
democratic structure in their place. However they are, if anything, conditions in which nonviolent
action gets a fillip. Democratic structures, in themselves, are not enough to instill in man the
virtue of active nonviolence. The attitude of nonviolence is prior to democracy and sustains
it in real life situations. It is enough to show the limitations of the UNESCO’s Culture of Peace
Programme. What needs to be emphasised is, as UNESCO itself recognises, defence of
peace is cultivated in mind; the mind is moulded primarily in family and secondarily in society;
and social life and relations are imbued with and under-girded by a world view. Thus there
is a chain that links three factors in close interaction insofar as culture of peace is concerned.
The first link in this chain is the worldview that posits the idea of man. Since the idea of man
is creative, not scientific, man becomes what he considers himself to be. Influenced by this
particular idea of who man is, man creates his world which, in turn, defines what and how
he should or should not do.
In order to apprehend and appreciate the nature of the culture of peace, it is necessary to
identify the type of worldview that shapes the mind to act in nonviolent ways eschewing
aggression and violence. Worldviews generate belief systems, which, in turn, influence man’s
orientation and action. Belief systems engender conceptions that are held and shared by the
members of a society, both implicitly and explicitly, about the nature of humans, the world,
divinity, and the world beyond. Belief systems do not emerge out of nothing, nor do they find
their origin in mere practices, as Michael Oakeshott wants us to believe. They are grounded
in cosmology, which performs three functions at one. First, cosmology offers an imaginative
account of what lies in the world that is beyond the phenomenal world. Usually, it posits a
divine entity as the creator and preserver of the visible world. On this account, the created
world exhibits order, the source of which is, again, the divine entity. Secondly, it tells us about
our place in and relationship with the larger conceptual world. And, lastly, it identifies this
larger conceptual world as the source from which human beings derive their sense of truth,
meaning and value.
Religious beliefs find their origin in cosmology of one kind or the other. Usually, such beliefs
project a vision of world presided over by a benign God and underline the need of man to
attune his soul to this divine being as the necessary condition of rising above one’s own
contingent, narrow experiences and relating oneself with the larger world. This divine being is
treated not as something apart or as the other; instead it must be treated as a kindred soul
who allows us to share the majesty of the divine being. Religious beliefs teach the important
lesson of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the whole world is one family) and bring to man’s
consciousness the central importance of love as the strong basis of bonding in society and
sharing in a commonality. Thus these beliefs underline the value of love and caring for one
another for all human beings. They constantly remind us that the nonviolent way is a better,
higher and preferable way and that violence must be abjured to assure human well-being.
Individuals hold religious beliefs. It is not at all necessary that these beliefs may be widespread
or strongly held by all. Moreover, the sage, the philosopher, or the seer who happens to be
the originator of particular religions can be ignored, forgotten and their teachings rejected,
unless their message is accepted and institutionalised if it is to live long and retain its vitality
for shaping man’s orientation and guiding man’s action. For the institutionalisation of religious
beliefs, four important measures and processes are usually relied upon. These measures and
processes are: enculturation, celebrations of religious beliefs through rites, rituals, different
types of public celebrations, functions etc., education, and institutionalised mechanisms of
mediation, reconciliation and arriving at negotiated compromise. The presence of a belief
system that promotes nonviolence and/or social harmony and does not easily condone aggression
is perhaps the most critical feature in the sustenance of the culture of peace.
Of these four different modes of creating and sustaining the culture of peace, the most
important is the process of enculturation whose primary setting is the family. It is in the family
that children are socialised into certain values of personal conduct and proper norms of
interpersonal interaction. Each household, in a particular society, inherits a worldview and a
belief system and develops its own strategies to suppress aggression. These strategies are
uniquely rooted in indigenous culture and are passed on from one generation to the next.
Similarly, each society has its own fund of adaptation, built on the knowledge of local environment
and the historical memory of times of crises and change. Such knowledge and experience are
represented in the individual familial households that make up a community. The community
at large shares this knowledge and the experience of applying this knowledge to concrete
situation.
The second factor that keeps alive the belief system, even if only dimly, involves the performance
of certain rites, rituals and periodical religious celebrations. The knowledge of the cosmology
and the personal and social practices derived from it are woven into religious teachings,
ceremonies and celebration in the world of work, of play, in environmental lore, in the saga
of times past. These are the hidden peace-building strength of every society. Their contribution
to peace-building assumes basically three forms. Firstly, the performance of rites, rituals and
ceremonies keeps people committed to the worldview and its derivative, the religious belief.
This commitment, again, is passed from generation to generation.
Culture of Peace 51
Secondly, the remembrance of one’s linkage to a primordial world-view is acted upon in the
pragmatic affairs of human beings; this keeps alive the ideal of doing as Gods did in conducting
personal lives and social relations. Thirdly, performance of rites, rituals and ceremonies also
provides the occasions when people meet cordially, even if they are divided by jealousy,
animosity and enmity. On these occasions gifts are exchanged, the point is sharply made that
people are interdependent and share the same cultural heritage and belief system, and the
necessity of reciprocity and cooperation is highlighted. Since celebrations are usually patterned
on rituals, they forge a connection with creation itself, a remainder of the oneness of all living
things. All these factors go a long way in serving to inhibit aggression and, therefore, they
prove to be useful in sustaining culture of peace.
The third factor in the vitalisation of culture of peace is education. It is necessary to make a
distinction here in two important processes of educating the mind to become peaceful. This
distinction refers to an informal process called learning and a formal process known as
education in schools, colleges and universities. Learning takes place in informal settings, such
as, the family, the peer groups, and the larger society. People learn in these settings the value
of peaceful ways of behaving and dealing with other people. Children learn from their elders
appropriate norms of behaviour that are transmitted mainly through examples, stories, and
verbal instructions. In contradistinction to learning, curricula in schools, colleges and universities
are so constructed and textbooks are prepared in such a way that they emphasise the
importance of peace. They are aimed at instilling in the students appropriate values and training
them in skills that forge a mindset favourable to culture of peace.
Even if all these factors are active and engender culture of peace, situations arise when the
possibility of violence stares the community in its face. In such cases, attempts are made to
avoid violence and preserve peace. Two kinds of mechanisms are, therefore, developed to
manage situations that are charged with the possibility of violence. One of these mechanisms
is informal that underlines the important role of a third party intervention in bringing the
contestants to a satisfactory negotiated peace. This is done basically through mediation and
reconciliation involving an individual, a group of individuals or the entire adult population of
a community. What is essential to the process of mediation and reconciliation is clarifying the
issues involved in a particular situation of conflict, evaluation of the merits of the contestants’
views or claims, exploration of the ways and means of finding a peaceful solution. This process
aims at safeguarding equity. In contradistinction to this, there is a formal process involving
legally established panchayats. These are statutory bodies armed with the authority of deciding
the cases brought before them. The panchayats give their verdicts, which can be appealed in
higher courts, on the basis of legality, not equity. Then there are judicial and criminal courts,
which take cognizance of certain crimes or claims of entitlements and give their verdicts, which
are binding unless reversed by higher courts.
4.5 SUMMARY
It is clear from the discussion above that culture of peace has a very crucial role in keeping
a society free of violence. It is also clear that culture of peace involves primarily training the
mind so that it can eschew violence and develop both the capacity and the habit of behaving
nonviolently. Culture of peace grows in the minds of men, to be sure; it needs nourishment
from certain elements in the society at large. However, society plays only a supportive and
prescriptive role in generating and sustaining culture of peace. The principal role is that of the
individual members of society. If even a few of them commit themselves to peace, society can
eventually become peaceful. It is in this context that Mahatma Gandhi’s observation assumes
significance. He is very optimistic about the prevalence of peace in the world. He says: “my
optimism rests on my belief in the infinite possibilities of the individual to develop nonviolence.
The more you develop it in your own being, the more infectious it becomes till it overwhelms
your surrounding and by and by might over sweep the world.”2 Thus the foundation of culture
of peace in a society is the peace in the minds of its members.

1. What does the term “Culture of peace” mean? Should it disallow change?
2. What control mechanisms should societies develop to control aggression and violence?
3. Describe the different ways a society uses to regulate conflict and prevent violence.
4. Do you think that external measures of controlling aggression and preventing violence are
sufficient in themselves? Discuss.
5. Write short notes on enculturation and education as important means of sustaining culture
of peace. Which of the two is more effective in your opinion?
Endnotes:
1. Johann Galtung., “Peace”, in Sciences, Macmillan and Free Press, New York, 1968, p.489
2. Quoted in Janet Patti and Linda Lantiere., “Peace Education: Youth”, in Encyclopedia of Violence,
Peace and Conflict, Academic Press, San Diego, 1992, Vol. 1, p.709
SUGGESTED READINGS
Adams, David., (ed), Saville Statement on Violence, UNESCO, Paris, 1991.
Boulding, Elise., “Peace Culture”, in Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace and Conflict, Academic
Press, San Diego, 1999, Vol.2, pp.653 – 67
Gandhi, M.K., Hind Swaraj, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1938
Macy, J., Dharma and Development, C.T. Kumarian Press, Hartford, 1981
Robarchek, C.A, and C.J. Robarchek., “Waging Peace- The Psychological and Socio-cultural
dynamics of positive peace”, in A.W. Wolfe and H. Yang., (eds), Anthropological Contributions
to Conflict Resolution, G.A University of Georgia Press, Athens, 1996, pp.64-80.
UNESCO, From a Culture of Violence to a Culture of Peace, UNESCO, Paris, 1996.
UNIT 5 TYPES AND LEVELS OF CONFLICT
Structure
5.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
5.2 Defining Conflict: Conceptual Clarifications

5.3 Functions / Objectives of Conflict
5.4 Types and Levels of Conflicts
5.5 Summary
Suggested Readings
5.1 INTRODUCTION
“Society is impossible without conflict. But society is worse than impossible without
the control of conflict”.
[Paul Bohannon (ed.), Law and Welfare: Studies in the Anthropology of
Conflict (New York, 1967), p. xxi]
We all are familiar with conflicts. They are part of our daily life. They are inherent in human
relations. But this does not mean that every social relationship is entirely or even partly
conflicting all the time. Nor does it mean that every underlying conflicting relationship will be
expressed with the same degree and kind of hostility or violence.
Conflicts belong to the full complexity of social existence; their domain is as vast and varied
as life itself. One cannot interpret and analyse them in any reasonable depth unless one draws
on work done in various disciplines such as anthropology, sociology, history, political science
and international relations and psychoanalysis. Taken together these disciplines emphasise the
importance of an interdisciplinary view for adequately comprehending the complexities of
different types and levels of conflicts. What do we understand by conflict? Are all conflicts
bad or have negative impact? What purposes do they serve? How many types of conflicts
can be identified? Are there any unidentified conflicts? This unit tries to address some of these
questions.
Aims and Objectives
This unit will enable you to understand:
 the conceptual problems of identifying the meaning and definition of conflict
 functions and objectives of conflict
 various kinds, types, levels and manifestations of conflict.
5.2 DEFINING CONFLICT: CONCEPTUAL

CLARIFICATIONS
The word conflict is derived from the Latin word confligere meaning to strike together.
Originally, it had a physical rather than moral connotation, though the English word has both.
In the physical sense, it denotes two or more different things moving to occupy the same space
at the same time, the logical inconsistency and the process of solution being identical. For
example, the logical inconsistency of two billiard balls being in the same place at the same time
is resolved by the conflict which results in their rolling to two different positions.
There is no agreement among scholars on the precise meaning of the term conflict. There are
as many definitions of the term as are the studies available on the subject. However, some of
the following definitions will help us understand this phenomenon better.
1. George Simmel, whom we owe a classical analysis of various forms of conflict, insisted
that ‘conflict is a form of sociation’ and that ‘a certain amount of discord, inner divergence
and outer controversy, is organically tied up with the very elements that ultimately hold
the group together’.
2. Kenneth Boulding defines conflict as a form of competition in which the competing parties
recognize that they have mutually incompatible goals. (Kriesberg, 1973, p.4)
3. Lewis Coser, who offered one of the most influential definitions of conflict, regards it as
‘a struggle over values and claims to scarce status, power and resources in which the
aims of the opponents are to neutralize, injure or eliminate the rivals’ (Jayaram and
Saberwal, 1996, p.5). Defined thus, conflict is a comprehensive category, encompassing
a variety of phenomena, from brawls in the bazaar to wars between nations.
4. Park and Burgess write that ‘Conflict is always conscious. Indeed it evokes the deepest
emotions and strongest passions and enlists the greatest concentration of attention and of
effort. Both competition and conflict are forms of struggle. Competition, however, is
continuous and impersonal. Conflict is intermittent and personal’. (Kriesberg, 1973, p.4)
5. According to Robert C. North, ‘ A conflict emerges whenever two or more persons (or
groups) seek to possess the same object, occupy the same space or the same exclusive
position, play incompatible goals, or undertake mutually incompatible means for achieving
their purposes’. (North, 1968, p.226).
6. The conception identifying conflict with violent interactions in which behaviour and
perceptions are in opposition has remained a basic conception in conflict studies. Mack
and Snyder, without offering a specific definition, identify the distinguishing characteristics
of the range of conflict phenomena as: (i) the existence of two or more parties; (ii) their
interaction arises from a condition of resource scarcity or position scarcity; (iii) they
engage in mutually opposing actions; (iv) their behaviour is intended to damage, injure or
eliminate the other party; (v) their interactions are overt and can be measured or evaluated
by outside observers (Bercovitch, 1984, p.4).
7. Mahatma Gandhi’s view of conflict and the importance of expressing it is one of his most
significant insights, and he found it confirmed in the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita, a
Hindu religious scripture. According to his interpretation, the Gita regards each person
as possessing truth and untruth together. “The field of battle is in our own body”, Gandhi
said in summarising its teachings.
Types and Levels of Conflict 55
8. One finds altogether a different understanding of the meaning of international conflicts /

civil wars or wars in the literature on conflict. Disagreement over the exact notion of the
conflict as a term in the domain of international relations dominates until today. Different
understandings of international conflict can be discerned from browsing of the literature.
Singer and Small define conflicts as violent disputes in which at least one of the combatant
parties is a state, and there are at least 100 battle-deaths. This definition covers exclusively
soldiers and other military staff. Civilian victims are however not considered. This definition
was criticised by other studies. Three Research Institutes of Conflict also attempt a
definition of conflict (Axt, 2006, p.3). According to the Stockholm International Peace
Research Institute (SIPRI):
A “major armed conflict” is defined as the use of armed force between the military forces of
two or more governments, or of one government and at least one organized armed group,
resulting in the battle-related deaths of at least 1000 people in any single calendar year and
in which the incompatibility concerns control of government and/or territory.
Also the Uppsala Conflict Database (UPDP) follows this very narrowly composed conflict
notion:
An armed conflict is defined ... as a contested incompatibility that concerns government or
territory or both, where the use of armed force between two parties results in at least 25
battle-related deaths. Of these two parties, at least one has to be the government of a state.
However, it may be noted that other definitions of conflict have broader scope. For example
the Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research (HIIK) defines conflict as
... the clashing of interests (positional differences) on national values of some duration and
magnitude between at least two parties (organized groups, states, groups of states, organizations)
that are determined to pursue their interests and win their cases.
This definition testifies the fact that numbers of conflicts take place in weak or already
collapsed / failed states, which are not capable to intervene in the conflict with their own
troops. Also conflicts in which the state power is not one of the parties to conflict are covered
by this definition.
Thus, there are divergent definitions of the concept of conflict in different social sciences,
including international politics and peace and conflict studies. Each one of the definitions
included in this unit / section adds a new insight and perspective to our understanding of the
complex phenomena called “conflict”.
5.3 FUNCTIONS/OBJECTIVES OF CONFLICT

Scholars of conflict studies do not believe (like an average person) that all conflicts are bad,
as they serve positive social functions. Conflict prevents the ossification of the social system
by exercising pressure for innovation and creativity. George Sorel felt that a social system was
in need of conflict if only to renew its energies and revitalise its creative forces. Coser states
that: ‘Conflict within and between groups in a society can prevent accommodations and
habitual relations from progressively impoverishing creativity. The clash of values and interests,
the tension between what is and what some groups feel ought to be, the conflict between
vested interests and new strata and groups demanding their share of power, wealth, and
status, have been productive of vitality; note for example the contrast between the “frozen
world” of the Middle Ages and the burst of creativity that accompanied the thaw that set in
with Renaissance civilization’ (Coser, 1967, p.20). According to John Dewey, ‘Conflict is the
gadfly of thought. It stirs us to observation and memory. It instigates to invention. It shocks
us out of sheep-like passivity, and sets us at noting and contriving.... Conflict is a sine qua
non of reflection and ingenuity’. Conflict not only generates new norms and new institutions,
it may also be stimulating directly in the economic and technological realm. Economic historians
often have pointed out that much technological improvement has resulted from the conflict
activity of trade unions through the raising of wage levels. It may be noted that the extreme
mechanization of coal-mining in the United States has been partly explained by the existence
of militant unionism in the American coalfields (Coser, 1967, p.20). Coser writes that a natural
scientist (Waldemar Kaemfert), describing the function of earthquakes, stated in 1952 admirably
what could be considered the function of conflict. The scientist wrote: ‘There is nothing
abnormal about an earthquake. An unshakable earth would be a dead earth. A quake is the
earth’s way of maintaining its equilibrium, a form of adjustment that enables the crust to yield
to stresses that tend to reorganize and redistribute the material of which it is composed. The
larger the shift, the more violent the quake, and the more frequent the shifts, the more frequent
are the shocks’ (Coser, 1967, p.26).
According to Marx, conflict leads not only to ever-changing relations within the existing social
structure, but the total social system undergoes transformation through conflict. A central thesis
of Arnold Toynbee’s monumental work, A Study of History, reveals that a group or a system
that no longer is challenged is no longer capable of creative response. It may subsist, wedded
to the eternal yesterday of precedent and tradition, but it is no longer capable of renewal.
Most contemporary social scientists lay stress on the constructive consequences of conflict
relations. Dubin’s five central propositions constitute a broader thesis: intergroup conflict is a
fundamental institutionalised social process which determines the direction of social change
and, in effect, defines social welfare. Mack and Snyder consider that though most of his
analysis is drawn from experience of industrial relations, the propositions have wider applicability.
They also summarise the views of five other scholars: (i) conflict sets group boundaries by
strengthening group cohesiveness and separateness; (ii) conflict reduces tension and permits
maintenance of social interaction under stress; (iii) conflict clarifies objectives; (iv) conflict
results in the establishment of group norms; and (v) without conflict, accommodative relations
would result in subordination rather than agreement (Mack and Snyder, 2006, p.22).
To Mahatma Gandhi, conflict has its benefits. An appreciation of the other point of view
enhances one’s own perspective. We are all limited to our own angle of vision, Gandhi said.
Through conflict, one gains a broader view of truth.
5.4 TYPES AND LEVELS OF CONFLICTS

There is no agreement among scholars on the problem of types and levels of conflict. Different
scholars have identified different kinds or types of conflict. There can be social conflicts, inter-
community conflicts, caste conflicts, group conflict, interpersonal conflict, intellectual conflict,
economic conflicts, cultural conflicts, religious conflicts, racial or ethnic conflicts, ideological
conflicts, hot and cold conflict, north and south conflict, regional conflicts, international or
intra-national conflicts and so on. According to Dennis Sandole, a typology facilitates analysis
and a typology of conflicts could facilitate resolving as well as analysing conflicts. Moreover,
a study of different typologies of conflicts may provide interrelated insights into a given conflict
situation. Such insights could enable an analyst and potential third-party intervener to see a
conflict from various angles, thereby enhancing the likelihood of a more effective response.
This section provides an overview of typologies of conflicts that we find in the literature of
conflict studies.
Quincy Wright was one of the earliest political scientists to make a systematic study of
conflicts and war. According to him, conflict can take place among different sorts of entities.
He identifies four types of conflicts – physical conflict, political conflict, ideological conflicts
and legal conflicts. He distinguishes physical conflict in which two or more entities try to
occupy the same space at the same time from political conflict in which a group tries to
impose its policy on others. He further distinguishes these two types of conflict from ideological
conflicts in which systems of thought or of values struggle with each other, and from legal
conflicts in which controversies over claims or demands are adjusted by mutually recognized
procedures (Wright, 1990, pp. 22-23). He also identifies fifth category of conflict – war. For
him, war in the legal sense has been characterised by the union of all four types of conflict,
as noted above. War is manifested by the physical struggle of armies to occupy the same
space, each seeking to annihilate, disarm, or capture the other; by the political struggle of
nations to achieve policies against the resistance of others; by the ideological struggle of
people to preserve or extend ways of life and value systems; and by the legal struggle of states
to acquire titles, to vindicate claims, to prevent violence, or to punish offenses by recognized
procedures of regulated violence (Wright, 1942, p. 698).
Anatol Rapoport has proposed a threefold classification of conflicts: fights, games, and debates.
Their distinguishing criteria are: how the opponent is viewed, the intent of the parties, and the
rational content of the situation. In a fight, the opponent is viewed as a nuisance, the intent
is to harm him, and the situation is devoid of rationality. In a game, the opponent is viewed
like oneself, the intent is to outwit him, and the situation is completely rational. And in a debate,
the opponent is viewed as essential but of a different sort, the intent is to convince him, and
the situation is presumably rational (Rapoport, 1960, p.8).
Rapoport’s three models of conflict dynamics can be elaborated further. He distinguishes the
three kinds of conflict on the basis of the following four criteria. First, the basis or starting
point of the struggle in all three models of conflict differs from each other. In the fights, there
is a mutual fear or hostility between the parties; in the games, there is agreement between the
parties to strive for mutually incompatible goals within constraint of certain rules, but not where
outcome can be predicted in advance; and in the debates, there is disagreement between the
parties about “what is” (facts) or “what ought to be” (values); i.e., clashes of convictions or
“outlooks”. Second, the image of the opponent (held by each party) is also different: in
fights, the image held by each party is mainly a nuisance; preferably, the opponent should
disappear, or at least be reduced in size or importance. In games, the image of the opponent
held by each party is that of an essential partner, seen as a mirror image of the self; preferably,
a strong opponent who will do his best to win; a rational being whose inner thought processes
must be taken into account. In debates, the image of the opponent (held by each party) is
mistaken or misguided; preferably, the opponent should become a convert to one’s own
outlook. Third, the objective of each party is also different in three types of conflict. In
fights, the objective of each party is to harm, destroy, subdue, or drive away the opponent,
in games, it is to outwit the opponent and in the debates it is to convince the opponent.
Fourth, the mode of interaction in all three types also differs. In fights, the mode of
interaction is non-rational series of actions and reactions to the other’s and one’s own actions;
use of thrusts, threats, violence, etc.; and the course of interaction does not depend on goals
of the opponent. In games, the parties cooperate by following the rules and by doing their
best to provide maximum challenge to the opponent; actions (stratagems) chosen on the basis
of probable outcomes; and interaction terminates when outcome is obvious to both sides. In
debates, the parties engage in verbal interaction of arguments using various techniques of
persuasion such as brain washing, explaining away the opponent’s beliefs, and removing
threats associated in the opponent’s mind with adopting one’s own outlook.
Singer’s conflict typology is based on the political status of conflict parties. He retains his
original distinction between (a) interstate wars and (b) extra-systemic (mainly colonial) wars,
but here adds two further classes of non-interstate conflict: (c) ‘civil’ conflicts, in which, unlike
(b), one protagonist may be ‘an insurgent or revolutionary group within the recognized territorial
boundaries of the state’, and (d) the ‘increasingly complex intrastate wars’ in former colonial
states, where the challenge may come from ‘culturally defined groups whose members identify
with one another and with the group on the basis of shared racial, ethnic, linguistic, religious,
or kinship characteristics’ (Cited in Ramsbotham, et al, 2005, p.65).
K. J. Holsti, in his 1996 book The State, War, and the State of War (Cambridge University
Press, p.21), has also adapted his typology. He earlier categorised international (interstate)
conflict up to 1989 in terms of twenty-four issues, grouped into five composite sets: conflict
over territory, economics, nation-state creation, ideology, and ‘human sympathy’ (i.e. ethnicity/
religion). He concluded that the incidence of the first two had been declining, but that of the
last three was increasing. He later focuses on non-interstate war and bases his typology on
‘types of actors and / or objectives’, ending up with four categories of conflict: (a) ‘standard
state versus wars (e.g. China and India in 1962) and armed interventions involving significant
loss of life (the United States in Vietnam, the Soviet Union in Afghanistan)’; (b) ‘decolonizing
wars of “national liberation”’; (c) ‘internal wars based on ideological goals’ (e.g. the Sendero
Luminoso in Peru, the Monteneros in Uruguay); and (d) ‘state-nation wars including armed
resistance by ethnic, language and / or religious groups, often with the purpose of secession
or separation from the state’ (e.g., the Tamils in Sri Lanka, the Ibos in Nigeria) (Cited in
Ramsbotham, et al, 2005, p.65).
Many social scientists, especially sociologists, have addressed themselves to the task of
developing a general classification of social conflicts throughout the 20th century. Pitirim A
Sorokin suggests a useful basis for classification of conflicts, the nature of the antagonising
units. He distinguishes first between interpersonal and intergroup antagonisms, and then lists
about twenty different kinds of groups which may be parties to intergroup conflicts. The types
of groups he talks include: states, nations, nationalities, races, castes, classes, orders, and
families; also religious, political, sex, economic, occupational, ethnic, ideological, ethical,
artistic, scientific, philosophical, and territorial groups. Ross, another sociologist, identified
nine types of intergroup conflict, including four of those listed by Sorokin (races, classes, sex
groups, and religious groups) and five additional types (conflict between generations or age
groups, town vs. country, learned vs. ignorant, industrial conflict, and intra-class conflict)
(Fink, pp.417-18).
In 1951, Stuart Chase (See Fink, p. 418) presented a classification of the following 18 levels
of conflict:
1. Personal Quarrels – husband vs. wife, employer vs. servant, etc.;
2. Family vs. family;
3. Feuds – clan vs. clan;
4. Community quarrels – town vs. town, state vs. state;
5. Sectional quarrels – South vs. North, Southern Ireland vs. Ulster, etc.;
6. Workers against managers – foremen’s unions vs. the rest of management, jurisdictional
disputes between trade unions, etc.;
7. Political parties – two or more competing in elections;
8. Conflicts between the races – white vs. black, white vs. yellow, white vs. red, etc.;
9. Religious conflict – Protestant vs. Catholics, Hindus vs. Muslims, Jews vs. Muslims;
10. Anti-semitism – worldwide compound of racial, religious, and cultural antagonisms;
11. Ideological quarrels – communism vs. capitalism, business vs. government, labour vs.
capital, communism vs. socialism, etc.;
12. Occupational conflicts – farmer vs. industrial worker, blue-collar vs. white-collar, etc.;
13. Competition within a given industry – denunciation of price-cutters and chisellers;
14. Competition between industries – trucks vs. freight cars, oil vs. coal, silk vs. rayon, etc.;
15. National rivalries – nation vs. nation;
16. Conflicts between cultures – in group vs. out group;
17. Cold war – Russia and her satellites vs, the democracies;
18. East vs. West.
Thus, Chase provides a better typology and levels of conflict than his predecessors. His list
of 18 levels represents a fairly large number of domains for special theories of conflict. But,
since Chase does not consider this an exhaustive list, the number implied is even greater, and
remains indeterminate.
A more compact classification of structural levels of conflict is provided by LeVine (1961, pp.
4-5):
1. Intrafamily – interpersonal conflict between family members (e.g., sibling rivalry,
intergenerational conflict, and husband-wife antagonism);
2. Intracommunity – interpersonal conflict between members of different families within the
small local community, and intergroup conflict (between community factions based on
neighbourhood, descent, class, caste, or associational ties);
3. Intracommunity –all levels above the single local community but within a single
ethnolinguistic entity, the number and identity of levels being extremely variable across
cultures; examples are conflicts between local communities, between allied clusters of
local communities, between cross-community groupings (e.g., lineages, clans, and
associations), between autonomous states or chiefdoms, between provinces or
chiefdoms within a national organization (or between the latter and the central state);
4. Intercultural – conflicts between groups belonging to different ethnolinguistic entities, or
between such entities acting as units (e.g., intertribal conflicts).
It must be noted that while LeVine’s classification is based on an “anthropological” conception
of social structure geared to nonindustrial societies, Ralf Dahrendorf (Cited in Fink, pp.419-
20) has presented a “sociological” classification geared to industrial societies. It is based not
only on the social structure level of the conflict but also on the structural relations between the
parties. Fink borrows from Angell (1965, p.92) who exhibited the Dahrendorf’s classification
scheme in tabular form and modifies slightly and presents in his paper as Table 1. Taken at
face value, this scheme defines 15 types of conflict: at Social Units Roles (family role vs.
occupational role, occupational role vs. labour-union role; social personality vs. family role);
at Group’s and Sector’s level (boys vs. girls in school class; father vs. children; father vs.
prodigal son; air force vs. army; manufacturer’s association vs. unions; Episcopalian Church
vs. “high church” group; free men vs. slaves; state vs. criminal gang); at Societies level
(Protestants vs. Catholics); at the level of suprasocietal relations (Soviet bloc vs. Western
bloc; Soviet Union vs. Hungary and Common Market vs. France).
Kenneth Boulding (1962) provides his classification of conflicts based on abstract mathematical
conceptions rather than on levels of social structure. Fink summarises his eight kinds of social
conflicts as follows:
1. Conflicts between or among persons;
2. Boundary conflicts between groups (spatially segregated groups);
3. Ecological conflict between groups;
4. Homogenous organization conflict (i.e., between organizations of like character and
purpose, such as state vs. state, sect vs. sect, union vs. union, etc.);
5. Heterogenous organization conflict (i.e., between unlike organizations, such as state vs.
church, union vs. corporation, university vs. church or state, etc.);
6. Conflicts between a person and a group (mainly socialization conflicts, as in child vs.
family, person vs. peer group, person vs. hierarchical superiors or inferiors, etc.);
7. Conflict between a person and an organization (mainly role conflicts);
8. Conflicts between a group and an organization.
Johan Galtung provides a simple classification containing four types of conflict, as illustrated
in the following table:
Intrasystem conflict Intersystem conflict
Individual level intrapersonal interpersonal
Collective level e.g., intranational international
To understand Galtung’s classification, we should also keep in mind the meaning that he
attaches to the terms “intrasystem” and “intersystem”. He writes: “By an intra-system conflict
... we mean a conflict that can be found in the smallest subunits of the system, down to the
individual actor, whereas an inter-system conflict splits the system in parts, each subsystem
standing for its own goal state” (Cited in Fink, p. 422).
Dennis Sandole (2003, pp.39-40) presented a three pillar framework of conflict analysis,
which locates any particular conflict including its distinguishing characteristics under pillar 1,
the causes and conditions of the conflict under pillar 2, and conflict intervention and
implementation under pillar 3. According to him conflict is process characterized by stages
of initiation, escalation, controlled maintenance, de-escalation and some kind of termination
(e.g., settlement, resolution). He not only defines but also distinguishes between three kinds
of conflicts: latent conflicts (pre-MCPs), manifest conflict processes (MCPs), and aggressive
manifest conflict processes (AMCPs). According to him, latent conflicts are conflicts that are
developing, but have not yet expressed themselves in an observable manner, even for the
parties themselves. MCPs are conflicts that have developed to the extent that they are
observable, but have not been expressed so far in a violent manner. AMCPs are conflicts that
have escalated from MCPs to a level of expression: they are not merely capable of being
noticed and experienced, but are also destructive to parties, resources, and others as well.
Latent conflicts are also known sometimes as non-violent conflicts. According to some
studies, there are two types of non-violent conflicts: latent conflicts and manifested conflicts.
A latent conflict is defined as a stage in the development of a conflict where parties question
existing values, issues or objectives that have a national relevance. Latent conflicts must carry
some identifiable / observable signs in order to be recognised and noticed as such. In a latent
conflict the positional differences and the clashing interests must be articulated as demands or
claims. The manifest conflict is a stage when tensions are present but are expressed by means
below the threshold of violence. Tense relations between the conflicting parties can reach a
turning point enabling them to use force. Economic sanctions, e.g. are a means by which a
latent conflict can be turned into a manifest. Manifest conflicts, like latent conflicts, at all stages
are carried out by non-violent means and without the use of armed force.
On the other hand, violent conflicts, like war, civil war, armed conflict, etc. are more
destructive in which each party pursues the goal of injuring, destroying or otherwise forcibly
eliminating the other. Thousands of deaths occur in violent conflicts. They leave permanent
scars on the parties to the conflict. Wars or violent conflicts are high intensity conflicts, which
lead to widespread destruction. In the 1950s and 1960s, Boulding and Rapoport argued that
the international conflict was of such nature that it might eventually lead to an all-destructive
war, as the two super powers were pursuing goals of nuclear superiority. The scholars of
International Relations coined the term “MAD” (Mutually Assured Destruction) to describe
the nature of such an eventuality.
Thus it is now clear that conflict typology is as diverse as there are issues and incompatibilities
among various individuals, groups, nations, states, nationalities, and organisations.
5.5 SUMMARY
Conflicts are universal. They are present in every family, community, society, state or organisation.
They are inherent part of our social existence.
There is no agreement among scholars on the precise definition of the term conflict. There is
an ‘academic conflict’ among scholars on the question of defining the term ‘conflict’. Nearly
a dozen definitions available in different social science disciplines have been discussed in the
Unit. Each one has its own merit. All of them collectively add different perspectives and
insights to our understanding of the nature, types, levels and manifestations of conflicts. If we
understand each conflict appropriately, a proper and agreeable solution of it can be worked
out.
Conflicts serve many purposes. All conflicts are not bad and destructive. There have been
dialecticians like Hegel and Marx who have defended conflict as a necessary instrument of
change and progress. Similarly, sociologists like Simmel and Coser have defended it as a
necessary tool of social integration. According to Coser, conflict prevents the ossification of
the social system by exercising pressure for innovation and creativity.
The current conflict typology is in a state of confusion. There are as many typologies as
analysts, and the criteria employed not only vary, but are often mutually incompatible. A
compilation of some of the different labels used in well-known analyses from the 1990s soon
runs to well over a hundred. Some differentiate in terms of conflict parties, others in terms of
conflict issues, but most in terms of hybrid lists that seem to muddle diverse categories. Some
have two types, others run to more than twenty. The field is littered with typologies suggested
by particular authors but discarded by others. This unit provides an overview of diverse types
and levels of conflict.

1. What do you understand by conflict? Analyse its conceptual clarifications.
2. Are all conflicts bad or have negative impact? Discuss the objectives and purposes of
the conflicts?
3. How many types of conflicts can be identified or conceived? Answer the question by
citing prominent sociologists, political scientists and experts of peace and conflict studies.
SUGGESTED READINGS
Angell, Robert C., “The Sociology of Human Conflict”, in E. McNeil (ed.), The Nature of
Human Conflict, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs NJ, 1965.
Axt, Heinz-Jurgen., ‘Conflict – a literature review’, University of Duisburg-Essen, 2006. It can
be accessed at<www.europeanization.de/downloads/conflict_review_fin.pdf.
Bercovitch, Jacob., Social Conflicts and Third Parties – Strategies of Conflict Resolution,
Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 1984
Boulding, Kenneth., Conflict and Defense: A General Theory, Harper, New York, 1962.
Coser, Lewis A., Continuities in the Study of Social Conflict, Free Press, New York, 1967.
Fink, Clinton F., ‘Some Conceptual Difficulties in the Theory of Social Conflict’, Journal of
Conflict Resolution, Vol. 12, pp. 412-60, 1968
Jayaram N, & Satish Saberwal., (ed.), Social Conflict, Oxford University Press, New Delhi,
1996
Kriesberg, Louis., The Sociology of Social Conflicts, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
1973.
LeVine, Robert A., ‘Anthropology and the Study of Conflict: Introduction’, Journal of Conflict
Resolution, Vol.5, No.1, pp. 3-15, 1961
Mack, Raymond W, and Snyder, Richard C., ‘The Analysis of Social Conflict “ Towards an
Overview and Synthesis’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 1, no.2, pp. 212-48, 1957;
Reprinted in Daniel Druckman, and Paul F. Diehl., (ed.), Conflict Resolution, Vol. I, Sage
Publications, London, 2006, pp. 3-47.
North, Robert C., ‘Conflict; Political Aspects’, International Encyclopaedia of the Social
Sciences, Vols. 3-4, Macmillan Co., New York, 1968, pp. 226-32.
Rapoport, Anatol., Fights, Games, and Debates, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor,
1960.
Ramsbotham, Oliver, Woodhouse, Tom and Miall, Hugh., Contemporary Conflict Resolution,
Second Edition, Polity, Cambridge, 2005.
Sandole, Dennis J. D., ‘Typology’, in Sandra Chelden, Daniel Druckman, and Larissa Fast
(eds.), Conflict: From Analysis to Intervention, Continuum, London, 2003
Wright, Quincy., A Study of War, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1942.
————., ‘The Nature of Conflict’, The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 2, (1951);
reprinted in John Burton and Frank Dukes., (eds.), Conflict: Readings in Management and
Resolution , Macmillan, London, 1990, pp.15-34.
UNIT 6 SOURCES OF CONFLICT:
PERSPECTIVES
Structure
6.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
6.2 Sources of Conflict: Theoretical Perspectives

6.3 General Sources
6.3.1 Aggressive Human Nature
6.3.2 Socio-economic and Political Inequalities
6.3.3 Denial of Human Rights
6.4 Specific Sources

6.4.1 Religion
6.4.2 Ethnicity
6.4.3 Racism
6.4.4 Caste
6.4.5 Ideology
6.5 Global Sources of Contemporary Conflicts

6.6 Summary
Suggested Readings
6.1 INTRODUCTION
We learnt in the previous Unit that human conflicts are omnipresent and ubiquitous. They are
present in every society, in every part of the world. We also learnt that there are many kinds,
types, levels and manifestations of conflict. There is no single source for every conflict. There
are as many sources of conflict as there are its types and levels. Conflicts may have more than
one source or reason.
Identifying and understanding the underlying sources and root causes of conflicts is a key to
reducing their frequency and intensity, and eventually seeking a resolution. Since conflicts often
bring destruction in their wake and are therefore costly affairs, sources of conflict are the
natural foci for reforms and changes which will supposedly reduce or eliminate conflict. If the
source of conflict is a psychological state called ‘tension’, tension reduction is an indicated
strategy. If the source is ignorance, as is the case in some non-realistic conflicts, education will
eliminate or minimise the ‘cause’ of such conflicts. A genuine and lasting solution to peace
cannot be worked out unless one is familiar with the reasons and causes of different types of
conflicts. Conflict resolution efforts will bear fruits only when the root causes of conflict are
identified and the grievances of conflicting parties are addressed. Therefore, it is very important
for us to know both the general and specific causes that result in conflicts.
It must be recognised here that adequate research has not been done by scholars / theorists
of peace and conflict studies on the causes, effects and international implications of ethnic,
Sources of Conflict: Perspectives 65
social and other forms of communal conflicts. Most scholars have focused their research on
international armed conflicts or wars. This Unit will focus on the causes of conflicts, including
armed conflicts and other non-armed conflicts.
When we analyse the causes of conflicts, we are confronted with many questions: Is there a
general theory of sources of conflict? Can there be a single cause for the origin and eruption
of conflict? Or, are there multiple causes of conflicts? What are the general and specific
sources of conflicts?
Aims and Objectives
This Unit will enable you to understand
 The causes of conflict
 The theoretical perspectives on sources of conflict
 The general causes / specific sources of conflict
 The economic, political, ethnic, religious and structural causes of conflict.
6.2 SOURCES OF CONFLICT: THEORETICAL

PERSPECTIVES
Why does conflict or violence occur? To answer this question several scholars have theoretically
analysed the concept of conflict or violence. Some of the major theories are:
i. Frustration-aggression complex;
ii. Relative deprivation theory;
iii. Modernization process; and
iv. Conflict as an inherent process of social change.
Frustration-aggression theories of human conflict were developed in the discipline of psychology
by Dollard and his associates. This theory was further developed by Lewin. This theory argues
that frustration breeds aggression. Urbanisation, mass media, especially the television, and
other such sources of information help an individual to become aware of higher standards of
living experienced by people in the developed, industrialised societies. People living in
underdeveloped or developing countries feel frustrated when their expectations / aspirations
are not fulfilled due to lack of technology and scarcity of resources. Conflict or violence
resulting out of such frustration is known as frustration-aggression complex.
Secondly, if an influential section of a society appropriates for itself a greater share of resources
and opportunities available in that society, then the rest of the population in such a society feel
relatively deprived. Such imbalance usually occurs during the periods of relative prosperity
or development. If the fruits of progress, during the process of development, are not evenly
distributed among all the constituent sections of a society, those relatively deprived of their due
claims resort to violence as a means to redress their grievances. When the gap between
perceived expectations and real entitlements widens, it leads to conflict or violence.
Conflicts are also directly related to the modernization process. Most developing countries
go through this transitional phase from tradition to modernity. During the transitional period,
disequilibrium between political, social and economic institutions gives way to political violence
or conflict. In the transitional period, new work ethics and value systems are sometimes at
variance with traditional practices that lead to modern, developed economic institutions coexisting
with traditional notions of politics and society. Such an incongruence between various institutions
in a society or between institutions and processes within a realm (such as politics) leads to
tensions. For example, political modernisation implies accommodating political participation of
the new social groups. However, institutions that represent political modernity sometimes
continue to function on the basis of primordial affiliations. Thus, political violence / conflict in
the transitional societies is rooted in their failure to develop institutions responsive to the need
for participation by the new groups. It is a commonly held belief that conflict or violence
increases with the beginning of the process of modernisation, reaching a peak in societies at
mid-points of development, and then subsiding as modernisation gains momentum.
Lewis Coser and Ralf Dahrendorf, in their conflict theory, emphasise the use of conflict to
resolve social tensions and maintain interpersonal relations. They follow Karl Marx and George
Simmel here. For them, conflict is a natural manifestation of social change because in this
process some groups benefit more than the rest. Resolution of tensions through conflict is
particularly marked in pluralistic open societies as it allows citizens to exercise freedom even
to challenge the established norms and institutions. Others like Frantz Fanon and George Sorel
maintain that conflict / violence is the only tool available to the oppressed people for their
struggle against oppression and exploitation. Fanon, the African radical intellectual, said in his
famous book, The Wretched of the Earth (London, 1965), that the colonised people resort
to violence to free themselves from the shackles of colonial rule. He asserted that rebirth of
the marginalised and the neglected, would, depend on their ‘commitment to violence’, against
the imposed ‘structural violence’ of the unequal and heartless society. Sorel, the French
radical, spoke about the regenerative role of conflicts. He held that through violence and
conflict, a class will discover its identity and resurrect itself. This is in sharp contrast to what
Mahatma Gandhi had affirmed about ‘the therapeutic results of non-violence’. Gandhi also
affirmed that ‘exploitation is the supreme form of violence’.
Let us briefly discuss here Edward Azar’s theory of conflict (Cited in Ramsbotham and others,
pp.84-96). Azar lists the ‘seven main approaches’ in terms of the central propositions: that
conflict is innate in social animal; that it is generated by the nature of societies and the way
they are structured; that it is dysfunctional in social systems and a symptom of pathological
strain; that it is functional in social systems and necessary for social development; that it is an
inevitable feature of competing state interests in conditions of international anarchy; that it is
a result of misperception, miscalculation and poor communication; that it is a natural process
common to all societies.
In his various writings, late Edward Azar developed a theory of Protracted Social Conflicts
(PSC). For Azar, the critical factor in PSCs of 1970s and 80s, such as persisted in Lebanon,
Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Northern Ireland, Ethiopia, Israel, Sudan, Cyprus, Iran, Nigeria,
or South Africa, was that it represented ‘the prolonged and often violent struggle by communal
groups for such basic needs as security, recognition and acceptance, fair access to political
institutions and economic participation. Traditional understanding of international conflicts in
the disciplines of international relations / law was not able to analyse properly the ‘new kind
of conflicts’, which are ‘distinct from traditional disputes over territory, economic resources,
or East-West rivalry... revolves around questions of communal identity’. Azar considers that
the distinction between domestic and international sources of conflict is artificial, as both can
simultaneously act as decisive factors for the beginning and escalation of conflicts. His study
of PSC suggested that:
Many conflicts currently active in the underdeveloped parts of the world are characterized by
a blurred demarcation between international and external sources and actors. Moreover, there
are multiple causal factors and dynamics, reflected in changing goals, actors and targets.
Finally, these conflicts do not show clear starting and terminating points.
The term PSC emphasised that the sources of such conflicts lay predominantly within the
states rather than between states. Azar identifies four clusters of variables as preconditions for
the transformation of such conflicts to high levels of intensity.
First, the ‘most useful unit of analysis in PSC situations is the identity group – racial, religious,
ethnic, cultural and others’. PSC analysis focuses on identity groups, noting that it is the
relationship between identity groups and states which is at the core of the problem, and that
individual interests and needs are mediated through membership of social groups (‘what is of
concern are the societal needs of the individual – security, identity, recognition and others’).
Azar links the disjunction between state and society in many parts of the world to a colonial
legacy which artificially imposed European ideas of territorial statehood onto ‘a multitude of
communal groups’ on the principle of ‘divide and rule’. As a result, in many post-colonial
multi-communal societies, the state machinery comes to be ‘dominated by a single communal
group or a coalition of a few communal groups that are unresponsive to the needs of other
groups in the society’, which ‘strains the social fabric and eventually breeds fragmentation and
protracted social conflict’.
Second, Azar identified deprivation of human needs as the underlying source of PSC. ‘Grievances
resulting from need deprivation are usually expressed collectively. Failure to redress these
grievances by the authority generally leads to PSC. Unlike interests, needs are non-negotiable,
so that, if conflict comes, it is likely to be intense and vicious. In particular, Azar cites security
needs, development needs, political access needs, and identity needs (cultural and religious
expression). Arguing for a broader understanding of ‘security’, Azar linked this to an equally
broad understanding of ‘development’ and ‘political access’. For him reducing conflict situation
requires reduction in levels of underdevelopment. Groups which seek to satisfy their identity
and security needs through conflict are actually seeking change in the structure of their society.
Unless satisfactory amelioration of underdevelopment occurs, conflicts cannot be resolved.
Studying PSC leads one to conclude that peace is development in the broadest sense of the
term.
Third, in the contemporary world the state is endowed with authority to govern and use force
where necessary to regulate society, to protect citizens, and to provide collective goods. Azar
states that ‘Governance and state’s role’ is a critical factor in the satisfaction or frustration of
individual and identity group needs. Most states, according to him, which experience PSC,
tend to be characterised by incompetent, parochial, fragile, and authoritarian governments that
fail to satisfy basic human needs. Though in western liberal theory the state ‘is an aggregate
of individuals entrusted to govern effectively and to act as an impartial arbiter of conflicts
among the constituent parts’, treating all members of the political community as legally equal
citizens, this is not empirically what happens in most parts of the world. In many newer and
less stable states political power / authority has been monopolised by the dominant identity
group which uses the state to maximise their interests at the expense of others, especially the
minorities.
Finally, there is the role of what Azar called ‘international linkages’, in particular political-
economic relations of economic dependency within the international economic system, and the
network of political-military linkages constituting regional and global patterns of clientage and
cross border interest. Most modern weak states are porous to the international forces operating
within the wider global community: the ‘[f]ormation of domestic social and political institutions
and their impact on the role of the state are greatly influenced by the patterns of linkage within
the international system’. Although Azar’s analysis is not the last word on the subject, it does
provide us new perspectives in understanding the root causes of some of the PSCs.
Summarising this section of theoretical perspectives, we can provide here a synoptic sketch
of the illustrative causes of conflict. Determining causes of conflict can be of three types:
systemic and structural conditions, proximate (enabling) causes and immediate (triggering)
causes. These factors can be internal or external to the conflict. These types of causes overlap
and interrelate. Let us elaborate these causes.
Systemic causes and structural conditions relate to parties’ material circumstances, environmental
deterioration, population growth, resource scarcity and competition, the colonial or Cold War
legacy, breakdowns of values and traditions, poverty and marginalisation of certain ethnic
groups. Failed states are a fertile ground of conflicts.
Proximate factors include:
 Governing elite express exclusionary ideologies (beliefs that elevate some ethnic group or
class to a position of superiority over other groups).
 Competition occurs among governing elite in a context in which the state security apparatus
has few constraints.
 A charismatic leadership emerges that attracts a mass following through abstract appeals
to a group’s destiny.
 Severe economic hardship or differential treatment occurs for certain ethnic or other
groups. Scapegoats are sought.
 Provision and distribution of public services decline.
 Government responds to threats by enacting emergency measures or suspending rule of
law.
 Paramilitary organisations and militias grow or conduct training exercises.
 Arms flows increase.
 Politically active communities are increasingly polarised.
 The state’s perceived legitimacy appears to erode.
Triggering Factors include:
 A regime enacts new discriminatory or restrictive policies such as abuses of human rights.
 Clashes occur between regime supporters and targeted groups.
 Politically active groups receive external material or rhetorical support.
 Sudden economic events such as price drops affect large numbers of people.
 Political leaders call openly to overthrow the government or expel certain groups.
In the introduction of the Unit we raised two questions: Can there be a single cause for the
origin of conflict? Or, are there multiple causes of conflicts? On these questions, Mack and
Snyder hold that most social scientists now accept the principle of multiple causality of conflict;
hence there is no one basic source of conflict. Although it is true that all conflicts do not have
same general sources, some writers have pointed out that some generalised sources can be
identified and empirically tested. For instance, two writers “ Rose and Rose (cited in Mack
and Snyder, pp.15-16) have asserted that three primary motives underlie intergroup conflict:
(a) desire for acquisition of scarce values (political or power conflict); (b) desire to convert
others (ideological conflict); and (c) desire to prevent contact with inferiors (racist conflict).
Let us now look at the general sources of conflict.
6.3 GENERAL SOURCES

There are certain general sources which cause conflicts. Let us discuss them here.
6.3.1 Aggressive Human Nature

Many social psychologists and social scientists believe that human nature is basically responsible
for the origin of conflicts. They assert that human beings have certain innate/inherent features,
such as, aggressiveness, love / lust for power, position, and authority, love for war and so on.
Sigmund Freud suggested that opposite instincts exist side by side in the unconscious mind of
every human being, with no disharmony. Conflict occurs only when the overt, verbal, symbolic,
or emotional responses required to fulfill one motive are incompatible with those required to
fulfill another. When a person is motivated to engage in two or more mutually exclusive
activities, a conflict situation arises. For example, in a monogamous society a man cannot
marry two women at the same time, no matter how attractive they are to him. Thus it is clear
that psychological concepts like, hostility, aggressive impulses, or antagonistic sentiments do
bear on conflict. Rubenstein cites the biblical story of Cain and Abel to illustrate the psychological
aspects of human nature. This biblical tale (narrated in Bible) is common in all three major
religions of the Middle East – Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
The story goes that Adam and Eve had two sons – Cain and Abel. One day God asks both
of them to offer sacrifices to Him. Abel (who was a nomad and shepherd) sacrifices the
firstborn of his flock of sheep, and God accepts it. Cain (who was involved in agriculture),
the elder son, offers a sacrifice of farm produce, God spurns his offering. In consequence,
Cain hates Abel. He had feelings of anger and jealousy against Abel and develops a personal
animosity against him and one day he kills his brother. God punishes the killer by driving him
from the soil (exiling him) and condemning him to wander the earth as a fugitive, but he
protects him against vengeful men by marking him with a sign. Cain settles in the ‘land of Nod,
east of Eden’, where he becomes a founder of cities.
This story tells about the many sources of conflict: non-recognition of Cain’s sacrifice, sibling
rivalry, vulnerable target (Abel was young and weak), frustration-aggression factor, and inequality
(as Cain’s offering was considered equally valid).
Some scholars consider that conflict has the unconscious and the biological bases. They
wonder if there are some innate, endemic qualities in societies – and human beings – which
predispose them, more or less unconsciously, to engage in conflict. Presuming that according
to Reynolds, Falger and Vine, ‘nothing can move us to act in particular ways more strongly
than those elements in our psyche that we are completely unaware of’, socio-biologists have
been investigating whether some aspects of the proclivity for conflict may be ingrained in ‘the
genetic code’ (Jayram Saberwal, p.16).
6.3.2 Socio-economic and Political Inequalities

The links between economic inequality and conflicts have been confirmed since Aristotle’s
time. Aristotle wrote in Politics that ‘inferiors [slaves] revolt in order that they may be equal,
and equals that they may be superior’. He added further that ‘Inequality is the mother of all
revolutions’. James Madison in the Federalist characterised inequality in the distribution of
property as the ‘most common and durable’ source of conflict. Frederick Engels had argued
that political violence results when political structures are not synchronised with socio-economic
conditions. ‘Poverty anywhere is a threat to prosperity everywhere’, declared the constitution
of ILO in 1919. All these statements candidly explain the intrinsic relationship between socio-
economic inequalities and conflict. Also, they establish that there is relationship between
poverty and human rights. Poverty can be both a cause and a result of human rights denials.
In other words, while the non-fulfillment of human rights often causes poverty, poverty in many
cases is a cause of human rights violations. The realisation of all human rights and efforts to
eliminate extreme poverty are mutually reinforcing. The protection of human rights is instrumental
to the reduction of extreme poverty. All efforts to eliminate poverty must be based on human
rights.
In the present age of globalisation, poor people as well as the poor / underdeveloped nations
are getting marginalised. It is true that global economic integration is creating opportunities for
people around the world, but it is also leading to widening the gaps between the poorest and
richest countries. Many of the poorest countries are marginalised from the growing opportunities
of expanding international trade, investment and in the use of new technologies. Thus, in the
contemporary times, globalisation is emerging as a major cause of conflict at various levels-
intrastate and interstate.
Due to globalisation, the gap between the rich and poor is widening and some people are
reaping the harvest and becoming billionaires, whereas billions are not able to earn $2 dollars
a day. In 1998, the UNDP said the assets of the world’s 358 billionaires exceeded the
combined annual incomes of countries with 45% of the world’s population. In 1999, the sales
of the world’s top six firms, at $ 716 billion, exceeded the combined GDP of South Asia and
sub-Saharan Africa. The report of the UNDP for 2000 disclosed that the super rich get richer.
The combined wealth of the top 200 billionaires was $ 1,135 billion in 1999. Compare that
with the combined incomes of $ 146 billion for the 582 million people in all the least developed
countries (Cited in Vijapur, 2009, pp.77-78).
The horizontal inequality (i.e. inequality among groups, in contrast to vertical inequality which
measures inequality among individuals) is the fundamental source of organised conflict. When
certain minority groups are denied of political and economic empowerment, they tend to
engage in conflict with dominant or majority group which controls political power. If political
and economic space is provided to marginalised groups in the political system, such inter-
group conflicts can be resolved. For example, political participation can occur at the level of
the cabinet, the bureaucracy, the army and so on; economic empowerment comprises
employment, land, livestock etc.
The Naxalite movement in many states of India, since 1960s, is caused by huge socio-
economic disparities between land-owning feudal classes and poor peasants. It has been
started by the ultra leftist / communist parties who believe in radical socio-economic
transformation in society in which they seek to bring about through such extra-constitutional
methods as using guns. They aim at establishing an egalitarian social system and redistribute
the wealth / land proportionately among persons in society. Violence by naxal groups uses
extremist means such as kidnapping the state officials, politicians, killing police and security
personnel, etc. to achieve their goals.
6.3.3 Denial of Human Rights

Conflicts can involve disagreements about rights or denial of rights. These can include human
rights proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or they can be more narrowly
defined in national or state constitutions or laws. In all of these cases, the problem (or conflict
resulting from the denial of rights) is not easily negotiable: people do not negotiate about their
religious beliefs nor do they compromise their basic rights. They fight for them. There is
always a human rights angle/dimension at the core of every conflict.
6.4 SPECIFIC SOURCES

Most conflicts have specific sources. There can be as many sources as there are conflicts.
However, we discuss below some of the major specific sources, which contribute towards the
origin of the specific conflicts like religious, ethnic, racial or caste conflicts.
6.4.1 Religion
Religion has often acted as one of the major sources of conflict. Since religion provides a
worldview of its own, it comes in clash with other religions. Sometimes, we find inter-religious
and intra-religious conflicts. Regarding the former category of conflicts we can give the example
of Islam, which began a career of conquest in the seventh century with the thesis that it was
the only true faith and was necessarily in conflict with all other religions. The doctrine of Jihad
(holy war), as understood by Arab Muslims then, brought the Muslim state in conflict with the
non-Muslim state of unbelievers. Belief in Jihad induced continuous attacks by the Arabs
upon the decadent Roman Empire and rising Christendom during the seventh and eighth
centuries and resulted in extensive Muslim conquests in the Middle East, North Africa and
Spain. Christendom, however, reacted militantly in the Crusades of the eleventh, twelfth, and
thirteenth centuries turning on Islam with the doctrine of papal sovereignty of the world. The
Ottoman Turks then took the leadership of Islam, and during the fifteenth, sixteenth, and
seventeenth centuries were almost continuously at war with Christian Europe, conquering
Constantinople, the Balkans, and Hungary, as well as most of the Arab world. Turkish power
waned, and eventually the Ottoman Empire broke into national states, as did the Holy Roman
Empire. Today Christian and Muslim states coexist and cooperate in the United Nations. Both
the Jihad and the Crusades are things of the past.
Different interpretations of the religion by the followers of the same religion cause intra-
religious conflicts. Many examples can be cited in this regard. We find frequent Shia-Sunni
conflicts in many parts of the world. Similarly, religious differences between Protestants and
Catholics in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, ended by the Peace treaty of Westphalia
which recognized the sovereignty of territorial states and the authority of the temporal monarch
to determine the religion of his people if he wished. Since then Protestant and Catholic states
have been peacefully coexisting (Wright, pp.16-17).
There has been a global revival of inter-religious and intra-religious conflicts in recent decades.
The frequent communal clashes in India are examples of the former. These conflicts lead to
‘simultaneously a cluster of multiple conflicts: legal court cases, mass media campaigns, re-
writing of history, legislative debates, and riots in the streets. No wonder the course, and the
many faces, of a conflict at times leave us bewildered’. (Jayram and Saberwal, p.498). The
ferocious civil strife in Algeria between the radical Islamists and moderate Muslim or secular
opponents that has claimed the lives of nearly 100, 000 people since 1992 is example of intra-
religious conflict (Rubenstein, p.63).
6.4.2 Ethnicity
Ethnicity can be one of the sources of conflicts. Since the demise of authoritarian (communist)
rule in the erstwhile Soviet bloc states of Eastern Europe, ethnic conflicts have sprung up.
Also, whenever great empires disintegrate, ethnic rivalries break out. The authoritarian regimes
generally suppress ethnic histories of various ethnic groups. Ethnic conflicts can also erupt in
other situations. Scholars of ethnic studies have identified many reasons of ethnic conflicts. Let
us discuss them.
First, in Brown’s view, systemic prerequisite for ethnic conflict is that national, regional, and
international authorities must be too weak to keep groups from fighting and too weak to
ensure the security of individual groups (Brown, p.6). Whenever empires collapse or become
instable, different ethnic groups decide to provide for their own security. Ethnic conflict is most
often caused by collective fears of the future and the domination of one group by another.
Most ethnic conflicts stem from the failure of political, economic and social institutions to pay
sufficient attention to the grievances and perceived needs and fears of significant groups in the
state. Second, ethnic conflicts focus on the false histories (not empirically tested or scholarly
established by dispassionate method) that many ethnic groups have of themselves and others.
These histories are usually passed from generation to generation by word of mouth. These
stories become part of a group’s lore. Distorted and exaggerated with time, these histories
present one’s own group as heroic, while other groups are demonised. Grievances are enshrined,
and other groups are portrayed as inherently vicious and aggressive. Group members typically
treat these ethnic myths as received wisdom. Third, in some multiethnic societies, there is a
tendency for political parties to be organised along ethnic lines. When this happens, party
affiliations are a reflection of ethnic identity rather than political conviction. Under these
circumstances, elections are mere censuses, and minority parties have no chance of winning
power. If these parties become victims of a “tyranny of the majority”, their leaders may start
separatist movements. Fourth, many countries have inadequate constitutional safeguards for
minority rights. Even in places where minority rights guarantees exist on paper, they are often
inadequately enforced. In short, constitutional and political reforms are needed in many places
to address important ethnic grievances (Brown, p.11). Fifth, Ali Mazrui says that many
conflicts in the Third World are due to great-power intervention. Mazrui has pointed out so
forcefully:
There has certainly been a change from the old days of Pax Britannica. Whereas the old
imperial motto was ‘Disarm the natives and facilitate control’, the new imperial cunning has
translated it into ‘Arm the natives and consolidate dependency’. While the British and the
French once regarded it as important to stop ‘tribal warfare’, they now regard it as profitable
to modernize ‘tribal warfare’ – with lethal weapons (Cited in Ayoob, p.243)
6.4.3 Racism
White racial domination in South Africa of blacks (during the early 20th century, when Gandhi’s
struggle in South Africa for the rights of people of Indian origin there), and the establishment
of apartheid laws since 1950 created racial conflict in South Africa represent the good
example to illustrate how racism can cause conflicts. Earlier in the 19th century the United
States had to suffer a civil war for a period of four years over the question of abolishing
slavery. In 1858, before the outbreak of civil war, Lincoln had stated that ‘A house divided
against itself cannot stand. A government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free’.
Racial discrimination can be an immediate factor of ensuing conflict.
6.4.4 Caste
Social hierarchy or stratification of society also is one of the major sources of conflict. Caste
system in India assigns different social, professional and legal status to the people belonging
to different castes. Lower castes and untouchables are the worst victims of caste-conflicts.
Official data reveals that atrocities and crimes against ex-untouchables abound. The decade
1990-2000 indicates that a total of 285,871 cases of various crimes against them were
registered countrywide. This means that an average of 28,587 cases of practice of untouchability
and atrocities against Scheduled Castes were registered every year during the 1990s. These
include 553 cases of murder, 9990 cases of grievous hurt, 919 rapes, 184 kidnappings/
abductions, 47 dacoities, 127 robberies, 456 cases of arson, 1,403 cases of caste discrimination
and 8,179 cases of atrocities. In other words, every hour more than three cases of atrocities
against them are registered, and every day three cases of rape and at least one murder are
reported. Scholars of peace and conflict studies describe caste-conflicts as structural violence.
6.4.5 Ideology
Discussion of ideology as a factor for triggering conflict has figured through out in this Unit.
We all are familiar with the fact that the ideologies of Marxism, Fascism, Nazism, totalitarianism
and religious fundamentalism have caused many conflicts. Cold War or ideological war between
the Super Powers was the best example to illustrate this point.
6.5 GLOBAL SOURCES OF CONTEMPORARY

CONFLICTS
Since the end of Second World War, most of the interstate conflicts were caused by Cold
War between two Super Powers – the United States and the USSR. With the disintegration
of the Soviet Union, the Cold War came to an end. But this led to conflicts within the states.
The former communist states of Soviet bloc experienced ethnic conflicts (Yugoslavia) and
secession demands (Czechoslovakia, Chechnya etc).
There are analyses of the systemic sources of conflicts themselves. Setting aside the ‘clash of
civilizations’ hypothesis of Huntington which predicts future conflict across the fault lines between
civilizations and, in particular, a geo-political struggle between ‘the West and the rest’, the
main focus is on three interlinked trends: deep and enduring inequalities in the global distribution
of wealth and economic power (as the rich developed countries, constituting 20 per cent of
the world population, control and own 80 per cent of resources, whereas the 80 per cent
poor from the developing world own and survive with 20 per cent of global wealth and
resources); human-induced environmental constraints exacerbated by excessive energy
consumption in the developed world and population growth in the underdeveloped world,
making it difficult for human well-being to be improved by conventional economic growth; and
continuous militarisation of security relations, including the further proliferation of lethal weaponry
(it may be noted that $176 billions-worth of weaponry was exported to the Third World
between 1987 and 1991). As a result, ‘the combination of wealth-poverty disparities and
limits to growth is likely to lead to a crisis of unsatisfied expectations within an increasingly
informed global majority of the disempowered’. The probable outcome of this, argues Homer-
Dixon, will be three kinds of conflict: scarcity conflicts mainly at interstate level over oil, water,
fish, land; group-identity conflict exacerbated by large-scale population movements; and relative-
deprivation conflicts mainly at domestic level as the gap between expectation and achievement
widens (cited in Ramsbotham and others, p.90). With the demise of the second world after
the collapse of the Soviet bloc, the first and the third worlds are seen to be confronting each
other all the more starkly.
6.6 SUMMARY
The identification and understanding of sources and causes of conflict is a key to reducing the
occurrence of conflicts. If the sources and underlying causes are eliminated and grievances of
conflicting parties are addressed, conflict resolution will be easier.
There is no single source of conflicts. There are many sources of conflict. This Unit discusses
two types of sources – general and specific sources. Under the rubric of general causes three
important sources are discussed. They are: aggressive human nature; socio-economic and
political inequalities; and denial of human rights. Under the specific sources we discuss the role
of religion, ethnicity, race, caste and ideology in causing conflicts of these kinds.
The Unit also discusses many theoretical perspectives on causes of conflict, such as frustration-
aggression complex, relative deprivation theory, modernisation processes, and conflict as an
inherent process of social change. The frameworks of scholars like Dollard, Lewin, Fanon,
Coser, Marx, Sorel, Gandhi, Dahrendorf, Azar have been discussed. From their analyses we
learn that most social scientists now accept the principle of multiple causality of conflict; hence
there is no one basic source of conflict.

1. Discuss briefly the general sources of conflict.
2. What are the specific sources of conflict?
3. Examine the significance of relative deprivation theory and frustration-aggression complex
as sources of conflict.
4. Explain Edward Azar’s theory of Protracted Social Conflicts (PSC).
SUGGESTED READINGS
Angell, Robert C., “The Sociology of Human Conflict”, in E. McNeil (ed.), The Nature of
Human Conflict, Prentice-Hall, Eaglewood Cliff, NJ, 1965.
Ayoob, Mohammed., ‘The Roots of Conflict’ in Mohammed Ayoob (ed.), Conflict and
Intervention in the Third World, Vikas, New Delhi, 1980, pp.239-252.
Brown, Michael E., ‘Causes and Implications of Ethnic Conflict’, in Michael E. Brown (ed.),
Ethnic Conflict and International Security, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1993.
Jayaram N, and Satish Saberwal., (ed.), Social Conflict, Oxford University Press, New
Delhi, 1996
Mack, Raymond W, and Snyder, Richard C., ‘The Analysis of Social Conflict “ Towards an
Overview and Synthesis’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 1 (2), 1957, pp. 212-48;
Reprinted in Daniel Druckman and Paul F. Diehl., (ed), Conflict Resolution, Vol. I, Sage
Publications, London, 2006, pp.3-47.
North, Robert C., ‘Conflict: Political Aspects’, International Encyclopaedia of the Social
Sciences, Vols. 3-4, Macmillan Co., New York, 1968, pp.226-32.
Rubenstein, Richard E., “Sources”, in Sandra Cheldelin, Daniel Druckman and Larissa Fast.,
(eds), Conflict – From Analysis to Intervention, Continuum, London, 2003, pp.55-67.
Ramsbotham, Oliver, Woodhouse, Tom and Miall, Hugh., Contemporary Conflict Resolution,
Second Edition, Polity, Cambridge, 2005.
Savitri, K., ‘ Political Violence in India – Implications for Human Rights’ in Abdulrahim P.
Vijapur and Kumar Suresh., (eds), Perspectives on Human Rights, Manak Publications,
New Delhi, 1999, pp.103-119.
Vijapur, Abdulrahim, P., ‘Transnational Corporations and Human Rights of Marginalized People
in the age of Globalization’, in Abdulrahim P. Vijapur and Rashmi Doraiswamy., (eds),
Globalization and the Third World: Issues, Prospects and Challenges, Manak Publications,
New Delhi, 2010, pp.54-90.
Wright, Quincy., ‘The Nature of Conflict’, The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 2,1951;
reprinted in John Burton and Frank Dukes., (eds), Conflict: Readings in Management and
Resolution, Macmillan, London, 1990, pp.15-34.
UNIT 7 SOCIAL INJUSTICE
Structure
7.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
7.2 Causes of Social Injustice

7.3 Theories of Justice
7.4 Desert Theory of Justice
7.5 Equality and Difference
7.6 Rawlsian Principle
7.7 Causative Factors of Injustice
7.8 Logic and Instruments of Justice in India
7.9 Summary
Suggested Readings
7.1 INTRODUCTION
Social injustice emanates from the structured inequality prevalent in a society. Inequality at
once refers to incapacity to acquire entitlements as citizen, goal achievements, and material
advancements due to social discrimination and differentiation on account of social stationing
of a person; such as we find in the case of caste system as practised in India, racial discrimination
as performed in the western societies, exclusionary identity politics inspired by one nation –
one culture theories of nationality formation in many of the world societies; monopoly capitalism
and amassing corporatism, and distributive failure or favoured discrimination as affirmed by a
constitutional democratic state. Inequality and injustices are produced in the socio-political
process and economic policies of a state. Exclusion, in its every dimension, appears to be
prime factor in causing social injustices. Exclusion intrinsically involves unequal access to
liberty, freedom and justice. It is at once linked to identity politics and economic discrimination.
Freedom of choices is hardly available to socially excluded groups. Marginalisation causes
deprivation and denial of opportunity to equal access to life chances. A cyclic disadvantage
unfolds where people fail to be at their best. The logic of injustice is deeply rooted in the
market theory of capitalist development, where a desert view of luck is propounded to justify
discrimination in the distribution of benefits of development. It is in this background that we
will try to delineate and develop factoral explanation to the theory of injustices. We need to
understand that social injustice prevails not only because of its historical linkages with social
structure, but also because of the value failure of democracy as principle of mutual tolerance
or mutual acceptance of difference as the basis of social interaction and sharing of resources.
The more we study the causes of social injustice, the more we are convinced that somewhere
down the line there exists a developmental failure in terms of capacity building or generating
and equalising competing claims to equality of access to ‘justice as fairness’.
Social Injustice 77
Aims and Objectives

After reading this Unit, you would be able to understand
 Different theories and perspectives on the theories of justice.
 The primary structure and practices of social injustice in India.
 The logic and instruments of social injustice in India.
7.2 CAUSES OF SOCIAL INJUSTICE

As stated above, the phenomenon of injustice is directly proportionate to social structure and
identity conflict in a society. Caste system has been historically structured in a manner as to
privilege few and deny the same on the sheer ground of biology of birth. Myth of purity and
pollution determines social stationing of a person. Consequentially segregation is practised in
order to deny equal claim to entitlements. Socio-cultural exclusion, as pointed out in the
Human Development Report 2004, are of two types- “First is living mode exclusion, which
denies recognition and accommodation of a lifestyle that a group would choose to have and
that insists that individuals must live exactly like all others in society. Examples include religious
oppression or the insistence that immigrants drop their cultural practices and language. Second
is participation exclusion, when people are discriminated against or suffer disadvantage in
social, political and economic opportunities because of their cultural identity.” (p.6) As it
further writes that the two forms of exclusion are practised with varying degrees in every
democracy and at level of state policies, from observance of state holiday to its educational
curriculum. The HDR 2004 further states that the “Living mode exclusion often overlaps with
social, economic and political exclusion through discrimination and disadvantage in employment,
housing, schooling and political representation” (ibid). It has been convincingly argued that
socio-cultural exclusion leading to participation exclusion is often linked to the ‘various
characteristics of the persons involved, such as gender, ethnicity and religion.’ As a matter of
fact social and cultural affiliation becomes basis of exclusion ‘from participation in education
or employment or political decision-making’.
The discrimination in the arena of state’s policies has cultural correlates, where denial to equal
access to life chances is justified on grounds of particular way of life. In other words, claim
to equality and freedom is denied on the basis of social and cultural affiliations of the people.
It is the particular life style that is treated as substantive reason for underdevelopment and
backwardness of a particular group of people. Competence to access to resources is
prejudicially linked to luck or chance, and way life. But the goal of human development and
democratic advancement cannot be achieved unless freedom to chose and the capability to
live as one likes are duly acknowledged as state policy. Deprivation of freedom, including
cultural freedom, takes many forms. So does discrimination that can lead to a loss of freedom.
As discussed in this Report, parts of the population can be subjected to discrimination in
different spheres: political, socio-economic and cultural. The many dimensions of deprivation
“and of discrimination” demand understanding the distinctions between different, if interrelated,
processes through which people’s freedoms are curtailed. The Human Development Theory
proposes linking of freedom and social choices with human rights. As injustices require
redistribution of resources it is worthwhile to discuss different important theories of justice.
7.3 THEORIES OF JUSTICE

As stated above injustices result from the distributive failure of ‘benefits and burdens of
economic activity’. There are principally two modes of explanation: (i) Egalitarian principle and
(ii) Differential principle. The two differ on their respective stress on the principles of equality.
While the former lays emphasis on formal equality in the distribution of material goods, the
latter does not strictly conform “to strict equality so long as the inequality has the effect that
the least advantaged in society are materially better off than they would be under strict
equality.” (Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/)
Interestingly the egalitarian argument is premised on the theory of moral good and absolute
equality than material advancement through resource allocation. On the other hand distributive
principle believes in the maximisation of capacity of individual or groups through market-
mediated and state-negotiated resource allocation to disadvantaged groups of population.
Contrary to it liberal egalitarians’ arguments are based on the citizenship view of justice where
primacy is placed on the civil and political freedoms. It is assumingly self-assured that there
exists formal equality in the society, and by way of formal adherence to the principle of
distributive justice what is equally distributed is the formal income. Preferential allocation for
capacity development is either ignored or adhered to minimally as one time investment in the
targeted population towards skill development, or to neutralise the factor of desert or luck.
7.4 DESERT THEORY OF JUSTICE

The principle of desert has been exemplified by Serena Olsaretti in the essay “Justice, Luck
and Desert” in Oxford Handbook of Political Theory in the following words:
Justice requires giving people what they deserve, and people deserve on the basis of their
achievements or the quality of their performances. For example, justice requires that people
be rewarded for the contribution they make to the society, or for the outcome of their efforts.
On this view, whether luck is incompatible with justice depends on whether it blocks the
attribution is in tension with justice. By contrast, luck that affects the quality of a person’s
achievement, but which does not block the attribution of that achievement to that person, is
not incompatible with justice (pp. 436-37).
What has been underlined here is that justice consists in attributing reward to performances
or abilities, which are distinctively personal. Thus reward is directly proportional to the factors
of contribution i.e. social value of a work; efforts, i.e. labour and capital invested in a work,
which is claimed for value attribution; and compensation for the performance of a work.
Desert view of explaining social injustices is too pedantic to offer any substantive redressal of
injustice. Desert theory hardly addresses the question of historical injustices. It assigns excessive
value to luck as factor in differential reward. Luck is neutralised only to the extent of offering
one-time compensation for fair opportunity. The principle of equality is applied only to stratify
the distribution of income.
What appears from the application of desert theory in the analysis of social injustice is that
the inherent social inequality is not because of any other reasons but because of inherent
difference in the skills and talent of two individuals. It rejects notion of group inequality, or at
best it accepts one-time compensatory material reward by the market and the state. This
brings us to the epistemological issues of equality and difference.
7.5 EQUALITY AND DIFFERENCE

Equality as a positive concept would entail equalising competence through upholding the
principle of equality of opportunity or equal chance. Equality of opportunity would seek
Social Injustice 79
prevention of incompetence due to social discrimination and difference in material possession.

It therefore, recommends for the affirmative state policies of justice- social, economic and
political. In this view, justice consists in equalising chance to achievement. Social background
should not determine outcome of a person. Equality of opportunity would secure redistribution
of resources in order to compensate some for social disadvantages. In liberal dispensation,
equality of opportunity is restricted to fine-tuning of market resources; it hardly addresses the
problem of structural inequality, and freedom of choices. It is therefore Amaratya Sen, writes
Judith Squires, “argues that egalitarianism should not be reduced to the distribution of one
thing. He criticises Dworkin’s account of the initial equality of resources, and Rawls’ account
of primary goods, as neglecting importance of diversity in that different people will need
different amounts of kinds of goods to reach the same levels of well being. Social diversity
means that the conversion of resources into opportunities will vary from person to person:
some people will need more than the others to achieve the same capabilities” (Oxford Handbook
of Political Theory, pp. 475-476). What Sen argues, as thoroughly charted in his recent
work, The Idea Of Justice, is that merely just process and just institutions cannot cure
historical injustices unless freedom constitutes core of the theory of justice. Social choices and
freedom are integral to a democratic view of justice. “Freedom is valuable for at least two
different reasons. First, more freedom gives us more opportunity to pursue our objectives-
those things that we value. It helps, for example, in our ability to decide to live as we would
like and to promote the ends that we may want to advance. This aspect of freedom is
concerned with our ability to achieve what we value, no matter what the process is through
which that achievement comes about. Second, we may attach importance to the process of
choice itself” (ibid, p.228).
What Sen argues is that justice consists in the choice and freedom based capabilities. Thus,
capability approach “focuses on human life, and not just on some detached objects of
convenience , such as incomes or commodities that a person may possess… it proposes a
serious departure from concentrating on the means of living to the actual opportunities of
living” (ibid, p.233). Capability theory advances the cause of plurality of choices than market-
driven instrumental equality without freedom of options. What capability theory of justice
offers is an evaluative approach to freedom of choices than on the initial equality theory of
Dworkin, and primary goods theory of John Rawls. For Sen, it is only through the plurality
of reasoning, forming an essential core of democracy, that a global theory of justice can be
propounded. In every day public reasoning what shall be critically examined is not the just
institutions but ways and means of reducing injustices, incapacity and disabilities. And freedom
of choices shall be rule of frame. However an ideal situation or state of justice as propounded
by Sen remains incomplete unless just institutions and just public policies constitute essential
part of public reasoning and democratic discourse. It is precisely for this reason that Rawls
theory of justice still remains valid for an informed debate on social injustice.
7.6 RAWLSIAN PRINCIPLE

In A Theory of Justice, (1971), and Political Liberalism, (1993), Rawls proposes a grand
design of political liberalism where principles of liberty, equality and justice are preferentially
ordered in order to serve larger objectives of a just society. A grand philosophy of justice is
well enunciated in his opening statement of the book, A Theory of Justice where he writes:
Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory
however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and
institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they
are unjust. Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of
society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for
some is made right by a greater good shared by others … in a just society the liberties of
equal citizenship are taken as settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political
bargaining or to the calculus of social interests… Being first virtue of human activities, truth
and justice are uncompromising (pp.3-4).
And a just society is one in which, writes Rawls, “(1) everyone accepts and knows that the
others accept the same principle of justice, and (2) the basic social institutions generally satisfy
and are generally known to satisfy these principles”(p.5). A just society can be built on none
other than the following two principles of justice:
First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with
a similar liberty for others.
Second: social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably
expected to be everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all.
(ibid, p. 60)
A theory of justice thus construed should be consistent with liberties of equal citizenship and
equality of opportunities. All social, political and economic authorities should accordingly be
arranged. In the first principle, Rawls conceives the inherent democratic liberty of each citizen
to decide and to live accordingly what he considers as good interest, and thus has moral
responsibility to accept the similar liberty of others. “These basic liberties and rights…are not
founded on basic (or natural) rights. Rather, Rawls says, the ‘foundation is in the conceptions
of the person and of social cooperation most likely to be congenial to the public political
culture of a modern democratic society’ “(Rex Martin, pp.558-559). The second principle
deals with the modalities of equality of opportunities and the distributive economic justice. The
basic idea is to make society less unequal by initiating remedial measures to reduce initial
difference in advantages, that the capacity to access development and power should be
equalised. Thus state embarking on policy to universal access to primary or secondary education
or to health is part of the distributive stress of theory of justice. This initial equality to capacity-
building resources needs to be further balanced and reinforced by intervening policy of reducing
inequality of resultant outcome. What are then achieved are everyone’s continual benefits. This
is done by econometric formula of averaging capacity evaluation of individuals and social
groups by taking out mean of top most and bottom most achievers in a given society. The
distributive concerns of above two principles primarily aim at mitigating social contingencies
and luck that often lead to social injustices. Injustices then are not a simple discrimination,
rather having structural logic of denying advantages to those who do not have access to
political control and economic resources.
Rawls himself revisits his theory of justice and finds several ambiguities- one of them was
failure to distinguish between ‘a moral doctrine of justice general in scope’ and ‘strictly a
political conception of justice’. Such shortcomings are supposedly rectified in his seminal
work, Political Liberalism (1993). Rawls restructures the two principles of justice as the
following
(1) Each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic rights and
liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme for all; and in this scheme
the equal political liberties, and only those liberties, are to be guaranteed their fair value.
(2) Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they are to be
Social Injustice 81
attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity;
and second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of
society (pp.5-6).
Rawls further writes, “Each of these principles regulates institutions in a particular domain not
only in regard to basic rights, liberties, and opportunities but also in regard to the claims of
equality; while the second part of the second principle underwrites the worth of these institutional
guarantees. The two principles together, with the first given priority over the second, regulate
the basic institutions that realise these values” (p.6). What Rawls develops is the theory of
justice as fairness with three core ingredients: (1) fair value of political liberties; (2) fair
equality of opportunities; and (3) fair adjustment of position difference in a manner as to
extend greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of the society. “The aim of justice
as fairness, then, is practical: it presents itself as a conception of justice that may be shared
by citizens as a basis of reasoned, informed, and willing political agreement” (Rawls,1993,p.9).
Thus the realm of justice is not restricted only to economic opportunities but also to equal
claim or entitlement to the distribution of political benefits and burdens. It is therefore, writes
Rawls, “political liberalism seeks to identify and affirm principles of the political order sufficient
for just institutions, and second for an “overlapping” consensus”. The freestanding political
order offers a set of political theory of justice which otherwise is described as ‘family’ of
principles. The members of this ‘family’ have three main features in common:(1) certain familiar
rights, liberties, opportunities are to be singled out and specified and maintained; (2) a certain
priority is to be given to these rights, etc. over against ‘the claims of the general good…and
of perfectionist values’; (3) measures to help citizens make effective use of these rights, etc.,
by having an adequate base of income and wealth, are to be set in place” (Rex Martin,
pp.565-566). For Rawls, distributive index of equity, which he refers as ‘primary goods’,
include a package of ‘rights, liberties and opportunities, income and wealth, and the social
bases of self-respect.’ The theory of primary goods holds special in the formulation of public
policy and removal of poverty.
The contractarian logic of justice, as enunciated in Rawls, does not adequately address the
question of inequality producing persistent injustices in an otherwise just society and polity.
Probably overall stress on the distribution of primary goods fails to build capabilities in a
manner as to reduce injustices. The capability approach as developed by Sen primarily
emphasises the expansion of opportunities than recommending any particular framework of
policy. “The capability approach,” writes Amartya Sen, “focuses on human life, and not just
on some detached objects of convenience, such as incomes or commodities that a person may
possess…The focus of the capability approach is thus not just on what a person actually ends
up doing, but also on what she is in fact able to do….” (Sen, 2009, pp.233-234). Capability
approach to justice emphasises pluralising opportunities and freedom, and not to singularising
capacity to single frame of policy. Multiplicity is the hallmark of capability approach. It is as
much concerned with group as it is for individual capability. Injustices are reduced through
maximisation of developmental opportunities or actual opportunities. It places equal weightage
to abilities and disabilities while addressing the question of justice or injustice. “The advantage
of the capability perspective over the resource perspective lies in its relevance and substantive
importance, and not in any promises of yielding a total ordering. Indeed… capability metric
is ‘superior to a resource metric because it focuses on ends rather than means, can better
handle discrimination against the disabled, is properly sensitive to individual variations in
functioning that have democratic import, and is well suited to guide the just delivery of public
services, especially in health and education” (Sen, 2009, p.263.). In a way, capability approach
is also considered superior to ‘equality of resource’ approach of Dworkin. What capability
approach recommends is the inclusive growth, which duly takes into account human diversity,
cultural plurality, individual freedom and social choices.
Rawlsian principles and capability theory of justice hold substantive analytical advantages over
historical entitlement theory of justice, propounded by Robert Nozick in his book, Anarchy,
State and Utopia. He holds that justice, as distribution of economic resources, should pursue
the following equation of holdings:
a. “A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition
is entitled to that holding.
b. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer,
from someone else entitled to the holding, is entitled to the holding.
c. No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of (a) and (b).” (Source:
http://plato.stanford.edu/)
Justice is done when everyone acquires above holdings. What he claims as justice is ownership
rights of historically non-owners of resources. And entitlement to such claim is based on
historical information. Despite its relevance for distributive justice, entitlement theory fails to
address the question of social injustices, which otherwise requires a blend of freedom and
resource capabilities in order to equalise each to differential claims to development and
ownership of ‘self’ as manifested through living cultures and value diversities.
7.7 CAUSATIVE FACTORS OF INJUSTICES

Social injustices are recurring consequences of poverty, social exclusion and cultural
discrimination in India. There exists in multiple forms the discrimination, from caste inequalities
to communal and class distinction in terms of varying access to resource opportunities and
possession of capabilities. Historically, economic opportunities and political empowerment
have close nexus to caste and ethnic differences. This is very much proved by the fact that
incidence of poverty has had been high among the socially excluded castes and tribes and
other marginalised groups including minorities. Also social structure has had been historically
insensitive to gender questions. Surely, India has made substantial progress in the reduction
of poverty, yet UNDP reports that one third of people live below the poverty line, and half
of the women are reported poor. According to Social Development Report 2006, “Scheduled
Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), and backward castes accounted for 81% of the
rural poor in 1999-2000” (p.4). 75% of the total STs population in four states of Bihar,
Gujarat, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh live in poverty.
Despite two preventive legislations- Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, and SCs and STs
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act1989 – atrocities particularly dignity-specific (rape and hurt)
crimes remained high during last five years. As per 2001 census, literacy rate among SCs
accounts for 54.69 % with high incidence of drop-out 71.3% between classes 1-X. Similarly
two-thirds of them remain landless, and about 60% of total SCs population is still dependent
on wage labour. 11th Five Year Plan Document explains that “due to the lack of access to
fixed sources of income and high incidence of wage labour associated with high rate of under
employment and low wages, SCs households are often faced with low incomes and high
incidence of poverty” (p.106).
Similarly, Schedule Tribes remain underdeveloped due to their slipping economic resources
like land, forest, common property; ‘displacement and dispossession of life support system’;
Social Injustice 83
“general apathy of official machinery and failure of planned development efforts.” They are
victims of their assertion of rights. Despite governmental efforts, their literacy rate remains at
47.10% with high incidence drop-out since standard 1. They have limited access to life
support infrastructure such as roads, health, education etc. Half of the tribal populations still
live below the poverty line. Taking special cognizance of tribal population, it further writes,
“Over a period of time a large number of people, particularly tribal groups, have severely
suffered from the brunt of mega development projects. They have often become dispossessed
of their traditional means of livelihood and got alienated from their cultural heritage. What is
worse, they have been rarely properly rehabilitated and resettled.” This is symptomatic and
synoptic commentary on the mode of development and resultant exclusion. In the Indian
situation injustices are proportional to developmental divide between social groups. Similarly
Other Backward Castes (OBCs) continue to lag behind rest of the population in terms of
jobs, land ownership and continuing generation of living life support capacities.
Cultural and religious minorities suffer from instrumental deficit such as poverty, identity violence
and participatory exclusion in the administrative processes of the country. These social groups
suffer from both living mode exclusions and participatory exclusion. In the first mode they are
object of cultural arrogance, and social discrimination, and in the second mode they lack
adequate opportunity of representation. Their exercise of rights and freedom are circumvented
by absence of resource opportunities. One finds a deficit of capability and resources. They
are subject of marginalisation than being object of equal entitlements. Official policy towards
minorities broadly aims to enhance their opportunities for education; securing their equitable
share in economic activities and employment besides generation of regular income to meet
their life exigencies.
7.8 LOGIC AND INSTRUMENTS OF JUSTICE IN INDIA

It has been fairly established that the Indian constitution best combines the Rawlsian and Sen’s
perspective of justice. Freedom, social justice and equality of opportunities synthesise to
produce an egalitarian, equitable theory of justice. Justice principle approaches both individual
and group injustices. Discrimination in any form is constitutionally prohibited and legally upheld
and executed. Freedom and equality of opportunities are best synchronised in the chapters on
the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of the State Policies. Right to life has, over
the years, been provided compendious expression in order to provide equal access to the fair
opportunity principle of justice. If we carefully analyse the text of the Constitution, it can be
fairly concluded that the Constitution provides a distinctive blue print of measures to remedy
both living mode and participatory exclusions. The Constitution fairly directs the state to
generate capacity of the people to live life as they wish to live. It provides for both generalised
and special principle of justice. Equality of claims as citizen is ensured to all without any
recourse to discrimination, and simultaneously special privileging and distribution of resources
are made to that category of citizens who have historically and socially been subjected to
exclusion, discrimination and exploitation. Affirmative action has been an officially acclaimed
principle of justice. It is worked out through the means of reservation and category specification
of developmental process. The State is constitutionally mandated to bear the cost of distributive
justice.
State affirms to equalise capacity of disadvantaged groups or to bring them at par with national
average. Significance of reservation, as instrument of equalising capacity, has been best
summarised by the Supreme Court of India in Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India,
2006, where it writes: “Reservation is one of the many tools that are used to preserve and
promote the essence of equality, so that disadvantaged groups can be brought to the forefront
of civil life. It is also the duty of the state to promote positive measures to remove barriers
of inequality and enable diverse communities to enjoy freedoms and share the benefits
guaranteed by the Constitution.” (6 SCC 6: 446). The ultimate objective of reservation policy
is to ‘bring people to a particular level so that there can be equality of opportunity’ (6SCC
279: 550). Equalisation of capacity is the Constitutional dictum of justice. Rational of affirmative
action or positive discrimination or affirmative discrimination is to convert socially oppressed
and economically marginalised groups into social assets, a collective pool of assets helping to
enhance the opportunity structure. And in the process of converting people from liability to
asset, reservation performs multiple functions of restoring dignity and equalising unequals. It
is therefore, policy of affirmative action begun by “placing the assets of the better off in a
collective pool, not for redistribution, but to create the infrastructure that is needed to enhance
the minimum set of resemblances necessary for substantive citizenship. With the help of this
capital, socially valuable assets are now created in sites where there were none” (6 SCC 294:
574).
Logic of justice as constitutionally enshrined is derivatively applied to select caste groups
(SCs, & OBCs), tribal and ethnic groups, religious and cultural minorities, women and children,
and differently abled persons. The advantage of reservation is rotated cyclically among the
least developed; and developed groups or minimally capacitated persons are excluded from
the advantages of justice-benefits. Created capacity is cyclically reviewed to sustain them as
social capital. Capacity development follows sector specific policy assignment. Sector, in this
context, refers to the indices and infrastructure of human development as broadly outlined in
UNDP reports. Thus primary education is constituionalised as basic right, which, the state is
bound to provide to each child. The economy is accordingly fine-tuned to make special grants
for infrastructure development. Health schemes are launched to raise mortality rates and to
make disadvantaged as able persons. Generative capacity is developed through skill development
and different programmes of rojgar yojana. Minimum employment guarantee schemes are put
into effect to reduce poverty, and to create physical assets of individual and society. Mid-day
meal scheme is launched to prevent school drop-outs. Scholarship is extended to minorities
and girl children to retain them to study and enhance their capacity to engage in gainful
employment. Special price shop is opened to serve minimum calorie to poor to live a capable
life. Special package is planned out to help minority to compete on equal terms with non-
minority.
Social injustices are subject to legal pruning of denial of rights where people are extended
state patronage to exercise their respective claims to entitlements. Further the legal instruments
are either being created (when such laws do not exist) e.g., Prevention of Domestic Violence
Act, or modified, several Acts of CPC and CRPC, in order to check violence and discrimination
against excluded groups. Eventually group-specific institutions such as Minorities Commission
etc with power to investigate, and in some cases civil and criminal jurisdictions have been
established to focus on policy imperatives for justice and development. Human Rights
Commissions at the National and State levels have been established to democratise police
power of the state and to protect rights of the groups and individuals. It takes cognisance of
eventual deprivation of human rights of the people. Legal instruments have gone a long way
to situate justice discourse in terms of entitlements of the disadvantaged groups and state’s
obligation towards its people. Legal reasoning is sanctified by the justice text of the Constitution.
Political justice principally aims at enlarging participatory mode of decision-making, which in
other words means recognition of the people’s right to self-government. This is recognition of
Social Injustice 85
right where people exercise their option to live life as they choose to live. Right to vote and
right to contest and get elected are being subjected to the principles of affirmative action
where seats have been reserved or are in the process of being reserved in the different
instruments of governance such as local government bodies, legislatures etc. The objective is
to redefine authoritative allocation of values. It reconfigures power equation, redefines and
reallocates competences, decentralises decision on resources, and above all reinterprets text
and delivery of justice.
7.9 SUMMARY
What have been broadly analysed and shown above are the Indian perspective on justice that
critically combines the principles of remedial theory of justice, Rawlsian redistribution of
capacity, and capability theory of justice. Yet injustices prevail. This is not because there is a
constitutional deficit, but surely there is a crisis of governance and reprioritisation of development.
The economy needs a human face, politics needs accommodation, and society needs value
transformation. Justice, as a public value, needs to become a reasoned part of everyday
discourse.

1. What is social injustice and analyse it in a theoretical perspective.
2. Critically analyse the successes and limitations of the affirmative action policy in India.
3. Identify different economic programmes, which aim to equalise capacity of the
disadvantaged groups in India.
4. Critically examine the principles of justice as found in the Constitution of India.
5. Examine the co-relationship between human development, social equality and
empowerment.
SUGGESTED READINGS
Arneson, Richard J., “ Justice After Rawls” in John S. Dryzek, Bonnie Hong, and Anne
Phillips., (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory, OUP, Oxford, 2006.
Barry, B., Liberty and Justice, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1991.
Betellie, Andre., “Poverty and Inequality,” in Economic and Political Weekly, October 18,
2003, pp. 4455-4463
Dworkin, R., Taking Rights Seriously, Duckworth, London, 1997.
Martin, Rex., “Rawls” in David Boucher & Paul Kelly., (eds), Political Thinkers: From Socrates
to the Present, OUP, Oxford, 2009.
Nozik, R., Anarchy, State and Utopia, Basic Books, New York, 1974.
Olsaretti, Serena., “Justice, Luck, and Desert,” in John S. Dryzek, Bonnie Hong, and Anne
Phillips., (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory, OUP, Oxford, 2006.
Palshiker, Suhas., “Challenges before the Reservation Discourse”, in Economic and Political
Weekly, April 26, 2008, pp.8-11
Rawls, John., A Theory of Justice, OUP, Oxford, 1971.

————., Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, New York, 1993.
Reed, Ananya Mukherjee., Human Development and Social Power: Perspectives from South
Asia, Routledge, London, 2009.
Sen, Amartya., Inequality Examined, OUP, Oxford, 1992
—————., The Idea of Justice, Penguin, London, 2009.
Sengupta, Arjun, K P Kannan, G. Raveendran., “India’s Common People: Who are They,
How Many are They and How Do They Live,” in Economic and Political Weekly, March 15,
2008, pp. 49-63.
Council for Social Development, Social Development Report 2006, OUP, New Delhi.
Tharu, Susie., et al, “Reservations and the Return to Politics”, in Economic and Political
Weekly, December 8, 2007, pp.39-45
UNDP, Human Development Report 2004, OUP, New Delhi.
Young, I.M., Justice and the Politics of Difference, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ,
1990.
UNIT 8 ECONOMIC INEQUALITY AND
EXPLOITATION
Structure
8.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
8.2 Inequality as a Structural Problem

8.2.1 The Meaning of Class
8.2.2 The Economic and Social Contours
8.2.3 Equality and Culture
8.3 Egalitarianism: Justification of Equality in the Midst of Inequality

8.4 Ideal of Equality: Liberal versus Marxist Views
8.5 Egalitarianism and Scientific Value Relativism: Empirical Determination of Inequality and
Exploitation
8.6 Critical Appreciation
8.7 Summary
Suggested Readings
8.1 INTRODUCTION
Discoursing more than hundred years ago on the text, ‘Choose equality and flee greed’, Matthew
Arnold observed that in the world inequality is almost a religion. He remarked on the incompatibility
of that attitude with the spirit of humanity, and sense of the dignity of man as man, which are the
marks of a truly civilised society. ‘On the one side, in fact, inequality harms by pampering; on the
other by vulgarizing and depressing. A system founded on it is against nature, and, in the long run,
breaks down’(Arnold, 1903, p.48)
Much has changed since Arnold wrote, and not least what he called the Religion of Inequality. The
temper which evoked his criticism, the temper which regarded violent contrasts between the
circumstances and opportunities of different classes with respectful enthusiasm, as a phenomenon,
not merely inevitable, but admirable and exhilarating, if by no means extinct, is no longer vociferous.
Institutions which have died as creeds sometimes continue, nevertheless, to survive as habits. If the
cult of inequality as a principle and an ideal has declined with the decline of the aristocratic society,
of which it was the accompaniment, it is less certain, perhaps, that the loss of its sentimental
credentials has so far impaired its practical influence as to empty Arnold’s words of all their
significance. It is true, no doubt, that, were he writing today, his emphasis and illustrations would
be different. No doubt he would be less impressed by inequality as a source of torpor and
stagnation, and more by inequality as a cause of active irritation, inefficiency and confusion. No
doubt he would say less of great landed estates, and more of finance; less of the territorial
aristocracy and the social system represented by it, and more of fortunes which, however interesting
their origin, are not associated with historic names; less of the effects of entail and settlement in
preventing the wider distribution of property in land, and more of the economic forces, in his day
unforeseen, which have led to a progressive concentration of the control of capital; less of the
reverence for birth, and more of the worship of money and economic power. But, if he could be
induced to study the statistical evidence accumulated since he wrote, it is probable that he would
hail it as an unanticipated confirmation of conclusions to which, unaided by the apparatus of science,
he had found his way, and, while noting with interest the inequalities which had fallen, would feel
even greater astonishment at those which had survived. Observing the heightened tension between
political democracy and a social system marked by sharp disparities of circumstance and education,
and of the opportunities which circumstance and education confer, he would find, it maybe suspected,
in the history of the two generations since his essay appeared a more impressive proof of the justice
of his diagnosis than it falls to the lot of most prophets to receive. ‘A system founded on inequality
is against nature, and, in the long run, breaks down.’
Aims and Objectives
After studying this Unit, you should be able to understand
 Inequality as a structural problem
 Justification of equality in the midst of the inequality
 Liberal and Marxist views on equality and inequality
8.2 INEQUALITY AS A STRUCTURAL PROBLEM

So to criticise inequality and to desire equality is not, as is sometimes suggested, to cherish
the romantic illusion that men are equal in character and intelligence. It is to hold that, while
their natural endowments differ profoundly, it is the mark of a civilised society to aim at
eliminating such inequalities as have their source, not in individual differences, but in its own
organisation, and that individual differences, which are a source of social energy, are more
likely to ripen and find expression if social inequalities are, as far as practicable, diminished.
And the obstacle to the progress of equality is something simpler and more potent than finds
expression in the familiar truism that men vary in their mental and moral, as well as in their
physical characteristics, important and valuable though that truism is as a reminder that different
individuals require different types of provision. It is the habit of mind which thinks it, not
regrettable, but natural and desirable, that different sections of a community should be
distinguished from each other by sharp differences of economic status, of environment, of
education and culture and habit of life. It is the temper which regards with approval the social
institutions and economic arrangements by which such differences are emphasised and enhanced,
and feels distrust and apprehension at all attempts to diminish them.
The institutions and policies in which that temper have found expressions are infinite in number.
At one time it has coloured the relations between the sexes; at another, those between
religions; at a third, those between members of different races. But in communities no longer
divided by religion or race, and in which men and women are treated as political and economic
equals, the divisions which remain are, nevertheless, not insignificant. The practical form which
they most commonly assume- the most conspicuous external symptom of difference of economic
status and social position- is, of course, a graduated system of social classes, and it is by
softening or obliterating, not individual differences, but class gradations, that the historical
movements directed towards diminishing inequality have attempted to attain their objective. It
is, therefore, by considering the class system that light upon the problem of inequality is, in
the first place at least, to be sought, and it is by their attitude to the relations between classes
that the equalitarian temper and philosophy are distinguished from their opposite.
Economic Inequality and Exploitation 89
8.2.1 The Meaning of Class

A society which values equality will attach a high degree of significance to differences of
character and intelligence between different individuals, and a low degree of significance to
economic and social differences between different groups. The idea of ‘class’, most candid
observers will admit, is among the most powerful of social categories. Its significance is
sometimes denied on the ground that a group described as a class may ‘upon many an issue
be divided against itself’ (Tawney, 1968, p.58). But this is to confuse the fact of class with
the consciousness of class, which is a different phenomenon. The fact creates the consciousness,
not the consciousness the fact. The former may exist without the latter, and a group may be
marked by common characteristics, and occupy a distinctive position vis-à-vis other groups,
without, except at moments of exceptional tension, being aware that it does so.
While, however, class is a powerful category, it is also an ambiguous one, and it is not
surprising that there should be wide differences in the interpretations placed upon it both by
sociologists and by laymen. War, the institution of private property, biological characteristics,
the division of labour- have all been adduced to explain the facts of class formation and class
differentiation. The diversity of doctrines is natural, since the facts themselves are diverse.
Clearly, there are societies in which the position and relations of the groups composing them
have been determined ultimately by the effect of conquest. Clearly, the rules- under which
property is held and transmitted- have played a large part in fixing the conditions by which
different groups are distinguished from each other. Clearly, there are circumstances in which
the biological characteristics of different groups are a relevant consideration. Clearly, the
emergence of new social groups is a natural accompaniment of the differentiation of economic
functions- of the breaking up, for example, of a relatively simple and undifferentiated society
into a multitude of specialised crafts and professions, each with its different economic metier,
its different training and outlook and habit of life, which has been the most obvious consequence
of the transition of large parts of Europe from the predominantly agricultural civilisation of two
centuries ago to the predominantly industrial civilisation of today.
8.2.2 The Economic and Social Contours

Income may be regarded from either of two points of view. It may be interpreted as a product
or as a dividend, as a stream of goods in process of creation, or as a stream of goods in process
of consumption. And classes, which rest upon economic foundations, have two different aspects,
which correspond to then different aspects of the national income. They may be regarded on the
one hand, as composed of a series of economic groups: holding different positions in the productive
system, and, as employer and employed, capitalist and wage-earner, landlord, farmer, and labourer,
discharging different, if occasionally somewhat attenuated, functions within it. They may be regarded,
on the other hand, as a series of social groups, distinguished from other by different standards of
expenditure and consumption, and varying in their income, their environment, their education, social
status and family connections, their leisure and their amusements.
When attention is turned upon the organisation of industry and the relations of the various interests
engaged in it- their disputes, their agreements, their attempts to establish more effective co-operation
or their failure to achieve it- it is naturally the first aspect of the class system which springs into
prominence. Society is regarded as an economic mechanism, the main elements of whose structure
correspond to different classes. In the discussions of the traditions, habits and manner of life by
which different classes are characterised- the social institutions which they have created, the types
of schools which they attend, the varying environments in which they live- the feature which attracts
attention is naturally the second. Society then presents itself, not as a productive machine, but as
an organism composed of groups with varying standards of life and culture. The class system takes
off its overalls or office coat, and wears the costume appropriate to hours of ease.
Before goods can be consumed, goods must be produced. It is obvious that these two aspects
of social organisation are closely connected, as obverse and reverse, or flower and root. The
material fabric of civilisation is always crumbling and always being renewed. The wealth which
renews it is hewn daily in the gloom of the mine and fashioned unceasingly in the glare of the forge.
Both the hierarchy of the world of leisure, therefore, and the hierarchy of the world of productive
effort, has its common foundation in the character and organisation of the economic system. But,
while they have a common foundation, the lines of the one are not a mere replica of those of the
other. They correspond, but they do not coincide; in old societies indeed, they coincide less closely
than in younger communities, where the action of economic forces on the structure of society
encounters fewer breakwaters built by tradition, and are therefore more simple, immediate, and
direct. The social fabric is stretched upon an economic framework, and its contours follow the
outlines of the skeleton which supports it. But it is not strained so taut as to free from superfluous
folds and ornamental puckers. Moulded, as it was, on the different structure of the past, it has not
always adjusted itself with nicety to the angles of the present.
8.2.3 Equality and Culture

It is not surprising that varieties of class organisation should be but inadequately represented in the
terminology of social sciences. But the absence of a word to describe the type of society which
combines the forms of political democracy with sharp economic and social divisions is, none the
less unfortunate, since it obscures the practical realities which it is essential to grasp. The conventional
classification of communities by the character of their constitutional arrangements had its utility in
an age when the principal objective of effort and speculation was the extension of political rights.
It is economic and social forces, however, which are most influential in determining the practical
operation of political institutions, and it is economic and social relations that create the most urgent
of the internal problems confronting industrial communities. The most significant differences
distinguishing different societies from each other are, in short, not different forms of constitution and
government, but different types of economic and social structure.
Of such distinctions the most fundamental is that which divides communities where economic
initiative is widely diffused, and class differences small in dimensions and trivial in their effects, from
those where the conditions obtaining are the opposite—where the mass of mankind exercise little
influence on the direction of economic enterprise, and where economic and cultural gradations
descend precipitately from one stratum of the population to another. Both types may possess
representative institutions, a wide franchise, and responsible government; and both, therefore, may
properly be described as democracies. But to regard them as, on that account, resembling each
other- to ignore the profound differences of spirit and quality between a democracy in which class
divisions play a comparatively unimportant part in the life of society, and a democracy where the
influence of such differences is all-pervasive - is to do violence to realities.
8.3 EGALITARIANISM: JUSTIFICATION FOR EQUALITY

IN THE MIDST OF INEQUALITY
An understanding of the meaning of egalitarianism is necessary in order to grasp the correct
nature of the ideal of equality. Here it means that equality is no substitute for uniformity. After
all equality is a matter of derivate value; it is derived from the supreme value of the development
of personality- in each alike and equally, but in each along its own separate notion. That is,
the principle of equality needs to be adjusted to the values of man’s functional capacity. “When
the primary needs of all men are met, the differences they encounter must be differences their
function requires; requirement involving always the context of social benefit”(Laski, 1951,
p.159). That is, what is derived by a man must not divert, or defeat, the source from which
it comes in view of the fact that any equality that “spelled uniformity would necessarily divert
and defeat the spontaneous development of all the varieties of human personality.” Again:
“Equality in all its forms, must always be subject and instrumental to the free development of
capacity; but if it be pressed to the length of uniformity, and if uniformity be made to thwart
the free development of capacity the subject becomes the master, and the world is turned
topsy-turvy” (Barker, 1951,p.157).
In other words, the idea of equality is more of a prescriptive than of a descriptive nature.
Therefore, the simple aphorism that ‘all men are equal’ simply means that they should be
treated alike in their fundamental traits common to all like their dignity and worth as human
beings and not that they all possess attributes or capacities in an equal measure. In the
world of medical sciences all patients cannot be treated with the same medicine; likewise, in
the world of jurisprudence, theft and murder cannot be treated as identical crimes deserving
equal punishment. Therefore, it is hardly desirable that all men should be treated equally in
all respects. Thus understood, the principle of equality “does not prescribe positively that all human
beings be treated alike; it is presumption against treating them differently, in any respect, until
grounds for distinction have been shown. It does not assume, therefore, a quality which all
men have to the same degree, which is the ground of the presumption, for to say that there
is a presumption means that no grounds need be shown.”
In this direction, we may refer especially to the work of Hugo Bedau who reminds us that
to think as an egalitarian is to consider a range of all inequalities and to explore ways to
remove or at least diminish them.” He lays down seven propositions to explain his thesis
in the following manner:
1. There is the principle of radical egalitarianism which seeks to abolish differences on the
plea that all social inequalities which are unnecessary and unjustifiable, ought to be
eliminated.
2. There is the principle of metaphysical egalitarianism which treats all persons as equal-
now and forever, in intrinsic value, inherent worth, essential nature.
3. There is the principle of ethical radicalism which holds natural inequality as the law of
nature and also based on recognisable and accepted human differences.
4. There is the principle of social radicalism. It suggests that social equalities need no
special justification whereas social inequalities always do.
5. There is the case of pragmatic radicalism which informs that all persons are to be
treated alike except where circumstances require different treatment.
6. There is the principle of scientific radicalism which informs that though some social inequalities
are necessary, and even if equal conditions are granted, the fact of inherent inequalities
sooner or later will break through.
7. There is the principle of diehard radicalism which is based on the assumption that in
view of the complexity of every social organization, some factors of social inequalities are
definitely justifiable (Bedau, 1972, pp.14-16).
Bedau thus confidently concludes: “These principles remain as the quadrants of social justice,
equalitarian instruments for social criticism and reform. Instead of radical egalitarianism what we are
left which is the universal principle that all social inequalities not necessary or justifiable should be
eliminated” (Ibid).
In fine, equality is an empty idea if it studies in a purely abstract or isolated sense. It has content
when it is particularised. That is, it should be studied in the context of actual things. In this sense,
it implies that equals should be treated equally, and unequals unequally, and the respect in which
they considered unequal must be relevant to the differences in treatment that are under specific
consideration. If there is a norm that equal pay should be given for equal work, it is also
needed that work done should be equally well. Thus, a conscientious follower of the English
liberal thought like Professor Isaiah Berlin feels that though the ideal limit or idealised model
at the heart of the egalitarian thought is a society in which not only will everyone be treated
alike, but in which natural differences will have been ignored out, but that when the pursuit
of equality comes into conflict with other human aims, it is only the most fanatical egalitarian
who will demand that such conflicts invariably be decided in favour of equality with relative
disregard for other values concerned (Berlin, 1975, p.378).
8.4 IDEAL OF EQUALITY: LIBERAL VERSUS MARXIST

VIEWS
The idea of equality carries different implications to the men of liberal and Marxist views.
The idea of equality, according to liberal notion, is: “Equals should be treated equally,
unequals unequally and the respect in which they are considered unequal must be relevant to the
differences in treatment that we propose” (Benn & Peters, 1975, p.114). It is, however, a different
matter that with the assimilation of socialist content in the philosophy of liberalism, the real
meaning of equality has been integrated with the consideration of social good as a result of which
the concept of social equality has become all-pervasive. Keeping it in view, John Rawls
suggests two essential points inherent in the notion of equality: “First, each person is to have an
equal right to the extensive basic liberty compatible with similar liberty for others. Second, social
and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be
everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to position and offices equally open to all (Rawls,
1972,p.61).
The liberal doctrine of equality, strictly speaking, stands on the premise of the ‘equality of
adequate opportunities’ available to everyman in what Macpherson calls, a market society
now turned into ‘quasi-market society’. That is, let all people have liberty to compete with each
other in the midst of equal opportunities with the result that those who can make best use of
their chances may go ahead of others. Inequality in the midst of equal opportunities is thus
a valid affair. The doctrine of equality of opportunity is the product of a competitive and fragmented
society, a society in which individualism is the reigning ethical principle. It is a precise symbolic
expression of the liberal-bourgeois model society, for it extends the market place mentality to
all the spheres of life. It views the whole of human relations as a contest in which each man
competes with his fellows for scarce goods; a contest resting upon the attractive conviction that
all should be allowed to improve their conditions as far as their abilities permit.
Basically opposed to it is the Marxist notion of equality. If examined closely, the concept of
equality, according to Marxist notion, has only two aspects- economic in the socialist and
humanistic in the communist phases of social development. That is what we call equality has
mainly an economic aspect so long as we live in a class or a classless society; it shall have a
humanistic form when the era of final stage of socialism ushers in with the ‘withering away of
the State’. There can be no equality so long as there are class contradictions. Unless capitalism
is thoroughly liquidated in the period of transition by the dictatorship of the proletariat, there can
be nothing like real equality. The existence of equality is naturally bound up with the true application
of the rule: ‘He who shall work, shall eat’. It shows that “Marx’s sovereign concept was
of economic equality; his life and writings are glorious epitaph on that; for after all, it is economic
injustice and economic exploitation that have characterised the whole course of human
history”(Thakurdas, 1972, p.5).
Since economics plays a decisive part in the determination of the relations of production, naturally
it is the propertied class that possesses and controls the levers of power. All benefits of liberty and
equality are shared by the class of the ‘haves’ while the class of ‘have-nots’ suffers from the pangs
of slavery or servitude. How can a poor worker make use of equal opportunities in the competition
with the sons of the rich? How can a worker successfully compete when his rival is a member of
the capitalist class? The provision of the equal opportunity is thus a hoax whatever rational justification
may be behind it. Lenin’s analysis, thus, stands on this assumption that “no democratic order is
possible within the framework of capitalism, for the capitalist class is far too strong and uses the
political power symbolized in the state for the preservation of its own interests, and to fasten the
bonds of enslavement on the workers and peasants” (ibid).
Equality thus comes to prevail when the classless society is established after the successful results
of the revolution. All kinds of equality- social, economic, legal and political- merge so as to prove
that equality is possible only after the liquidation of class antagonisms. All persons engaged in work,
whether mental or physical, belong to the class of the toilers and intelligentsia that shows the
existence of a new kind of collective life. “The organic unification in one classless collective of all
workers means an end to dividing society; will be a society of peaceful creative labour, equality
and happiness of all people. This will be a society where, for the first time in history, the
personality of each worker will attain a full, general and perfect development.”
The Marxist notion of equality assumes a humanistic form in the final stage of social development.
That is the existence of equality will merge with the prevalence of ‘glorious human values’ when
the state withers away and people come to lead a life of perfect co-operation. It is in such
an ideal state that Rousseau’s concept of moral equality shall prevail. Though a critic of
Rousseau’s ‘abstract man’, Marx appreciates the doctrine of moral equality, in that ideal stage
of human existence and the notion of abstract man entitled for moral equality, will have a
concrete form. As he says: “Human emancipation will only be complete when the real, individual
man has absorbed into himself the abstract citizen; when as an individual man, in his everyday
life, in his relationships, he has become a species being; and when he has recognised and
organised his powers as social powers so that he no longer separates this social power
himself as a political power” (Marx, 1967, p.188).
8.5 EGALITARIANISM AND SCIENTIFIC VALUE

RELATIVISM: EMPIRICAL DETERMINATION OF
INEQUALITY AND EXPLOITATION
Equality is mainly a normative concept implying that though all persons should have ‘equal
opportunities” yet ‘all wills are not to be weighed equally” (Laski, 1951, p.164). As such, the
principle of egalitarianism is not only an ideal: it is to be understood in a certain context.
Moreover, the norm of equality does admit scope for differentiation on certain legitimate grounds.
As such, any idea of equality giving no room for the prevalence of discriminations shall
amount to its contradiction. “A positive egalitarianism, demanding similar treatment of all,
irrespective of any difference, would clearly lead to absurdities. To sweep away all distinctions
would be to commit injustices as inexcusable as any under attack. Moral progress is made
as much by making new and justifiable distinctions as by eliminating established but irrelevant
‘inequalities” (Benn & Peters, 1975, p.133).
The pertinent question that arises at this stage is: how the idea of equality being a non-scientific
phenomenon can be studied in empirical terms, or how can a purely normative term be
scientifically determined? In other words, it is generally understood that an ethical or a political
ideal implying that inspite of all artificial differences all human beings should be treated as
‘essentially equal’ is necessarily beyond the scope of inter-subjective verifiability. An appropriate
answer to such a query is that the concept of equality or the principle of egalitarianism
should be understood in a different light. If so, we shall arrive at a different conclusion and
thereby find ourselves poles apart from one like Leonard Nelson who, in explicit words,
recognised that merely logical proof of ethical norms was impossible. Perhaps Herbert
Spiegelberg made a better assessment in his paper titled “A Defence of Equality” when he
visualised that sometimes the eighteenth century argument that all men ought to be treated
equally on the ground that they were born equal “is still heard today in somewhat more
precise form that equal treatment is evidently required on the ground that all men are by
birth in the same plight, because they had no influence on whether they were born at all, into
what conditions they were born, and from whom they descended” (Brecht, 1959, p.309).
“Such away of arguing,” as Brecht says, “supplies a forceful emotional appeal, but no
scientific proof that only equal treatment of all human beings is just unless we have previously
accepted a major premise to the effect that all those who are born into the same plight
ought to be treated equally.” As such, the principle of equality can be adjudged, tested,
evaluated, even determined in certain empirical terms where possible and not in all in
as much as even the scope of scientific enquiry is not unlimited. Thus science “may not
prove, although religion may teach and ethical volition may accept that on this ground all
men are essentially equal. The absolute value of this one feature cannot be ascertained by
Scientific Method, and if asserted on the basis of intuition, or any other source, its validity
cannot be inter-subjectively verified.” As such, the ideal of equality may be subjected to
empirical determination in these respects:
1. It may be verified that all men not only distinguish between good and evil but also
are subject to some inner urge towards the ideal: only equal-cases ought to be
treated equally. Science can continue to explore the interconnections or the lack of
interconnections between physical and mental or moral traits and to refute unscientific
contentions as to racial differences in this respect. Further, science can do psychological
and phenomenological research on the manner in which men become aware of
equalities and inequalities, real or imaginary, for instance in the relations between in-
group or out-group individuals. As such, it can distinguish various mutually incompatible
yardsticks of equal treatment like those of needs or abilities and point to the
impossibility of establishing full equality.
2. It follows that the principle of natural equality in some and of natural inequality in
some other respects is accepted by science. If so, the ideal of equality is necessarily
accompanied by a set of distinctions that should be valid or legitimate. The real
meaning of the principle of egalitarianism that only equals can be treated equally or
that all men cannot be treated identically regardless of consequences is a scientifically
tenable proposition. The only requirement is that the ground of discrimination should
be legitimate and can be empirically tested and evaluated. Thus, it shall be a
scientifically valid statement to offer that while a distinction on the basis of colour or
creed in respect of the recruitment to, public services shall be scientifically wrong,
discrimination on the basis of sex in the recruitment of defence personnel shall be
scientifically valid.
3. It can be verified scientifically that while the prevalence of equality leads to political
stability, its absence results in mass discontent. By all means, science “can predict
the consequences and risks entailed by flagrant discriminations, from feelings hurt to
violent uprisings.” Thus, Aristotle was perfectly right in holding that the cause of
sedition lay in inequality (ibid).
We are thus driven to this conclusion that the ideal of equality has both normative and
empirical dimensions and, as such, it can be determined by religious, ethical or non-
scientific measures in some cases and by empirical or scientific yardsticks in others.
8.6 CRITICAL APPRECIATION

What we have said in the preceding sections leads to certain definite impressions. First,
equality implies equal opportunities for all without artificial or unwarranted discriminations.
Second, if there are certain lines of distinction, they should be legitimate. Third, equality has
both normative and empirical dimensions. Though mainly a normative concept, it can be
measured in empirical terms in certain respects. Fourth, the ideal of equality is not antithetical
but complementary to the ideal of liberty. Above all there can be no liberty in the absence
of economic equality. It may, however be added that the concept of equality is still a victim
of certain misconnotations. It not only makes the issue of its reconciliation with liberty a very
complex affair but also creates the problem of its proper understanding.
Two important points may be made in this connection. Firstly, though the history of the
development of the ideal of equality is quite old and by now every believer in the system
of democracy has come to believe that it is one of the two pillars of popular government
(the other being liberty), he is not prepared to define or explain its real meaning in the direction of
bringing about its plausible reconciliation with the ideal of liberty. Nothing but the consideration of
vested interests stands in the background. The shrewd attempts of several liberal thinkers in the
direction of first, though willy-nilly, accepting the case for the reconciliation of equality with liberty
and then endeavouring to solve the problem in their own dexterous way not only smacks of
intellectual dishonesty on their part, but also shows their vested interests in maintaining the staus
quo to any possible extent so that their vested interests do not suffer in a thorough-going manner.
The result is that till now a universally acceptable definition of the term ‘equality’ remains the need
of the hour.
Secondly, the problem has been made more complex by the Marxists who find no equality until
the classless society is established. One may wonder how there can be equality in the midst of no
liberty during the era of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. Though we may fully appreciate the
view of Marx and Lenin that unless all have economic freedom, there is neither liberty nor equality,
we may also ask as to what sort of liberty remains when the political system establishes ruthlessly
regimented order. The developments in the dismantling of erstwhile Soviet Union bear testimony
to it. Would it not be correct to say that there is hardly any fundamental difference between liberal-
democratic and communist orders in this respect in view of the fact that while the former ensures
liberty at the expense of equality, the latter brings about equality at the expense of liberty.
8.7 SUMMARY
We are still in search of finding a proper and universally acceptable version of the real
meaning of equality and its proper reconciliation with liberty. What we have is just a workable
arrangement more or less of a normative character. Differences in the social, political and
economic philosophies of the people shall continue so long as there is economic inequality and
exploitation. With it differences in the real meaning of equality shall continue so as to defy the
problem of any standard solution to the problem of giving rigid or precise connotations
to this great value of human life. At the same time, the tendency of taming the brute shall
continue so that authority being a political trust remains a representative and, for this reason,
a responsible affair. It has by now been well-established that inequality is an artificial contrivance
that ought to be eradicated. If liberty and equality are to survive in a harmonious manner,
economic liberty and the political authority should be redevised in a way that there is the
equalisation of power and wealth, having its healthy and constructive effects on the moral and
intellectual capacities of human beings. The goal should be achieved without sacrificing
the individual or his personality. Russell says: “The greatest political evil is not inequality
of wealth as the Bolshevik theorists insist, but inequality of power” (Russell, 1919, p.111).

1. Do you think that Inequality and Exploitation are structural problems?
2. How will you justify equality in the midst of inequality in the world?
3. Examine Liberal and Marxist views of use of equality and inequality.
SUGGESTED READINGS
Arnold, Mathew., (ed), Mixed Essays, Macmillan, London, 1903.
Barker, E., Principles of Social and Political Theory, Oxford University Press, London, 1951.
Benn, S.I, and R.S. Peters., Social Principles and the Democratic State, George Allen and Unwin,
London, 1975.
Brecht, Arnold., Political Theory: The Foundations of Twentieth Century Political Thought, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, 1959.
Caute, D., (ed), Essential Writings of Marx, Panther, London, 1967.
Hobhouse, L.T., The Elements of Social Justice, George Allen and Unwin, London, 1922.
Laski, Harold., A Grammar of Politics, George Allen and Unwin, London, 1951.
Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice, Oxford University Press, London, 1972.
Russell, Bertrand., Roads to Freedom, George Allen and Unwin, London, 1919.
Tawney, R.H., Equality, George Allen and Unwin, London, 1964.
Thakurdas, F., Recent English Political Theory and Idea of Liberty, Minerva, Calcutta, 1972.
UNIT 9 WESTERN AND EASTERN
PERSPECTIVES
Structure
9.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
9.2 Nature and Methods

9.3 Differences in Perspectives
9.4 Summary
Suggested Readings
9.1 INTRODUCTION
Conflicts are natural. They exist wherever two or more human beings come together. Self
interests of men are not always identical or even common to all. The reasoning ability which
is given to men makes the matter complex. Each one conceives his own interest; while doing
so he may take into account the interest of others as well or he may not. He may even
consider harming the interests of others, friends or foes. His reasoning power as well as his
ethical bearing shapes his thoughts and actions. Thus are born the conflicts in society. One may
find conflicts within the family, among different families and among various social, cultural,
economic and religious groupings. Conflicts among these may not always be bad or hurtful.
They may at times be even productive or creative. Reconciliation of conflicts of interests in
society is verily the art of politics. And if politics fails, war or coercive methods step in to
resolve the issues. How best to avoid a war or violence is our concern. Conflict resolution
minus violence is not only a sign of heightened civilisation but also the prime need of the hour
when violence can get unlimited and counterproductive. Therefore, a scientific study of conflict
resolution is called for.
Aims and Objectives
This Unit would make you understand:
 The nature and categories of conflicts
 Different perspectives related to conflicts
 The key features of Western and Eastern perspectives of conflicts and their resolution.
9.2 NATURE AND METHODS

Before attempting the solution and methods of solution to the conflicts, it may be worthwhile to
consider the nature and categories of conflicts.
If disputes arise within a family, say among the children, among relations or within a clan/caste
the authority of the state in the form of a law or command from the king may not be required
to settle the issue. An ethical code or at best a codified edict resembling a religious code may
suffice to guide the solution to the problem. Discipline, enlightenment and fairplay may be the
key points in any such codes. Long practice of such codes may endow upon them an awe
of authority and indisputability. Excepting rare cases, there is no scope for violence in dealing
with family conflicts.
When the family model is extended to a larger social, cultural or economic grouping, the
methods of resolution get modified. The interests of those who are more powerful or stronger
get a protection and preference. A negotiated solution, a peaceful and ‘reasonable’ one, may
get encased into the structure and procedure of the system concerned. So long as it lasts, it
is supposed to be just and practicable. When its utility is questioned or the unjust face of it
is unmasked, its credibility is reduced. New conflicts arise and new solutions will be found.
In all ‘domestic’ affairs, an agreed authority in the form of an officer political, legal, administrative,
police or a religious head would be held as the highest arbitrator and his decision would be
held final and binding. This system secures stability and order, and ensures that all men live
in peace and satisfaction.
This domestic system of conflict resolution faces severe challenge when independent or semi-
independent (autonomous) entities get into disputes. When one ethnic community is ranged
against another, when one state is challenged by another, when one religion (faith) takes on
others or one small group of men (outlawed, exiled or self-proclaimed) rebel against the
system, the parameters of conflict resolution change. If the civil methods fail to resolve the
conflicts, the sword emerges as the final arbiter, war, then would be glorified. Depending upon
the sphere in which conflicts arise, methods of solution would have to be devised. From time
immemorial, some standard methods are employed, although there is no universality about
them.
Another way of understanding the origins of conflicts is to look at their core or content
objectively. For instance, there might be disputes regarding water, territory, trade and commerce,
legal and customary rights, protection of lives and rights of human beings in one’s own or
foreign territory etc. In these cases, claims and counter-claims have to be weighed in the scale
of reasonableness and accommodativeness. If one were to be blind to the practicality and
enlightened self-interest, an unleashing of violence would take place. The resultant achievement
may not be wise, just or permanent. Therefore, after repeated experience over several centuries
the mankind has come now to the conclusion that peaceful exploration of end of conflicts in
international arena is decidedly superior to the traditional mode of warfare. The emergence
of weapons of mass destruction like the nuclear weapons has highlighted the urgency to settle
peacefully all the conflicts in human society.
9.3 DIFFERENCE IN PERSPECTIVES

When a conflict occurs how does one perceive it? Is it to be sorted out through talks and
negotiations? A timely compromise may perhaps ward off any trouble? Or is it an occasion
to stand firm and test the will of the opponent? Perception of the level of conflict is important
in choosing appropriate approach to solution. In so far as domestic conflicts are concerned,
that is, conflicts between elements within a group, there are standard methods to settle them
like law courts in civil matters, elections in political matters or market in economic matters.
However, in case of conflicts between groups an air of uncertainty prevails. Group conflicts
may occur within a state like communal/ethnic disputes, cultural/linguistic disputes, immigration/
demographic disputes etc. Depending upon the perception of seriousness of the conflicting
interests, different methods can be tried to resolve the disputes. If no quick solution is found,
Western and Eastern Perspectives 99
the conflict assumes the form of a prolonged struggle and also tends to involve more and more
violent features.
When conflicts or disputes arise between states in the international arena, similar symptoms
are observed as in the case of inter-group conflicts. To make it worse, the option of war
looms large. What makes the groups or states to prefer one method (or approach) of solution
over the others? More often than not, it is the perception of the interest involved in the conflict.
If the interests are perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be vital there would be stubborn and
unrelenting pursuit of interests by the party concerned.
In the perception of interests, vital and fundamental, the cultural ethos of the group/state plays
a decisive role. In some cultures, especially in the West, the opposites are depicted as black
and white, wicked and good, wrong and right wherein the opponent who is always black,
wicked or wrong has to be eliminated or overcome by those who are always white, good or
right. Milton’s Paradise Lost depicts this situation best. Perhaps, the religious beliefs in the
good versus the evil reinforced the perception of conflicts in the West. In this process of
conflict resolution, violence gets acceptability, if not respectability.
In the Eastern part of the globe, cultural and philosophical moorings appear to be somewhat
different compared to the Western part. In India as well as in China the good and evil are
neither treated as total nor mutually exclusive. The relationship between them is not one of
versus but one of and. The struggle for supremacy is on but it will end in the surrender of
the evil to the good. The evil doer is normally forgiven and taken into the main-fold. The good
and bad are qualitatively opposed but the actors are differentiated from their actions. This is
a major civilisational difference between the Western and the Indian conceptual tapestry.
The difference may also be attributed to the two faiths’ fundamental beliefs: One holding on
to One God and One Truth whereas the other goes by the multiplicity of forms of God and
Truth. This cultural-philosophical basis works on the mode of thinking about conflicts and their
resolution.
If one analyses the links between society, culture, philosophy and religion, one would come
away with the unavoidable impression that all these are intertwined inextricably. ‘Mindset’
seems to be the ultimate product of all these – which incidentally shapes the ‘structural
conflicts’ and internalisation of conflicts. The antagonism between ‘us’ and ‘them’ is determined
by such mindset. Language is used as a tool of expression of this thought-process. Literature
strives to provide a fuller and vivid elucidation of this.
Prof. Anatol Rapoport, in Conflict – In Man made Environment, 1974 (pp.198-208), gives
a succinct account of how internalised conflicts shape our thinking about ourselves and others
(enemies). Attitudes towards conflicts are internalised by each individual as a consequence of
his experience and upbringing. Attitudes are also internalised on a larger scale, that is,
internationalised, by larger systems – groups, tribes, societies and nations. One might add
ideologies as well.
He gives us an insight into the working of “American Way of Life”. He takes three American
classics to illustrate the serious side of American mind. If Mark Twain’s ‘The Connecticut
Yankee’ opens with a self-statement: “I am an American. My father was a blacksmith. My
uncle was a horse doctor. I can make everything.” This ‘Yankee’ represents a strong-willed
Missionary who almost succeeds in his mission but fails at the last moment, thanks to the
forces of tyranny and superstition ii) Huckleberry Finn is all about a struggling self-made hero
Huck who wanted to be left alone and escape from restrictions of family, community and
civilisation itself; but he too fails. iii) In his drive for mastery, a pure obsession with conflict,
Captain Ahab in Herman Melville’s Moby Dick, too fails. Not only he destroys himself but
destroys others as well. “All of these most representative masterpieces of American literature
are dominated by a theme and a counter-theme. The theme claims that man realized himself by
asserting his absolute individuality. The counter theme responds that the individual struggling
against his milieu must fail.”
Rapoport calls this basic American Tragedy which pervades serious American literature –
which includes not only Mark Twain, Melville, Sinclair Lewis and Thoreau. However, the
popular literature and its offspring the TV Channels or the electronic media suppress this
theme. They entertain fantasy and succeed. The hero fulfils his wish and achieves success,
always! The two together now represent the American culture. This cultural basis generates
the American self-esteem and also the trends of conflict vis-à-vis other cultures or ideologies.
When a belief, faith or ideology is internalised by individuals or institutionalised by groups or
societies or nations, the theme is enveloped by an authority structure so as to make it endure
under all circumstances. When the core idea/theme/belief is diluted, corrupted or when it is
contrasted with other similar force, it feels challenged and feels compelled to defend itself. The
authority which it has given birth to, comes into play; and it is made out as though it is the
authority (political/religious) which is challenged and not the idea which it is supposed to cover.
Thus conflicts abound in the name of preservation of core values of a group or society.
Interestingly, the opponent of the American system, the communist ideology was also held up
as an unfailing model. Even as its erosion, corruption and limitations were showing up and
were being pointed out by internal critics, Lenin defended orthodox Marxism thus: “you
cannot eliminate even one basic assumption, one substantial part of this philosophy of Marxism
(it is as if it were a solid block of steel) without abandoning objective truth, without falling into
the arms of bourgeois-reactionary falsehood” (Materialism and Empirics-Criticism,1927).
When an idea is doubted or sought to be changed the authority which covers the idea feels
itself to be challenged or threatened. This is how many a conflict is born in terms of ideology,
religion, culture or language. In the West, in general the Church and State have had close
identification with culture and society. Whether it was a matter of conflict-generation or conflict
resolution, both of these (religion and state) played a crucial role. However, in the East
especially in China and India from ancient times to the modern time, both these institutions –
religion and state – have displayed awkward and ambiguous positions. The very term religion
in the Western sense appeared to be out of place here. The State or the King appeared to
be of a limited role: to preserve the social order was the goal of the King, be it in China or
in India.
Especially in China, one saw no particular religious establishment to control the attitude and
behavior of men. The preachings which were quite influential came from Master Philosophers
who had no authority except the force of reasoning and wisdom. Ethical instructions they
were, not religious codes. The basic stress in them was not on conflicts but harmonious life
in society. The individuals were advised to shape their lives upon the ethical teachings of
masters –who laid down no particular doctrine or faith to be covered by any authority –
structure.
Confucius (born about 550 year B.C.) was a venerated and much influential master over
thousands of years. All his preachings were in the form of short statements, Analects which
were centred on the ethics of a gentleman and fine basic relationships in society. Observed
or violated, his instructions laid the foundation of the Chinese culture. His influence was slightly
eclipsed during the Mao regime but now has staged a comeback. In essence, he believed that
“all men are good at birth, but not many remain so to the end.” Unlike the Indian philosophers
Confucius did not dwell on death and God. He said often: “you have not understood life, why
enquire about after- life? You have not yet understood human life, why show interest in
Gods?” According to him the only worthwhile thing to do for everybody was to care for,
improve and achieve the welfare of society. The social ideal for Confucius was the achievement
of harmony all around. It should begin with oneself striving to be a gentleman. A whole book
deals with the attributes of an ethical human being the gentleman. The most important virtue
of the gentleman was jen (humanity or benevolence). He must also demonstrate chung (doing
his best) and shu (knowing what other people want). Whenever precise questions were put
to him for definition of a gentleman Confucius stuck to his theme all the time: “Do not do to
others what you would not like yourself; Never do to others what you would not like them
to do to you”. That was the essence of a gentleman, an ethical man. Also said he: A
gentleman calls attention to the good points in others; he does not call attention to their
defects. The small man, the vulgar man does just the opposite. A gentleman is distressed
by his own lack of capacity; he is never distressed at the failure of others to recognize
his merits. A gentleman makes demands upon himself; small men make demand upon
others. According to Confucius a truly moral man, the gentleman, “is he who unconsciously
lives a life in harmony with the universal moral order, and lives unknown to the world
or unnoticed by men.” The life of the vulgar person, on the other hand, was a contradiction
of the universal order. He has not in his heart the regard for or fear of the moral law. The
highest human attainment was, according to Confucius, to find the central clue to our moral
being which unites us to the universal order. He in this regard held that the society was made
up of five relationships which should be understood and observed properly. These were
between: husband and wife, parents and children, elders and youngsters, Ruler and Subjects,
and friend and friend. A country is well governed when these five relationships are duly
recognised and promoted. Human conflicts can no longer arise if these are observed. Instead
there would prevail harmony all around. In one particular observation he
extolled:
If there be righteousness in the heart, there will be beauty in character;
If there be beauty in character, there will be harmony in home;
If there be harmony in home, there will be order in the nation;
If there be order in nation, there will be peace in the world; If such be the prescriptions and
if they be observed by people there would, no doubt, be a spell of heavenly rules.
Like Confucius, LeoTze was another great venerated Chinese philosopher who perhaps
developed the first systematic treatise on life, nature and society. He was 53 years older than
Confucius. LeoTze’s philosophy centred on two words: Tao (way) and Te (virtue). Tao refers
to the pristine, pure, original nature – the Great Universal Mother – when society was simple
and free from defects. Society was simple and pure because people knew the Tao. Life was
peaceful and the world was happy then. But gradually ‘knowledge’ crept in and complications
arose. Life and Society were flooded soon with misery because men lost their grip on Tao,
the ‘essential principle’ underlying all the phenomena in Nature.
The more one studies LeoTze the more similarities one comes across, in some respects,
between the ancient Indian scriptural and philosophical ideas like Prakruti and Purush, and the
attributes of Brahman and of the ‘Sthitaprajna’ on the one hand and on the other LeoTze’s
description of Tao and The. They may look a bit similar without there being any direct link
between them of course. Perhaps the Indian concepts go deeper and wider than LeoTze’s.
LeoTze, for example, exhorts people to live a simple life and in harmony with nature. Knowledge
and wisdom are not required. A simple man is less of a peril than a man of learning; a man
of learning is a danger to the State/Society as he tries to regulate the system on the basis of
laws. No law is necessary to live in accordance with nature. Laws destroy society; they take
away freedom and free will. “Strive to keep the world in its original simplicity – why so much
fuss?” Ignoring simplicity we have been in the mire of curse and confusion according to Lao-
Tze. By restoring simplicity, the world may be saved from desires and false notions and from
sin. To remain gentle is to be unconquerable. Gentleness is always victorious. The weak has
the power to overcome the strong. “He that humbles himself shall be preserved entire. He that
bends himself shall be straightened. He that empties himself shall be filled…. Having emptied
yourself of everything, guard your tranquility and remain where you are.” “All things in nature
work silently. They come into being and possess nothing. They fulfill their function and make
no claim…when they reached their blooms each returns to its origin. Returning to origin means
rest of fulfillment of destiny. This reversion is eternal law.”
Along with this prescription of simple living, Lao-Tze pleads also for a ‘detached’ living –
which means a man should shed ago and desires. But no one should ignore living a virtuous
life. “Act non-action. Be occupied with non occupation. Taste the tasteless. Find your great
in what is little and your many in few.” If these be the principles on the basis of which one
should lead life in society, there need not arise conflicts among men or groups of men.
Whether it is Confucius, Lao-Tze or even Buddhism in ancient China, the philosophy of social
life revolved around detachment, harmony, respect for others especially the elders and obeying
the simple laws of nature. This being so, conflicts were insignificant in social contact; and
harmonious living was the norm. This Chinese perspective is a distinguishing mark in comparison
to the perspectives from other cultures.
So far as our own country’s cultural perspective – for the lack of a better word, the Hindu
perspective – is concerned, one might say that it is by far the most comprehensive and
enduring in human history. To put it in a capsule form it says:
Truth is one but there are different ways of understanding it; God is one but He appears in
different forms to different people; There is unity in diversity and diversity in unity; Karma
(action) is your bounden duty but its outcome is not in your hands;
Time is cyclical; to protect the good ones and punish/destroy the bad ones is God’s
responsibility; one should strive to secure peace in all its dimensions; live life according to the
code of righteous conduct, that is Dharma;
There are various interpretations and ways of Hindu culture and philosophy. On account of
differing social and historical milieu, diverse and often conflicting practices have come up. The
very fact that the core philosophy has survived five-to-six thousand years over a very large
territory comprising of a very large population shows its grit and eternal appeal. As famous
historian Arnold Toynbee has observed, all other great civilisations of the world have disappeared
but the Indian one survives and functions even today; hence it must have got in it something
special or extraordinary quality.
The way the Hindu perspective handles conflicts is varied and complex. On the one hand it
is uncompromising on bad elements and on the other it sees manifestation of God everywhere
including in the bad elements. The best way of solving the puzzle is to see that the bad
elements are converted or eliminated leaving behind the good ones only. This can be put
across slightly differently: There is none who/which is totally bad; the good one should be
made to prevail over the bad one eventually. This approach to understanding conflicts and
their resolution paves way for a variety of methods and interpretations.
In practical terms there are devised four standard ways of dealing with a dispute or conflict,
in internal or foreign affairs. Reasoning or convincing as the first step is the best of options.
The second is to strike a bargain securing the interests of both the conflicting parties satisfactorily.
The third is to divide and weaken the intransigent opponent and after he/it is broken try the
other methods. The last and ultimate resort is to unleash violence in order to punish, if
necessary, to destroy the opponent. After victory, the opposition should be forgiven and all
should unite in a good cause. This scale of options has been in vogue in India over thousands
of years both in the domestic and external spheres. It has been given the clock of respectability
in the name of Dharma or Nyaya (Saama, Daana, Bheda and Danda Upayas). Jain and
Buddhist paths have added nuances to this essentially Hindu way of dealing with conflict
situations.
9.4 SUMMARY
Conflicts are natural. They are a part of all living creatures, human and otherwise. How to deal
with them differs from one culture to another. Methods as well as concepts of conflict resolution
are intertwined with psychology, religion, culture, philosophy, anthropology, technology, polity,
jurisprudence apart from many other inscrutable factors. Leading civilisations, religions and
regions of the world have thrown up different computations of conflicts and solutions.
Comparisons are awkward; but a study of them all would definitely yield a rich material with
useful insights.

1. Why do conflicts occur?
2. What are the different disciplines/ sub-disciplines which are associated with a study of
conflicts? Give suitable examples.
3. How do different religious philosophies posit (envisage or formulate) conflicts? What is
their solution?
4. Which approach of resolution of conflicts in international politics appeals to you
as satisfactory and why?
SUGGESTED READINGS
Das, Bhagavan., Essential Unity of All Religions, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai, 1990
Glimpses of World Religions, Jaico Books, 2006.
Husain, Abid S., The National Culture of India, National Book Trust, New Delhi, 2000.
Readings in World Civilizations, Vol-1: The Great Traditions, St. Martin’s Press, New York,
1992
Social Science Encyclopedia.
UNIT 10 COERCIVE METHODS
Structure
10.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
10.2 Methods of Conflict Resolution

10.2.1 Pacific Settlement
10.3 Coercive Methods

10.3.1 Coercive Methods Short of War
10.3.1.1 Retortion
10.3.1.2 Reprisal
10.3.1.3 Embargo
10.3.1.4 Boycott
10.3.1.5 Blockade
10.3.1.6 Intervention
10.3.1.7 Collective Security
10.3.2 Coercive Methods Through War
10.3.2.1 Limited War
10.3.2.2 Total War
10.4 Problems and Prospects

10.5 Summary
Suggested Readings
10.1 INTRODUCTION
Since the Peace Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 the concept of nation-state has acquired
significance in the global system. The behaviour of states in the larger global milieu has been
explained in terms of realism which is based on some fundamental assumptions such as: (i)
global order is anarchical in nature; (ii) states are always engaged in the struggle for power;
(iii) national interest of the states is always pursued in terms of acquisition of power; (iv) state
is considered as the sole and rational actor in terms of the policy choices; and (v) the stability
in power structure can be attained through balance of power mechanism which is based on
perseverance of status quo. Thus, for a long period, the global order concentrated on the
working of sole actor, i.e. state, and its interests are defined in terms of struggle for power.
Though classical realism has been modified and amended by later scholars through their new
orientations in the name of neo-realism, structural realism, defensive, cooperative, state-centric
realism etc., yet reflections in terms of balance of power or unipolarity are grouped together
under the common denomination, i.e. state.
Since 1980s and 1990s the concept of security has undergone transformations with new
terminologies and basic postulates. It has traveled a long distance from state-centric and
military or territorial security to ‘common’, ‘collective’ and ‘cooperative’ security system
based on interdependence and positive interactions among states. However, the importance
of states have not been reduced or eliminated but only slightly changed from not only state
Coercive Methods 105
alone, it has shifted to states along. Since the coming of the United Nations Development
Programmes’ report in 1994, the concept has been drastically altered from ‘state’ to ‘human
security’ where the latter has been made the referent objective of security.
In this new conception security means ‘freedom from fear’ and ‘freedom from want’. This
report listed seven components or specific values of human security, which are: 1. Economic
Security; 2. Environmental Security; 3. Food Security; 4. Health Security; 5. Personal Security;
6. Community Security; and 7. Political Security. Thus, the changed notion of security
addresses two sets of threats. First of all, some threats are more localised. These are threats
that are particular to different societies or regions of the world and seemingly vary by level
of economic development and geographical location. Secondly, some threats are global in
nature because ‘threats within countries rapidly spill beyond natural frontiers’. Thus security
today involves the fulfillment of interests of both individual, as well as, states. Hence, struggle
for power cannot be ruled out completely, but certain constraints of community need to be
taken care of. Similarly the use of both peaceful and coercive mechanisms is prevalent.
However, generally the latter methods are used only after the failure of formal techniques.
These are not considered to be matter of first choice. Operationalisation of coercive methods
needs the skillful use of coercive diplomacy which represents a reciprocal relationship between
combatants using this manoeuvre to reach some mutual accord. This diplomacy has the
following characteristics: (i) It is political diplomacy based on the premises to coerce enemy’s
decision; (ii) Some use of force may be there for credibility; (ii) precedence of limited use of
force can not be ruled out; (iv) To be successful signaling bargaining and negotiation must be
accompanied; (v) Seriousness of it depends upon the perception of enemy about the use of
coercive force.
Aims and Objectives
 The concept of coercion
 Coercion as a method of conflict resolution
 Merits and demerits involved in this method.
10.2 METHODS OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

It has become evident that despite the changes in the thinking of components of security and
transformed global order, the existence of conflict in the international system has not been
ruled out. Besides, despite the incorporation of new actors and emergence of civil society to
be considered as the replacement of the role of state as the core actor in international arena,
there is a need and urgency for evolving methods and strategies for the resolution of conflict.
In this context, the following three broad categories of methods can be evaluated:
10.2.1 Pacific Settlement

These methods involve the use of peaceful mechanism devoid of use of force and violence.
In general terms they may be classified into two categories: (a) Diplomatic and Political; and
(b) Judicial.
(a) Diplomatic and Political methods do not use force and violence and final judgments
arrived through these mechanisms may not be binding upon the parties concerned. Hence
they are called non-binding or non-decisional and mutual agreements are generally arrived
at through compromises. These methods are: (i) Negotiation; (ii) Good offices; (iii)
Mediation; (iv) Inquiry; and (v) conciliation.
(b) Judicial methods are also peaceful. But the only difference between diplomatic and these
methods is of its binding nature. The decisions arrived through these methods are binding
on the disputed parties. Hence, these procedures are described as decisional and binding.
Two judicial methods are: (i) Arbitration (adopted by PCIJ); and (ii) Adjudication (adopted
by ICJ).
10.3 COERCIVE METHODS

When methods of Pacific Settlement of disputes fail, states adopt coercive methods which are
of two types:
i) Coercive Methods Short of War; and
ii) Coercive Methods Through War
i) Coercive Methods Short of War: States turn to coercive but non-violent methods for the
resolution of conflicts only if peaceful procedures fail to produce the desired result. Most
of these devices, although expressed in the mechanics of the diplomatic process, have
their ultimate coercive effect in the psychological realm. These non-violent coercive
techniques may be pursued through numerous state actions in the form of – recall of
diplomats; expulsion of diplomats, denial of recognition, rupture of diplomatic ties;
suspension of treaties etc.
These actions are taken by adopting one of the following methods – (i) reprisal; (ii)
retortion; (iii) embargo; (iv) boycott; (v) blockade; (vi) intervention; and (vii) collective
security.
(ii) Coercive Methods Through War: Last resort to the resolution of conflicts in the international
system has always been the organised application of violence in the form of war. But the
war may either be fought by tacit agreement within the terms of reference and restraint
laid down by the international system and thus be related to the controlling equilibrium,
or it may potentially be destructive of the system by threatening to alter relationships
drastically, dysfunctionally, and permanently. Consequently, wars can be fought in two
broad categories – (i) Limited War; and (ii) Total War.
From the above twin categories, the first category of methods, i.e. pacific or peaceful methods
have already been discussed in the earlier Units. Hence, the focus of this Unit will be restricted
only to a detailed evaluation of coercive methods both short of war and involving warfare.
10.3.1 Coercive Methods Short of War
The following methods, though coercive but non-violent, are used by the states of disputes that
are not resolved through peaceful means. These methods are obviously of unfriendly nature
and a complex form of retaliation against its enemy.
10.3.1.1 Retortion
Generally the retortion method used by the state is a legal but deliberately an unfriendly act
with a retaliatory or coercive purpose. When a state behaves in a discourteous manner with
another state, the latter has right to retaliate under the international law. But in doing so only
the measures allowed under law are permitted. Consequently, the general mechanisms applied
in retaliations are – recall of diplomats, rupture of diplomatic ties, declaring diplomatic staff
as non-persona grata (undesirable person), economic sanctions etc.
Action under retortion can be taken both in terms of kind and direct or explicit nature. A
common form of Retortion consists in retaliatory increase in tariff rates against states which
discriminate against the product of a particular nation. That is why it is called retaliation in kind.
But sometimes when a state acts in reply to legal but discourteous, unfriendly, unfair on
inequitable act with an act of similar type, then retortion is not limited to retaliation in kind.
However, the use of retortion is limited by some provisions of the UN Charter. Most important
among them is the provision under article 2(3) of the charter which prevents the use of
retortion if it endangers the international peace and security and justice in the global order. As
a result, even if it is permitted in some cases then also it should not be in contravention to the
possibility of creation of dangers to peace and security in the international system.
10.3.1.2 Reprisal
It is another type of coercive method used by the states involving generally all kinds of forceful
measures. It is related to the methods adopted by states for securing redress from another
state by taking retaliatory measures. In earlier times, the term has been restricted to the seizure
of property and persons, but in contemporary times it connotes coercive measures adopted
by one state against another for the purpose of settling some disputes brought about by the
latter’s illegal or unjustified conduct.
Practice of International law has evolved the following principles on the basis of which this
concept can operate:
(a) Reprisal is only justified, if at all, where the state against which it is directed has been
guilty of conduct in the nature of an international delinquency.
(b) Reprisal would not be justified if the delinquent state had not been previously requested
to give satisfaction for the wrong done, or if the measures of reprisals were ‘excessive’
proportionally in relation to the injury suffered.
(c) Reprisals are only justified if their purpose is to bring about a satisfactory settlement of
a dispute.
(d) Reprisals should not be resorted to unless and until negotiations for the purpose of
securing redress from the delinquent state fail.
At the outset it must be clear that retaliatory acts between belligerent states in the course of
war are a different matter from reprisals, although they are also termed ‘reprisals’. Therefore
reprisals have always been a controversial matter. However, the basic distinction between
reprisals and retortion is that the former consist of acts which would generally otherwise be
quite illegal, whereas the latter consists of retaliatory conduct to which no legal objection can
be taken.
Though, it is agreed that reprisals are based on the use of violent means short of war, yet on
the basis of use of means, these can be divided into four categories: (a) Positive; (b) Negative;
(c) Special; and (d) General. Positive reprisals are based on the use of primitive laws for
retaliation, i.e. law of ‘an eye for eye’. Negative reprisals are conducted by not using the
violent means, rather the methods like non-payment of debts or non-obligation of treaties are
applied. Special reprisals are based on the methods used during the middle ages. They are
resorted to for the indemnification of private individuals for injuries and losses inflicted on them
by subjects of other nations. General reprisals take place when an aggrieved state performs
warlike operations without the intention of making war. Thus, the above-mentioned different
types of reprisals are permitted by the orthodox view of International law where either denial
of justice is involved or a situation of international delinquency exists.
To operationalise reprisals numerous strategies can be adopted depending upon the situations
and context of the problems. Generally adopted methods to implement reprisals are: (i)
boycott of goods; (ii) an embargo; (iii) a naval demonstrations; and (iv) bombardment. But
the use of these methods is not without any limitations. Both the provisions of UN Charter
as well as the practice of international system placed the following restrictions on the working
of this concept:
(i) Under Article 2(3) of the UN Charter, the member states are restrained to settle their
disputes by peaceful means in such a way as not to ‘endanger’ international peace and
security.
(ii) Under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, the member states are to refrain from the threat
or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or
in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN.
(iii) In practice, the UNSC in 1964, by a majority, condemned reprisals as being ‘incompatible
with the purposes and principles of the UN’.
(iv) On 24 October 1970, the UN General Assembly, while adopting the ‘Declaration on
Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among
States’ declared that: ‘States have a duty to refrain from acts of reprisal involving the use
of force.’
Even the uses of force under ‘self defence’ (Article 51) and for ‘collective action’ (Article 33)
are limited in terms of: ‘consisted in the threat or the exercise of military force against another
state in such a way as to prejudice its territorial integrity or political independence would
presumably be illegal’; and, the non-use of peaceful means prior to resort to force would be
considered illegal. Thus, reprisals are justified if other state has committed an international
crime or violated any international law. It is justified only if its objectives are justified and
satisfactory to settle international disputes.
10.3.1.3 Embargo
It is another type of coercive method used by the states to retaliate the action of belligerent
state. If a state violates international law or commits some international crime, then the affected
nation uses the tactics of embargo. Through this strategy, the nation tries to prohibit the
shipment of all goods or certain goods to a particular country or a group of countries.
However, this obstruction of ships can be done only in the area of territorial waters. It is
because beyond this jurisdiction high seas has been considered as an area for the use of
humanity at large. This can be imposed both by unofficial or official manner, i.e. this may be
initiated by private groups or public sentiments or by governments. Similarly it can be utilised
in both partial and full manner. Thus, in a limited sense, the restriction of economic and like
activities by the state against any other state can create problems for the nations which violate
international law. However, this kind of restrictions cannot be utilised beyond the sovereign
jurisdiction area of the state applying embargo.
10.3.1.4 Boycott
It is the reverse of the embargo. Through this strategy a state may stop the imports from any
country that does not observe international law or involves in international crime. It can be
pursued both at official and non-official levels. By non-acceptance of goods of a particular
country, the affected state may create economic problems for the former. It is even done
sometimes by the states to promote their local/indigenous products. However, most of the
times, it is used to fulfill political objectives. A major limitation of this strategy is that this can
be implemented only in the territorial jurisdiction of the pursuing state.
10.3.1.5 Pacific Blockade
In the time of war, the blockade of a belligerent state’s ports is a very common naval
operation. The pacific blockade, however, is a measure employed in times of peace. It is
generally designed to coerce the state whose ports are blockaded into complying with a
request for satisfaction by the blockading state. Therefore, while applying this ‘ingress’ and
‘egress’ of the ports of the states, are blockaded so that ships of other states may not reach
those ports. Simultaneously it is also ensured that ships of blockaded state may not go out
of the ports. Therefore, this strategy is used by the state to compel the other side to settle
disputes. Here it must also be clarified that while operationalising it, the blockading state has
no right to seize ships of third states which endeavour to break a pacific blockade. Consequently,
it follows that the third states are not duly bound to respect such a blockade.
The strategy of pacific blockade is not without limitations. Article 2(3) of the UN Charter
prohibits any such action under pacific blockade if it endangers international peace and security.
However, under Article 42 of the UN Charter, it is justified as a collective measure taken
under chapter VII of the UN Charter. Besides, it is advantageous in two more ways; (i) it is
far less violent means of action than war; and (ii) it is also more elastic as compared to other
such methods. But its utility as unilateral measures has been disapproved by the UN. Hence,
in present times it has become an obsolete method.
10.3.1.6 Intervention
It is another compulsive measure used by the states for the resolution of conflict. It can be
both diplomatic and military-oriented in its application. In principle, there are some provisions
of the UN Charter which prohibit the use of intervention. As under Article 2(4), the unilateral
use of force or threat thereof by states in their international relations is prohibited. Similarly,
under Article 2(7), the UN is not allowed to intervene in the domestic affairs of the states.
Even some resolutions passed by the United Nations, from time to time, do not allow the UN
to intervene in the matters of states.
However, this does not mean that intervention is ruled out for all purposes. Practically speaking,
it is allowed both individually and collectively on the basis of the following two major principles:
(i) Principle of Self Defence: Under this principle, intervention is allowed by an individual
state against the other state. The right to self-defence is provided under Article 51 of the
UN Charter but with numerous limitations. The limitations like – allowed only in case of
arms attack; through UN system; review by security council; threatening international
peace and security; not-available against non-UN members etc. restricts its operation in
a very limited manner.
(ii) Principle of Collective Measures: Besides individualist manner, it is also allowed as
collective activity under the UN system. In the name of collective intervention it is
permitted on humanitarian ground on the basis of Articles 1, 55 and 56, because the
violation of human rights provides legal obligation upon the members in respect of human
rights for collective intervention under the UN system. Moreover, under Chapter VII
(Articles 39 & 42), the UN can take action if the activities of human rights violation or
civil war are there and if these endanger international peace and security.
Though on some other grounds like – to enforce treaty rights; prevent illegal intervention;
balance of power; protection of persons and property; to maintain international law; problem
of civil war etc. states use individual interventions, yet these are not permitted under international
law. Thus, intervention can be used either individually by states in a limited manner on the
ground of self-defence or it can be a collective exercise by the UN system for the preservation
of peace and security at the international level.
10.3.1.7 Collective Security
When the means of pacific settlement fail, the UN can resort to coercive method for the
purpose of settling disputes. Though the word collective measures is used for such activities,
in common parlance it is described as collective security. Though mentioned in the Preamble
and Article 1 of the UN Charter, it is elaborately and exclusively described in Chapter VII
of the Charter. However, it can neither be pursued as first step nor be taken as a unilateral
action in a hurried manner. It has to be implemented in step-by-step way. First of all, for its
initiation, the UNSC has to determine the existence of any threat of peace, breach of peace
or act of aggression. It is only after that it can make recommendation of collective measures.
Thereafter, before the actual use of force, the UN has to use measures like – partial interruption
of economic activities by stopping rail, sea, air etc. network. Other channels of communications
(postal, telegraphic, radio etc.) are also curtailed including the severance of diplomatic relations.
Later the embargo and blockade can be applied. Finally force is used as collective exercise
through military staff committee under the UN army and UN flag.
Thus, collective security measure is used as a last resort and for limited purpose. Besides, as
far as constitutional provisions are concerned, it has been over-emphasised as a strong method
for application, but if analysed practically, due to Cold War conflict between powers, it
remained non-effective for most of the period. Even in the post-Cold War decades, due to
emerging hegemony and dominance of the sole superpower, it is more misused than regulated
properly. The present status of unipolar and multipolar or non-polar world order in the ensuing
fluidity has made it operationally difficult. Even the question mark on the relevance of the UN
system itself has further created doubts about its use.
10.3.2 Coercive Methods Through War

The final and unanswerable device for producing solutions to conflict has always been the
organised application of violence in the form of war. On the basis of methods, scope and
intensity of war it can be divided into two broad categories: (i) limited war; and (ii) total war.
10.3.2.1 Limited War
When a war is fought with limited objectives and with voluntary restraints on the use of force
by the states, it is a limited war. Here the purpose is not complete victory or annihilation of
enemy, rather it is to achieve limited goal. Even the scope for negotiated peace is always kept
open despite warfare. Therefore, this type of warfare is fought by tacit agreement within the
terms of reference and restraint as laid down by the international system and thus be related
to controlling equilibrium among the states. Here, after restoring the balance, war may be
stopped and all restrictions prescribed under the international law are observed. Thus both the
parties in conflict observe massive restraints and always engage in warfare till the objective
is attained. The end of such war is theoretically marked by re-establishment of normal relations
between the former enemies after political re-adjustments, made necessary by the war, have
been consummated.
10.3.2.2 Total War
With the coming of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in the form of chemical, biological
and nuclear weapons, war has acquired the course of total war. This kind of war has the
potentiality of destructing the system by threatening to alter relationships drastically,
dysfunctionally and permanently. Here the purpose of war is to attain complete victory or even
annihilation of enemy. The purpose of this war has been very comprehensive and weapons of
huge magnitude and devastating categories are used. But given the nature of weapon system,
i.e. WMDs, and changed context of global milieu, the relevance of the concept of total war
may be present in theory but very difficult to put into practice.
10.4 PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS

The use of coercive measures is not without problems. If critically examined, these methods
cannot be applied due to constraints of both theoretical and operational dynamics of the
international system. The following limitations make the use of coercive methods unusable.
10.4.1 Threats of Weapons of Mass Destructions (WMDs)

The use of science and technology in weapon developments has brought out significant
transformations in the character of warfare. The development of chemical, biological and
nuclear weapons even ruled out the very basis of the use of weapon systems. It is because
these weapons come in the category of WMDs use of which may result in vast destruction
of population or even annihilation of humanity at large. Hence the use of force may not remain
limited; rather it can give birth to the phenomenon of total war. Moreover, the existence of
symmetry between belligerent states is not essential which used to be the hallmark of conventional
warfare. With the coming of these weapons, even the asymmetrical possession of these
weapons can prove to be dangerous. Hence the use of forceful means became a limited option
for conflict resolution among states.
10.4.2 Against the Basic Thrust of Global Order

The use of forceful measures, in anti-thesis to global order, emerged after the end of the Cold
War. After the Second World War, the global system was engulfed with the phenomenon of
Cold War due to superpowers rivalry. But with the demise of Soviet system in 1991 and
developments in the Eastern Europe from 1989 to 1991, there occurred a sudden shift in the
international system. Now relaxation of tensions is being witnessed in the form of end of
conflicts in different parts of the world. Besides, now-a-days, economic factors have gained
currency by replacing the politico–strategic concerns. This gain of momentum by economic
indicators gave birth to importance of economic regionalism. Hence states are collaborating
themselves under the banner of new regional economic groupings like EU, NAFTA, ASEAN,
BIMSTEC, East-Asia Summit etc. As a result, new economic realignments in the international
system are taking place as against the norm of use of force. Thus any action, based on
coercive methods, is going to be considered derogatory against the emerging sway of economic
or peaceful collaborations being witnessed in the current global order.
10.4.3 Against the Basic Criterion of Security

Coercive methods are used by the states for conflict resolution towards the establishment of
peace and security for themselves. But as discussed in the introduction, in the contemporary
times the very contours of security have undergone transformation. It is no longer limited to
narrow conception of security limited to the very notion of defence of border by military
means. Rather it proliferated into new terminologies like ‘common’, ‘comprehensive’ and
finally to ‘human’ security. Under the rubric of human security, it contains security in terms of
economic, health, food, political, cultural and even to environmental security. Therefore, the
need for peace and security today cannot be met merely by security of the frontiers and
borders by use of force; new kinds of comprehensive measures may be required to fulfill the
basic requirements of security. Hence, the use of coercive methods is going to disarray the
goals of security as the transformed character of latter, prevent the achievement by using force
as a means to attain it.
10.4.4 Against the Principles and Objectives of International

Organisation
The establishment of the UN in 1945 aimed at saving the succeeding generations from the
scourge of war. This objective of global peace was to be achieved by observing certain
principles so that the international peace and security of all the states can be ensured and it
is desired that all nations may live in peaceful coexistence. Consequently, the UN principles,
as explained earlier in this lesson, do put certain restrictions on the use of coercive methods.
In this regard, special mention of Article 2(3) & 2(4) of the UN Charter becomes inevitable.
Under these clauses, nations are prevented to use coercive measures if that endangers peace
and tranquility at international level and are against the territorial integrity of any state. Even
the provisions of collective action under chapter VII is enshrined in specific context and is
allowed to use in a particular manner. Even the use of force in self-defence under Article 51
also precludes the right of retaliation. Thus, the provision of UN Charter and its practices are
against the use of coercive methods. Even if in some eventualities the permission is granted,
then also it is for limited objective and in a very restrained manner.
10.4.5 Not Suited for Durable Peace

A stable peace and order at international level cannot be attained without addressing the basic
root cause of conflict. Temporary peace can be attained by use of force or shelving the root
cause under the carpet. However, for durable peace, the need for basic trust and understanding
is essential among community of nations. For this, each member of the community need to
investigate the deep rooted cause of conflict, i.e., economic deprivation, hunger, disease, end
of disparities, sustainable development, environmental crisis etc. Nearly the awakening about
these maladies is not sufficient, rather a prognosis of them is essential to rule out conflict. The
resolution of these problems lies in addressing the socio-economic, cultural, political and
environmental concerns of the community of nations and efforts are needed for the solutions
of these problems. This can only be done through peaceful means, rather than the coercive
methods. The latter may prove useful temporarily but long term solutions cannot be attained
by the use of force.
Thus, it can be discerned that the use of coercive methods cannot be considered a viable
alternative either for resolution of conflicts or for the establishment of peaceful world order.
What are the prospects? One need not be pessimistic, rather some optimism still remains.
With some structural changes in the international system, along with the support of operational
dynamics, the use of coercive methods can be avoided to a greater degree. At structural level,
efforts need to be made by the community of nations to envision new world order, devoid of
hegemony and competitive power politics. A way out should be devised by establishing a
multi-polar order based on democracy, transparency and accountability. Here an effort should
also be made for the establishment of an equilibrium world both in political and economic
terms. This can be done by way of accommodation and understanding among major centers
of power themselves and with rest of the states. Operationally, the approach of non-proliferation
of WMDs, democratisation of UN, and efforts towards sustainable developments are the keys
for a peaceful world bereft of war-like tendencies. Though this task does not seem to be easy,
the cost of survival of the humanity might compel both rich and poor and powerful and weak
nations to come together for their larger interests.
10.5 SUMMARY
The coercive methods are those strategies adopted by states against its enemies whereby
through the procedures short of war or direct warfare a fear or terror is created on the basis
of awards or punishments to the belligerent state. Consequently all these techniques involve
violence either at bilateral or multilateral levels. Hence number of mechanism in the form of
balance of power, balance of terror, collective security etc. have been experimented or various
approaches like Marxist, power paradigm, international organisation, disarmament and arms
control etc. were adopted. But all these mechanisms and approaches failed to achieve the goal
of peace by completely ruling out the situation of conflict. Besides, the changed character of
international system and new concerns of state security under human security rules out the use
and success of these methods. Therefore, there is an urgent need for the evolution of an
alternative paradigm for peace. It is because the situation of conflict exists among states due
to lack of just and equilibrium global order, as well as, trust deficit among states due to
struggle for power involving pursuing of national interest by individual state. Therefore, Gandhian
approach of trusteeship and vision for a non-violent society based on ethical and humanitarian
value is answer to such problem. A world based not only on just and equalitarian principles
but also on the principles of ‘sarvodaya’/ and ‘antyodaya’ (upliftment of the last man in the
row) is needed to create an international system based on non-violence. This system devoid
of conflict is going to abandon the use of coercive methods for the establishment of a peaceful
world order.

1. What do you understand by pacific settlement of disputes? How different is it from
coercive methods?
2. Examine at length the coercive methods of conflict resolution.
3. What are the problems involved in using the coercive methods? Are there any peaceful
alternatives to it? Discuss.
SUGGESTED READINGS
Barston, R.P., Modern Diplomacy, Pearson, New Delhi, 2007.
Kapoor, S.K., International Law, Allahabad, Central Law Agency, 2008.
Lerche, Charles O., & Abdul A. Said, Conflict of International Polities, New Delhi, PHI,
1975.
Shah, M. Tarzi., “Hypotheses on Use and Limitations of Coercive Diplomacy”, International
Studies, vol. 36, no.1, 1999.
Starke, J.G., An Introduction to International Law, Butterworths, London, 1963.
Tandon, M.P, & V.K. Anand., International Law & Human Rights, Faridabad, Allahabad Law
Agency, 2006.
UNIT 11 ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTIONS
Structure
11.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
11.2 Violent Option

11.3 Negotiation
11.4 Mediation
11.5 Adjudication
11.6 ADR In Domestic Sphere and Abroad
11.7 ADR in India
11.7.1 Lok Adalat
11.8 Summary
Suggested Readings
11.1 INTRODUCTION
There are two broad categories of approaches to solve disputes: Violent and peaceful. Often
violence carries a connotation of reproach or disapproval from an ethical or religious authority.
Buddhism and Jainism are two examples which prohibit adoption of violence as a means of
resolving any issue. Also, violence is becoming increasingly non-feasible, non-practical, counter-
productive, and, indeed self-destructive in the nuclear age. As civilisation spreads and rational
approach expands, violence gives way to debate and discussion, bargain and sharing, peaceful
coexistence and peaceful competition. In the present world more and more peaceful methods
are being explored and employed to resolve conflicts through peaceful rather than war-like or
violent methods, internationally and domestically.
Aims and Objectives
This Unit would enable you to understand:
 The concept and meaning of alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
 ADRs in the domestic sphere and abroad
 ADRs in India.
11.2 VIOLENT OPTION

Since conflicts are universal, efforts made to solve them over the centuries across the world,
have been plenty and variegated. Depending upon the gravity, nature, extent and urgency,
conflicts have been resolved or attempts made to resolve, successfully or otherwise. Until
recently- that is the turn of the twentieth century- violence or war was accepted as a normal,
legal and final way of settlement of disputes among the community of nations. Within the
domestic sphere violence had a limited but nonetheless significant application. The State had
Alternative Dispute Resolutions 115
a right, almost monopolistic, of violence against its own citizens who had transgressed the laws
of the land etc. Also ‘civil violence’- that is violence unleashed by one set of civilians against
others- without the permission of the State, was a common phenomenon everywhere. Though
laws and politics were supposed to tackle it, civil violence could not be anticipated, eliminated
or even managed successfully by the State or other civilian organisations. Movements, political
and social, strikes, protests and frustration over State inaction, ethnic and territorial claims,
attacks by criminal/terrorist elements, and sabotage were all but few of the causes of occurrence
of violence in the domestic sphere.
Nonviolent efforts to contain, manage, reduce and eliminate violence in society have to be
differentiated. At the international level it may be simpler to evolve a mechanism to tackle
violence as there are, nearly always, only two parties (the states) to the dispute. At the
national/state level the answer to violence has to be found in a much more complex manner.
In the following pages, some details are discussed, in a comprehensive manner, about the
various means adopted to tackle conflicts first at the international level and later at the national
one.
11.3 NEGOTIATION
Through the long usages of customs, practices and conventions, one learns that violence or
resort to violence in Inter-State affairs was not the first option. Either on their own or at the
behest of others, states in conflicts tried their hands at peaceful methods of settlement of
disputes.
Time honoured and practicable way out of any conflict is to talk to the opponent. Of course
it is a difficult and complex process of opening the talks. Who should talk to whom, at what
level of authority, what should be aimed at, what portion of the structured problem should
be addressed, should the talks be open, confidential or back-channelled (totally non-formal),
should the solution be claimed as a compromise, victory for one side or merely a tactical
arrangement for the time-being, and how far are the steps/process of implementing solution
binding on the parties, etc. are the questions which needed to be asked and settled if the talks
are to be of any meaning.
In the process of talks, the substance of the dispute has to be identified clearly by both the
parties first and then attempts have to be made to sort out the differences between them. This
is popularly known as negotiation. Reasoning or logical argument may pave way for an
amicable settlement of the dispute. Mutual trust has to be established and then a mutual give-
and-take has to be arranged; finally an open or partially open statement of settlement has to
be announced. Often a series of rounds of talks, held sometimes away from the public glare,
has to be held. It is also true that many a time strenuous, quiet diplomatic rounds of talks are
held which lead to durable solutions.
If the substance of the conflict/dispute is complex, technical or multidimensional (like GATT/
WTO/Nuclear Weapon Control/Climate Control etc.), it is necessary to involve technical
experts in the negotiations. In the earlier centuries, the subject of inter-state dispute used to
be more often than not political. Now-a-days the disputes are complex in nature, be it
economic, technical or military. Not only would there be a multi-layered but also multilateral
and multi-dimensional understanding of disputes. The official ambassadors or diplomats apart,
there might be appointed special negotiators and technical experts attached to the negotiating
team. Now-a-days the holding of conferences for multilateral negotiations involving a large
number of delegates, stretched over a number of years, with an army of hospitality and
secretarial assistance has become a lucrative business indeed (in Geneva and New York,
especially). The United Nations hosts or calls for several such conferences every year.
It is also noticed that in these days of complex negotiations the main burden of holding talks
falls on the professional diplomats and technical experts. Yet, there is a great need to get back
to the authorities at the headquarters to authorise changes in the basic position of negotiations.
The mass media and the academia also exert enormous pressure on the negotiating posture.
Not only political and technical but also psychological aspects of a negotiation need to be
studied carefully. If, back home there be democracy with an active opposition and mass
media, the task of ‘selling’ a negotiated settlement, although reasonable, would turn out to be
difficult.
When negotiations are stuck with an impasse or deadlock, it has now become fashionable to
hold a summit-meeting that is the heads of governments concerned would meet to take stock
of the situation and give modified instructions so that progress in negotiations is made. Summit-
conferences have of late become popular; they have given good results, no doubt. But at times
they tend to make things difficult when prior preparations are not made properly. Often, the
personality clashes too occur, and cause a setback to the process of negotiations. Kennedy-
Khrushchev meetings in Vienna and Nehru-Ayub or Nehru –Chou-en-Lai meetings could be
cited as examples of “Summit-backfire”. The 1972 Simla meeting between Zulfikar Bhutto
and Indira Gandhi too has been cited as an example of unwarranted summit diplomacy which
could have been better avoided and the normal diplomatic negotiations could have achieved
better results.
Those negotiated settlements are better which are backed, on both sides, by a clear
understanding of (a) basic issue and (b) the barter of give and take. Hasty, ambiguous,
pressurised and highly personalised solutions are no substitute for properly researched, widely
consulted and fair settlements. It is important that a conducive atmosphere should be built
when negotiations are held.
Usually, negotiated settlements end in the announcement of a joint agreed communiqué or, if
the matter is significant, in a treaty/agreement. The United Nations expect that all treaties/
agreements reached between states are filed with the Secretary-General’s office. All agreements
reached after negotiations are expected to be implemented in good faith by all the parties
concerned. This is one of the principles in the international law.
In the new age inaugurated by nuclear weapons, the significance of negotiation has increased
considerably. In the earlier times wars were feasible and called frequently. But having made
war almost obsolete the nuclear weapons have pushed negotiations, including those with a
tinge of deterrence, to the fore. For, no State today is in a position to say: “I’ll declare war
unless my terms are met”. No State can achieve its objectives through a nuclear war as it
would perhaps have got in the pre-nuclear age. War was a continuation of a policy by other
(that is violent) means as Von Clausewitz stated so succinctly. But now negotiations are almost
the only means of solving inter-state disputes. The space vacated by war is occupied by “more
negotiations”. After a series of brushes with adventurism both the nuclear superpowers U.S.
and U.S.S.R. learned to live peacefully without further testing the nerves of the statesmen on
the launching of nuclear warfare (1962).
Before ending this portion on negotiations as a normal and favourite technique of conflict-
resolution, it may be worthwhile to remember why negotiations fail many a time. To quote the
summary of a study made in this regard by I.William Zartman (The Sage Handbook on
Conflict Resolution, 2009):
“Probably the most challenging issue of the time concerns the profound change in negotiation
brought on by a changing nature of the parties. Negotiating with armed bands, terrorists, anti-
globalist movements, among others, are not the neat two party negotiations that current
analysis so often assumes. Not only does it involve internal politics (as do all negotiations) but
the other party frequently does not exist as a corporate body. There is no leader who can
make a decision and hold an agreement, and no delegates who represent the central organization.
Furthermore, the “party” frequently does not know what it wants… Finally these “parties”
usually do not know how to negotiate and often have to be taken aside and given training,
as in Darfur, Mozambique and Sri Lanka in recent conflicts. Negotiating with or between
amorphous parties needs entirely different models to capture its process in concept and in
reality.”
11.4 MEDIATION
If the parties to a dispute/conflict talk with each other it is described as negotiation. Sometimes
it is not possible for a variety of reasons for states to take up talks with the opposite party
directly. They may be willing or half-willing and yet they are not in a position to open
negotiations. Under such circumstances, it is fortuitous if a friendly state/entity/institution or
even a person of standing were to come forward and bring the parties to the dispute to a
negotiating table. Use of good office, offer of an honest broker and hosting a goodwill
conference may be some of the forms of bringing friends together so that they may overcome
their initial reluctance and begin to talk. The part which facilitates this process is called
mediation. Through this method of mediation, negotiations are given a fillip and a solution is
facilitated without resort to war.
Mediation: Definition and Characteristics
In a brilliant study of mediation as an instrument of conflict resolution by Jacob Bercovitch
(The Sage Handbook of Conflict resolution, 2009), the following points emerge.
The task of the mediator is not an easy one. The sea that he sails is only roughly charted. He
is a solitary artist recognizing at most a few guiding stars, and depending on his personal
powers of divination as Arthur Meyar would put it. Oran young, a renowned scholar in the
field, would define mediation “as any action taken by an actor (i.e., State) that is not a direct
party to the crisis, that is designed to reduce or remove one or more of the problems of the
bargaining relationship and therefore to facilitate the termination of the crisis itself”. In simpler
terms, it is suggested that Mediation is a form of third-party assistance which involves an
outsider to the dispute who, however, lacks power to make decisions for the parties (Linda
Singer). It may be a bit naïve to believe that a mediator is altruistic (May be so at times, like
our own Pt.Jawaharlal Nehru vis-à-vis Korea). Usually, the mediators have got their own
hidden agenda which may not be significant, yet not negligible. The relationship between a
mediator and disputants is hardly devoid of political interest.
Considering a number of incidents of mediation in resolving inter-state conflicts, it may be safe
to assume that the following constitute the essential characteristics, as brought out by Jacob
Bercovitch.
 Mediation is an extension and continuation of peaceful conflict management.
 Mediation involves the intervention of an outsider - an individual, a group or an
organisation with values, resources and interests of their own – into a conflict between
two or more states or other actors.
 Mediation is a non-coercive, non-violent and ultimately non-binding form of intervention.

 Mediators enter conflict- whether internal or international- in order to affect it, change it,
resolve it, modify it or influence it in some way.
 Mediation is a voluntary form of conflict management.
There are quite a number of examples of mediation in international conflicts in the recent years.
In the Sri Lanka – LTTE conflict, the Netherlands have assumed this role; the then U.S.
president Bill Clinton played a notable role of mediator/facilitator in arranging direct talks
between Palestine and Arab parties (and got Camp-David Accord signed by them), Pandit
Jawaharlal Nehru/Krishna Menon played a significant role in bringing off a truce between
Korea, China and the U.S in 1950-1953 and in the ongoing conflict over Kashmir, several
unsuccessful mediations had been sponsored by the U.N.
More often than not, mediations receive a mild and skeptical reception. The outsiders hardly
understood the complexity of the issue on hand. Nor do they have a great stake in the
resolution of the conflict. Now-a-days the U.S, being the only super power/global power,
envisaged a role for itself in resolving any conflict anywhere in the world. The American
diplomats are generally well-served by area experts or subject experts. They are also a
determined lot. If the U.S. President wills it, it would be pursued relentlessly. Sufficient
incentives or penalties are dangled before the eyes of the disputant parties so that the American
suggestions are taken up and implemented. However, it is noticed that the U.S policy makers
turn their faces away from the issues if their own public opinion is not expressly in favour of
role for the U.S. The well-known ethnic atrocity and breakdown of political stability in the
former Yugoslavia did not figure anywhere in the first presidential election campaign of Bill
Clinton (In the second campaign it was the big issue). When the U.S public is obsessed with
its own economy and politics it adopts a divine silence over the “foreign” issues. If, on the
other hand, it wishes to bring “order” to the world, the U.S leaders jump into the arena of
conflict and wrestle with it whether or not its role is useful to the disputants. Often they leave
the field without settling the issue. Hence, mediation, especially by the U.S. is full of uncertainty.
In Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Iran, the U.S mediation through the UN good offices have
met with varying degrees of success/failure. Mediation as an instrument of conflict resolution
in international sphere has got limited application.
11.5 ADJUDICATION
The United Nations was set up in order to ward off wars and instill in the hearts of men, hopes
of peaceful settlement of disputes. In its Charter (Article 33) the U.N envisages almost all the
peaceful ways of resolving international conflicts:
“….parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of
international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, inquiry,
mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements
or other peaceful means of their choice.”
The preferred approach of the U.N. is clear: either a political negotiation or a judicial settlement.
Leading scholars in the field of jurisprudence and visionaries (“peace through justice”) laid
great emphasis, from the times of the League of Nations, upon a judicial settlement of international
disputes. Following the Treaty of Versailles (1919), the first ever international forum for
adjudication of inter-state disputes, the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) came
up in 1922 at The Hague. According to their belief if the world had to get rid of wars which
were threatening the very civilisation on this earth, there was only one hope and one solution
which lay in the hands of an impartial and wise judges of international repute. The PCIJ,
however, proved a dampener. Not so much because of its own limitations but because the
states were not as yet prepared to hand over to it their political power to decide any issue.
The PCIJ existed for 18 years. It ceased its functioning once the war broke out and ceased
to exist after the League of Nations, of which it was a part, was formally dissolved in 1946.
In its brief existence, the Court handled 29 cases of litigations as well as 27 advisory opinions.
It was regrettable that powerful states did not show anything more than lip sympathy to the
Court.
When the United Nations was set up in 1945, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was
also brought into existence. Along with the charter of the UN, a Statute on the ICJ was also
presented for signing. The Court was made a wing of the UN (Article 7). However, the
jurisdiction of the ICJ was not enforced upon the member-states of the UN automatically.
Each state, which became a member of the UN, had to register separately its accession to
the jurisdiction of the ICJ. However many states have refused to submit themselves to the
jurisdiction of the ICJ (“compulsory jurisdiction”). What is worse an important state like the
US has withdrawn its earlier consent. A large number of states have accepted the jurisdiction
with certain exceptions or conditions which, in effect, take away the effectiveness of the Court.
As a result the ICJ has not been an active body worthy to cite for its contribution to peaceful
settlement of international disputes.
During 1946-2007 the ICJ, it is estimated, has passed 92 judgments on disputes raised before
it and given 25 advisory opinions. Many of the cases referred to it were of minor significance
or of no significance. Though the Court’s performance has not been brilliant it has nonetheless
influenced the evolution, development and codification of international laws especially those
dealing with the laws of sea, environment, treaty-interpretation, economic questions and issues
related to asylum.
The effectiveness of the ICJ has been affected adversely by the so called big powers like the
US and France who have treated it with contempt. Nicaragua complained to the ICJ in 1984
that the US was interfering in its domestic political establishment. The CIA of the US was
accused of armed help, training and financing of the ‘contras’ who were opposing the rule of
domestically elected Sandinista government. Instead of proving its innocence or admitting guilt,
the US withdrew itself from the jurisdiction of the ICJ and justified its stand by referring to
domestic compulsions. The ICJ nonetheless proceeded with the complaint of Nicaragua and
pronounced its ruling in May 1984 which indicted the US in no uncertain terms. But its impact
was negligible on the outcome of the conflict.
It is noteworthy in this context that India has accepted the findings of the ICJ in two cases
it was involved: one over Goa vis-à-vis Portugal and another over the Rann of Kutch vis-à-
vis Pakistan.
On the whole the reputation of the judicial mechanism to solve international conflicts is not
enhanced by the functioning of the ICJ. It does not have enough work to do, of late. Yet, the
glimmer of hope survives. Recently, in 1998, the Rome conference, sponsored by the UN,
adopted the Statute of International Criminal Court, which came into force on July 1, 2002.
But once again the US threw cold water over its functioning by opting out of its jurisdiction.
There are several international tribunals which have been specialised and been functioning with
greater utility. Some of these are: Ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals which dealt with the
occurrences in Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR), International Tribunal for the Law of
the Sea, European Court of Justice, European Court of Human Rights, Permanent Court of
Arbitration etc.
The over-all situation remained a bit disappointing. Though the scholars and visionaries lay a
great store by the judicial institutions, chiefly the ICJ, for solving in a rational manner the vexed
problems of international affairs, the performance of the Court as well as the behaviour of the
big powers have proved to be a big let-down. One incident of the Court proving itself to be
of weak and vacillating mind showed up in 1966 in a case related to the use of nuclear
weapons:
“it follows from the above-mentioned requirements that the threat or use of nuclear weapons
would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflicts and
in particular the principles and rules of international humanitarian law.
However, in view of the current state of international law and of the elements of fact at its
disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons
would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstances of self defence, in which the very
survival of a State would be at stake” (1996 ICJ 226)
Many scholars have ridiculed at such a weak-kneed judicial approach to solving conflicts
peacefully at the international level. The adage that laws rule over the poor while the rich rule
over the laws, comes close to the description of the working of the judicial forums in the
community of nations. There is another adage which also comes to mind – the laws are silent
when the guns boom.
11.6 ADR IN DOMESTIC SPHERE AND ABROAD

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has been recent in phraseology but old in concept. In
the days gone by, laws were not made by any parliament or even by kings; but were laid
down in the scriptures and treatise. Resolution of conflicts/disputes took place, also, in the
manner laid down in these books, customs and practices. Naturally there were changes in
these methods in keeping with the changing times. But with the coming of modern times of
democracy and constitutional governance, the method of judicial pronouncement has become
the primary one in the resolution of conflicts in the domestic sphere. Of late that is, in the past
few decades the load of work of the judiciary has increased enormously, causing undue delay
in dispensation of justice. Also, too many rungs of judiciary can be a cause of delay. The poor
and distantly located people find it hard to pursue their cases in law courts through a battery
of costly lawyers. Alternative forums which could prove to be cheap and easily accessible
have, of late, been tried. These are called Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms (ADRM).
ADR Abroad
In Europe where there existed strong judicial institutions, people were generally disappointed
with the slow grinding of wheels of justice. It also proved to be costly and made to suit the
skill of lawyers rather than the needs of the parties. In the U.K. the ADR took birth in 1974
in the form of advisory, conciliation and arbitration service. In1995 France expanded the
legislative basis for judicial conciliation and mediation. Earlier in the US, following the remarkable
dissertation produced by Rosco Pound entitled “Public dissatisfaction with the American Legal
System”, a wave of judicial reforms took place. The new ADR initiations came in and within
a few years nearly 93% of civil disputes were disposed off without going for trial in the normal
judicial forums. In Japan the judges intervene extensively during the in-court proceedings.
They remove their formal judicial robes and participate in settlement talks as a friendly mediator.
This gesture is appreciated both by the litigants and lawyers. In China the dictates of Confucius
on the importance of harmony in family and society have come back to influence the disputants
and helped in reducing litigations considerably. In Hong-Kong, the International Arbitration
Centre, the biggest in Asia, has gained immense popularity and prestige because it is fair and
helpful to the clients.
11.7 ADR IN INDIA

Before the on-set of the British rule India had had a sound and time-tested judicial system.
People might have been hierarchy-conscious, caste-ridden and illiterate, even winded by
outworn religious beliefs. But all had their own ways of settling disputes. When the British took
over administration they found it abominable to go by the traditional Indian practices of
resolving disputes. They introduced, rather imposed, a new legal regime here. This gained
some popularity among the educated elite. In due course, the new system emerged strong and
attained uniformity all over India. However, the workload on the courts and the cost of
litigation as well as the long delays in procuring justice even in simple cases, compelled the
government to introduce ADRs so as to ease the burden on the judges and litigant public. The
lawyers though initially unhappy have come round to appreciate the functioning of the ADR.
Some time ago (2006) it was estimated that there were pending 2,53,80,757 cases in the
subordinate courts in India. To try these cases were available (if all the posts were filled up)
less than 15,000 judicial officers/judges. This ratio between judges to population works out
to be 105 judges per one crore population in India whereas it is 509 in the UK, 577 in
Australia, 752 in Canada and 1070 in the U.S. This figure does not give a total picture: the
litigation cases filed by people are not taken into account. After the ADR was introduced,
several thousands of litigations have been disposed off without causing any adverse reactions
from any quarter. This experiment was initiated with the passing of the Legal Services Authorities
Act 1987 (which has been amended from time to time). In 2002, Section 89 of the Civil
Procedure Code was modified to incorporate conciliation, mediation and pre-trial settlement
methodologies for prompt and inexpensive resolution of disputes.
11.7.1 Lok Adalat

The origin and importance of Lok Adalat are given above. The salient features of Lok Adalat
(People’s Court) are mentioned as below:
 Lok Adalats (LA) are legal and authentic forums of justice.
 LA are constituted from time to time in order to solve a number of cases pending before
regular courts for disposal. There may be specific LA for cases related to water, electricity,
banks, pension, transport etc.
 LA are presided over by a sitting or retired judge along with a social worker and a
lawyer
 The cases are transferred to LA from regular courts on demand.
 There is no court fee to be paid to LA (if any fee is paid to the regular courts and the
case is transferred to LA the fees already paid would be refunded if the dispute is settled)
 Lawyer’s assistance is not necessary, though they may offer help.
 The legal process/procedures are not followed strictly. Flexible and liberal attitude adopted.
 The clients/parties to a dispute can interact with the judges freely – which is not possible
in a regular court.
 If the parties to a dispute agree in the LA. to a compromise, the case is deemed settled
with no possibility of appeal to a higher court (as it is a judgment by consent).
Following the success of the Lok Adalat experiment in the public domain, private and business
organisations too have adopted the model and doing a good job of it. Sometimes the
nomenclature is changed to Ombudsman etc. Essentially the concept of Lok Adalat or
Ombudsman is to help people to help themselves. Thus the tension is eased and finding a
mutually agreeable solution is facilitated by this experiment. Its immense popularity is
understandable. It is an eminently sensible and feasible mechanism of peaceful resolution of
conflict in a civilised society.
11.8 SUMMARY
There are different ways of conflict resolution. Traditionally war has been treated as a form
of settling dispute. But, as civilisation spreads and rational approach expands, violence gives
way to debate and discussion, bargain and sharing, peaceful coexistence and peaceful
competition. In the present world more and more peaceful methods are being explored and
employed to resolve conflicts through peaceful rather than war-like or violent methods,
internationally and domestically. Mediation, Negotiation, Dialogue, Arbitration, Adjudication
and so on are increasingly being recognised as methods of Alternative Dispute Resolutions
(ADRs) that have become more acceptable especially in recent times. In India too, Lok
Adalats have been playing a significant role in settling disputes.

1. List the various means of resolution of conflicts.
2. Why is war not a desirable option to solve interstate disputes?
3. Why is negotiation method universally popular?
4. Account for the poor contribution of the judicial approach in resolving international
conflicts.
5. Bring out the working and importance of Lok Adalat as a forum of peaceful resolution
of disputes.
SUGGESTED READINGS
Bercovitch, Jacob, Victor Kremenyk and I.William Zartman., (eds), SAGE Handbook of
Conflict Resolution, 2009
Fischer, Ronald., Interactive Conflict Resolution, 1997
Holsti, K.J., Peace and War: Armed Conflicts and International Order, 1648-1989, 1991
Intermediaries in International Conflict, 1992
Merrills, J.G., International Dispute Settlement, 2005
Ott, Mervin C., “Mediation as a Method of Conflict Resolution”, International Organization,
vol. 26, no.4, 1972.
Rapoport, Anatol., Fights, Games and Debates, 1960
Schelling, Thomas., The Strategy of Conflict, 1960
Singer, Linda R., Settling Disputes: Conflict Resolution in Business, Families, and the Legal
System, 1990
http://www.sethassociates.com/alternative_dispute_resolution.php
UNIT 12 GANDHIAN WAY
Structure
12.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
12.2 Need for an Alternative

12.3 Satyagraha
12.4 Condition for Satyagraha: Non-Violence
12.5 Criticism
12.6 Summary
Suggested Readings
12.1 INTRODUCTION
The twentieth century produced two of the worst wars in human history. Nuclear bomb,
which was hailed as the ultimate weapon of mass destruction, contributed the climax to the
trail of violence. At the same time, however, the mankind witnessed the rise of a phenomenal
messenger of peace whose ‘weapon’ was love. Generations to come would scarcely believe,
said Albert Einstein that a man in flesh and blood like Gandhi ever walked upon this earth.
Romin Rolland of France described Gandhi as “Jesus Christ without a cross”. There were
twenty years ago (1980s) more than four hundred biographies of Gandhi written across the
world. There are innumerable thinkers and followers of Gandhi from all over the globe
Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr,,Vaclar Havel, Aung San Suu Kyi, Octavia Paz, and
so on. The curiosity and interest evinced in Gandhi’s life and philosophy are indeed
understandable. It is not without reason that the daughter of Martin Luther King Jr., on a visit
to India (January 2001) to pay homage to Gandhi claimed that there were 274 Universities
which had got incorporated peace studies in their academic programmes and that there were
fifty five journals devoted to peace studies only. Clearly, wars are behind us while Gandhi
is ahead of us, the mankind. What is it that Gandhi did for us that we continue to remember
him and think of him as the ultimate apostle of peace?
Aims and Objectives
After reading this Unit, you would be able to
 Understand the importance of peace
 Gandhi’s insistent advocacy of non-violence
 The importance of non-violence for a peaceful world order.
12.2 NEED FOR AN ALTERNATIVE

Recent history is the history of the rule of the world by the Western colonialists. The efficacious
methods they employed to expand their power revolved much around gun, money and
propaganda which was hardly distinguishable from the perversion of Truth. Yet, the West
was not at peace. The climate of violence which had clouded the West totally by the middle
of the twentieth century was not able to rescue the people from the certain doom. At this point
of history, an image of a new path to peace and conflict resolution arose before them in the
form of nonviolent action which was developed by Gandhi first in South Africa and then in
India. His experiments called Satyagraha dazzled the intelligentsia among the West. The first
ever biography of Gandhi in 1909 was done by a Christian priest in South Africa, Joseph
J.Doke. In France, Romin Rolland published a trail-blazer biography of Gandhi subtitling it
“The Man who became one with the Universal Being”, (1924) which was soon translated into
many languages and well-received. The American newspaper correspondents who were assigned
to cover Gandhi became, almost all of them, admiring biographers of him. Among them were
Louis Fischer, Edgar Snow, Williams Shirer, Walls Miller, Vincent Sheean, Margaret Bourke
White, and Norman Cousin. In addition to these scholars, leaders of various movements
including religious, and political leaders from all over Europe and America, came into contact
with Gandhi and maintained long correspondence with him. Apart from the American, British
and French intellectuals the German academicians were bowled over by Gandhi’s experiments
with nonviolent techniques and philosophy. It is significant that in 1969 a book of essays by
sixteen German Scientists and Scholars was brought out by New Delhi’s Max Mueller Bhavan
under the editorship of Dr. Heimo Rau. In the opening essay, the renowned scientist and
Noble prize winner, Dr Werrer Heisenberg observed that Gandhi’s nonviolence was the only
solution to the problems of the modern world. As though to reinforce this observation, the
famous historian Arnold Toynbee wrote in 1970 “At this supremely dangerous moment in
human history the only way of salvation for mankind is the Indian (Gandhian) way. In the
atomic age the whole of human race is based on utilitarian motive. This should be given up
and the Gandhian way should be followed to achieve world peace and harmony. Gandhi the
greatest political genius of our times indicated the path to be taken to achieve the cherished
goals” (Foreword to Swami Gnanananda’s book “Shri Ramakrishna”). G D H Cole, the
British socialist thinker of great standing and Karl Jasper, a reputed German existentialist
philosopher were not far behind in showering praise upon Gandhi’s contribution to political
philosophy based on non-violence and Satyagraha.
It does not take much intelligence to guess why the West took to Gandhi. Distraught over the
ever-increasing mass of violence on one hand and the mindless march of materialist civilisation
on the other over a thousand years, perhaps, the West found suddenly in Gandhi a reincarnation
of the spirit of Jesus Christ. The symbolism of the cross as the triumph of spirit over the
material was brought alive to the West through Gandhi’s political and moral explorations. For
was it not Gandhi who said in 1926 that “war will only be stopped when the conscience of
mankind has become sufficiently elevated to recognize the undisputed supremacy of the law
of work in all the walks of life’? Gandhi was the alternative which the West needed at the
end of the tether of violence and hatred. In a metamorphic expression, Vincent Sheean wrote
in his book ‘Lead Kindly Light’ (1949) that overcome by sickness of life, he believed that only
Gandhi could help him!
12.3 SATYAGRAHA
Satyagraha was a non-violent method popularised by Gandhi when he was in South Africa.
The concept of Satyagraha, however, was nothing new in the Indian household where for ages
any member of the family, child or mother, wife or husband, brother or sister, or even a friend
or neighbour would resort to a refusal- may be not talking, not eating food, not using any
specific thing, not participating in family or community programme etc. even under the threat
Gandhian Way 125
or use of punishment. By different names it was practised by people of different ages. It was
out of love and at the same time an act of defiance. It was an act of self-inflicted punishment,
so as to bring around someone loved to one’s own point of view. It was not a fight so much
as a silent suffering to draw the attention of an opponent in the family and make him realise
that he was a source of trouble or suffering. A self-imposed and demonstrable suffering was
calculated to melt the heart of anyone near or dear.
That was not new either as concept or practice. But Gandhi employed this as a strategy to
gain political and social victory that too in a foreign country and against a powerful opponent,
the British rule, in South Africa where the Indians and the native people were humiliated,
oppressed and exploited.
As Dr S. Radhakrishnan said, “Gandhi was the first in human history to extend the principle
of non violence from the individual to the social and political plane”.
His own bringing up in Rajkot under the influence of Jain and the Hindu traditions, his
interactions with the British institutions and people while he stayed in London for his law
degree, his vast and intense study of the holy scriptures of different religions as well as his
reading of the writings of Tolstoy, Thoreau and Ruskin, influenced Gandhi a great deal.
Though he was in South Africa primarily for professional work, he empathised with the Indian
immigrants called as “coolies” on the one hand and sympathised with the oppressive, heartless
British administration on the other. He felt that the British people as such were not to be
blamed as they were ignorant of the reality. Hence, he took a decision to lead protest
campaigns in South Africa. He reposed faith in the sense of justice and fair-play of the British,
and hoped to get the grievances of the exploited people redressed. For this, he felt it essential
to explore all the possible legal and constitutional avenues. He did not believe in violent
method of solution, be it by thought, feelings or words. He united the aggrieved people and
made them come together as one community. He also convinced them to act in a restrained
manner whatever the provocation or violence used against them by the police or administration.
He implored them to hate the sin but not the sinner in the true Christian tradition. ‘Forgive
them, they know not what they are doing. Have a large heart to accommodate those who
hit you, harm you and threaten to destroy you. You eliminate the elements of distrust and
difference between yourselves and the opponents of yours. Build a community of interests
which unite the opponent with you. Do not doubt, defeat or destroy those who for the
moment are unable to see your point of view. Give them their due, respect them, even love
them but not fight them. By your steadfast devotion to principles of nonviolence and truth you
would succeed in melting the heart of the opponent’. This is what he told the people who
gathered around him in his campaign of Satyagraha in South Africa. At first neither the people
nor the British administration took him seriously, but gradually his method of nonviolent and
self-suffering protests started yielding results. Slowly, but surely, this mode of political action
attracted the notice of intelligentsia not only in South Africa but in other parts of the world too.
Within South Africa, the rank opponent of Gandhi’s efforts was the colonial administration
headed by a tough and ruthless Governor- General Smuts. Even as Gandhi opposed Smut’s
government actions as vehemently as possible but always peacefully and non-violently, the
intention of Gandhi was explicitly to correct the wrongs of the government but not to oppose,
unseat or discomfort the government. This intent was made clear when Gandhi held back the
launching of mass Satyagraha against the government in January 1914 when the European
employees of the Union Railways there called for a general strike. Gandhi said he did not want
to harass the government when it was already under trouble! General Smuts was stupefied.
It created a deep impression upon the administration. Gen Smuts came to believe that Gandhi
was a godly person. One of his associates said reflecting Smut’s own feelings:
“I do not like your people, and do not care to assist them at all. But what am I to do? You
help us in our day of need. How can we lay our hands upon you? I often wish you took to
violence like the English strikers, and then we would know at once how to dispose of you.
But you will not injure even the enemy. You desire victory by self suffering alone and never
transgress your self-imposed limits of courtesy and chivalry. And that is what reduces us to
sheer helplessness”
That is how Gandhi tasted victory in his political battle; and having tested it once he never
looked back. He looked forward to many more victories. He left South Africa in 1915 to
come back to India and resume his political struggle against the oppressive British regime
there.
12.4 CONDITION FOR SATYAGRAHA: NONVIOLENCE

Satyagraha, for Gandhi, was not a negative campaigning. He believed it to be a positive
action-oriented effort to build a common interest community inclusive of those whom you
chose to confront. It was aimed at dissolving antagonism without removing the antagonist. It
was a bid to elicit cooperation through non-cooperation.
To practice Satyagraha, one had to make a lot of preparation, and not everybody could do
so at the drop of a hat. The most important condition was to observe non violence in thought,
feeling, word or action. When unity was forged in all these matters, could one be expected
to launch Satyagraha. To achieve such a level of preparation, the Satyagrahi had to grasp truth
firmly, which could happen only if he had thorough training in ethics. Ethics was not something
ethereal to be snatched from the air. It had to be absorbed from the real world through
religion. Gandhi said that Satyagraha or ethics was not a topic of research but a code of life.
One has to live for it or even die for it. Non-violence was the basis for all actions of the
Satyagrahi. You do not become non violent, said Gandhi, by merely chanting “I shall not use
force”. It must be felt in the heart, he stated.
Gandhi accepted Patanjali’s dictum that violence ceased in the presence of nonviolence.
Nonviolence overcomes violence. Of course, this kind of nonviolence is not simply the absence
of violent action. It should be a sustainable holistic state of mind which observes good
thoughts, good feelings, good words and right action. It is morality perfected by practice. True
non-violence is neither selfish nor pointless. It should have as its goal social advancement
which was inclusive.
Nonviolence and Truth are aligned inseparably. “Ahimsa is the means and Truth the end”, used
to say Gandhi. Further he observed, “If we care for the means, we are bound to reach the
end sooner or later” How to take care of nonviolence? Satyagrahi was asked to prepare
himself mentally, morally and psychologically. He had to be a skilled practitioner in the art of
nonviolent movement. He had to be pure in thought and morality .He had to forebear hatred
and selfishness and develop empathy and love towards the opponent; never to embrace or
take advantage of the opponent’s weakness. He had to win over the opponent, putting him
to shame, almost and then join hands in common celebration of victory. This triumph of truth
through nonviolence was the ultimate that a moral man can achieve. “What I achieved”, said
Gandhi, anybody can achieve if practiced as I did.” Why not asked his many admiring Western
scholars. Karl Jaspers, Aldous Huxley and William Shires (who wrote the famous book on
Gandhian Way 127
the Third Reich) were but three of them whose quotes are repeated here. The last one, Shires
for example wrote:
“Gandhi was my greatest teacher, not only by what he said, wrote and did, but by the example
he set…… what did he teach me? I suppose the greatest single thing was to seek the Truth,
to shun hypocrisy and falseness and glibness, to try to be truthful to oneself as well as to
others, to be sceptible of the value of life’s prizes, especially the material ones, to cultivate an
inner strength, to be tolerant of others, of their acts and belief, however much they jarred you,
but not tolerant of your own faults (Gandhi: A Memoir 1979, p.239).
Aldous Huxley who came over to India to settle down, echoed Gandhi’s famous formulation
on means and ends, by saying “Good ends….can only be achieved by employment of
appropriate means….The end cannot justify the means, for the simple and obvious reason that
the means employed determine the nature of the end produced.” (Ends and Means, 1938,
p.9).
Karl Jaspers, a famous German existentialist philosopher, in his 1958 book ‘The Future of
Mankind’ wrote:
Today we face the question of how to escape from physical force and from war, lest we all
perish by the atom bomb. Gandhi, in word and deed, gives the true answer: only a supra
political force can bring political salvation.
These among others represented the conscience of the Western civilisation in the contemporary
world. Those who came to appreciate Gandhi’s contribution to the evolving of a peaceful and
harmonious world community would make a long list of celebrated names. That effort would
deflect our purpose. The essence of the matter is that the West, indeed the world, has come
to acknowledge the Gandhian Way as the alternative to the mad race to death and destruction
sought through weapon culture, greed and materialistic attitude.
Many scholarly works have come out to bring out the significance of Gandhi’s life and
achievements. As R K Dasgupta lamented once it was a matter of chance for us Indians that
most of the brilliant analytical works on Gandhi have come from the Western scholars. Apart
from those who have been quoted already, mention must be made of:
1. Galtung, Johan, The Way Is the Goal: Gandhi Today, 1992
2. Bondurant Joan V, Conquest of Violence: The Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict, 1967
3. Ericson E.H., Gandhi’s Truth: On the origins of Militant Nonviolence, 1969
4. Terchek, Ronald J, Gandhi: Struggling for Autonomy, 1998
5. Hardiman David, Gandhi: In His Time and Ours, 2003
6. Brown, Judith, Gandhi: A Prisoner of Hope, 1989
7. Weber, Thomas, Conflict Resolution and Gandhian Ethics, 1991
Without incurring the criticism of repetition, it may safely be pointed out in a capsule form what
the above scholars have found or learnt from Gandhi.
John Galtung made a five point presentation of Gandhi’s views on non violence and struggle
against imperialism thus:
 Never fear dialogue
 Never fear conflict: More opportunity than danger
 Know history or you are doomed to repeat it

 Image the future or you will never get there
 While fighting occupations clean up your own house.
Joan Bondurant paved the way for a fresh and enlightening re-assessment of Satyagraha as
a dialectical tool for political advancement.
Eric Ericson’s profound work on Gandhi’s psychology explained how this religious actualist made
“an alliance of the inner voice and the outer mankind.”
Ronald Tercheck’s work concentrates on Gandhi’s idea of the swaraj of our soul which alone
can fulfill our political and social obligations.
David Hardiman comes out with an almost final statement that Gandhi’s approach represented
a state of mind and not any theory. He also informs us how “Gandhi rejected an intolerant and
hate-filled opposition to the other whether it was the white Britisher, the Indian collaborator,
the Muslim, or the assertive subordinate”. Gandhi sought out an alternative modernity rather
than jettisoning modernity altogether.
Judith Brown of Oxford University, in her 3 volume biography of Gandhi, explains how
Gandhi “combined vision and action” which held out an enduring significance and made him
“a person for all times and all places”.
Thomas Weber, in his brief enquiry, highlights the role of Gandhian ethical considerations in
attempting to solve interpersonal conflicts vis-à-vis the traditional mechanisms of conflict
resolution.
All in all, what stands out in the literature on Gandhi is the moral fervour, individual’s capacity
for fight and the invincibility of nonviolence on a social and political plane.
12.5 CRITICISM
Gandhi’s extraordinarily significant ideas on the application of truth and nonviolence to solve
social, political and even individual conflicts are not without blemishes. Verily it is next to
impossible to find replicas of Gandhi to take up the challenge everywhere and all the time. It
is hard to come across every now and then men of pure mind, sterling character and socially
driven ready to sacrifice own comforts or even life for the sake of betterment of others
(altruism). Therefore, how far could this Gandhian Satyagraha based on nonviolence be
practical or relevant? This is not to doubt Gandhi’s valuable contribution, but only to raise the
difficulties in applying his methods universally.
A second drawback in Gandhi’s solution is how sure can or should one be of his own firm
grasp of truth. There may be two or more contenders who all claim to hold truth in their grasp.
How to decide whose understanding is firm or superior?
A third doubt persists. What if the opponent is a sadistic, cruel, terrorist whose ability to
communicate is limited or defective? How to strike a sympathetic chord with such a one, how
to negotiate with him?
Finally, the Satyagraha and nonviolence techniques may work very well in international conflicts
or even in situations where communities are involved. If two states in the comity of nations
are involved in a dispute neither Satyagraha nor nonviolence would be of much avail, or have
only a limited avail.
Gandhian Way 129
The doubts raised above do not negate the validity of Gandhian experiments – they only call
attention to the need to explore further the methods popularised by Gandhi so that their
application gains wider recognition.
12.6 SUMMARY
Conflicts in society do not occur on their own. They are the result of several causes. Likewise,
their solutions too are to be sought in multifarious ways. War or use of violence to solve
conflicts is not a safe or permanent solution. Differences of interest should lead to a composition
of interests in a harmonious way, in such a way that there are no enemies or no ‘victor’ and
no ‘defeated’. There should be a common perspective of interests rather than mutually
antagonistic ones. This is possible if at least one of the two parties to the conflict adopts truth-
force or soul-force along with nonviolence in its disposition vis-à-vis the opponent. Truth and
morality are universally respected. If one person takes it upon himself, for purposes not selfish,
to challenge the oppressor in an ethical peaceful and nonviolent manner, and if he does it in
a skilful manner, he is bound to succeed. This is what Gandhi demonstrated several times
during his political and social campaigns in South Africa and India. He might have been
unsuccessful occasionally or totally in his efforts but he did achieve remarkable success. His
actions and thoughts were so bold and effective that they attracted people from all over the
world, who were all wary of the frightful dangerous turn in human history at the threshold of
bloodiest wars and atomic bombs. In his words and deeds, Gandhi impressed different people
with different symbols – some found in him another Christ, some a true Jain, some a genuine
Hindu and some others a pure secular soul. He strode the world like a gentle colossus who
radiated a ray of hope for everybody – Hindu, Muslim, Christian, farmer, factory worker,
intellectual, religious leaders, ordinary people, women, dalits, destitute as well as the well-to-
do people. He showed to the world what a gentle soul could do if there was a determination
in mind and purity of thoughts. Satyagraha, underpinned by nonviolence, was capable of
shaking even the strongest oppressors. That is the Gandhian way to resolve conflicts.

1. Explain briefly the necessity for a new method of conflict resolution.
2. Is Satyagraha a single point solution or holistic? How?
3. What are the qualities required of a true Satyagrahi?
4. Explain briefly the meaning of “nonviolent Satyagraha aims at building a community of
interests”.
5. Who called Gandhi’s technique a suprapolitical solution and why?
SUGGESTED READINGS
Avruch, Kevin., Culture and Conflict Resolution, Institute of Peace Press, Washington D.C.,
1998.
Bhattacharya, Buddhadeb., Evolution of the Political Philosophy of Gandhi, Calcutta, 1969
Chatterjee, Margaret., Gandhi’s Religious Thought, Macmillan, London, 1983
Gandhi and the Contemporary World, IGNOU (NGS -001) 2004
Gordon, Leonard A., Mahatma Gandhi: Dialogues with Americans, Economic and Political
Weekly, January 26, 2002
Juergensmeyer, Mark., Gandhi’s Way: A Handbook of Conflict-Resolution, University of
California Press, Berkeley, 2002.
Mehta, V.R., Foundations of Indian Political Thought, Manohar Publications, New Delhi,
1992.
Mishra, R.P., Hind Swaraj, Gandhi’s Challenge to Modern Civilization, Rediscovering
Gandhi Series, Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi, 2007.
Nanda B.R., Mahatma Gandhi, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1958
Parekh, Bhiku., Gandhi’s Political Philosophy, Palgrave Macmillan, 1991.
Wolpert, Stanley., Gandhi’s Passion, OUP, New York, 2001
UNIT 13 COMPREHENSIVE HUMAN
DEVELOPMENT
Structure
13.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
13.2 Comprehensive Human Development: Genesis and Evolution

13.3 Ground Reality
13.4 Summary
Suggested Readings
13.1 INTRODUCTION
‘Freedom is indivisible
Peace is indivisible
Economic prosperity is indivisible.’
Indira Gandhi
The end of the Cold War heralded an era of unprecedented peace and stability. International
scholars termed it as the ‘End of history,’ the beginning of a ‘transformed world.’ Soon
everyone was proved wrong. The classical notion of the unilateralist use of ‘force’ to defend
national boundaries, gave way to much broader concepts of in(security)- threats emanating not
only from ‘military clashes’ with rival states but also from other non-state actors and ‘untamed’
situations- environmental, cultural and economic. The time was ripe to make space for broader
aspects of security- succinctly put under comprehensive and cooperative human security. As
CIA Director, James Woosley, once rightly remarked, “We have slain a large dragon but now
we find ourselves living in a jungle with a bewildering number of poisonous snakes. And in
many ways the dragon was easier to keep track of” (James Woosley, 1996).
Aims and Objectives
 The discourse of human development, dating from its genesis and evolution
 The theories against facts existing around us with special emphasis on ‘Poverty Eradication
and Underdevelopment,’ ‘Terrorism and Civilian Deaths,’ and ‘Environmental Degradation
and Human Development’.
 The ‘myths’ and ‘facts’ that explain the ‘overall’ picture of ‘human development’.
13.2 COMPREHENSIVE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT:

GENESIS AND EVOLUTION
The term comprehensive or ‘overall’ development/security was coined in Japan during the
1970s, primarily with a quest to move beyond its wartime role and consolidate its postwar
place in international system. In 1978, in the Report on Comprehensive National Security,
Japan identified six objectives: closer military and general cooperation with the United States;
increasing Japan’s capacity to defend its own territory; improvement in relations with China
and the Soviet Union; attainment of energy security; food security and measures for coping
with major earthquakes.
According to David Dewitt, comprehensive development/security was not just a statement of
goals, but ‘a chain of tautly balanced national power, including various factor such as economy,
diplomacy and politics’ (David Dewitt, 1994). Unlike Japan, ASEAN made scope for a
broader notion of development/security incorporating domestic as well as non-military threats.
As Malaysian Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohammad said:
‘National security is inseparable from political stability, economic success and
social harmony. Without these all the guns in the world cannot prevent a country
from being overcome by its enemies, whose ambitions can be fulfilled sometimes
without firing a single shot’ (Muthiah Alagappa, 1988).
What is Comprehensive Human Development?
Like comprehensive development/security, a comprehensive notion of human development
would entail broad responses to those ‘silent crises’ threatening individuals - underdevelopment,
poverty, exposure to environmental hazards, civilian casualties, that fail to respond to any
emergency relief.
The 1994 UNDP Human Development Report called it a ‘sustainable human development’-
that not only generates economic growth but distributes its benefits equitably; that regenerates
the environment rather than destroying it; that empowers people rather than marginalizing
them. It is development that gives priority to the poor, enlarging their choices and opportunities
and providing for their participation in decisions that affect their lives. It is development that
is pro-people, pro-nature, pro-jobs and pro-women. (Chapter 1 Human Development Report
1994).
The Report, for the first time, included a section on human security. Called “Redefining
Security: The Human Dimension,” the Report answers the question of “security for whom” as
“legitimate concerns of ordinary people who sought security in their daily lives.” According to
its chief proponent, Mahbub-ul-Haq:
‘Human security is a child who did not die, a disease that did not spread, a job
that was not cut, an ethnic tension that did not explode in violence, a dissident
who was not silenced. Human security is not a concern with weapons—it is a
concern with human life and dignity… It is concerned with how people live and
breathe in a society, how freely they exercise their many choices, how much access
they have to market and social opportunities—and whether they live in conflict or
in peace.’ (Human Development Report, 1994).
It listed seven “components” or seven specific values of human security— economic security,
food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community security and
political security. It also pinpointed two sets of threats harping individuals. First, those threats
which are more localised. These are threats that are particular to different societies or regions
of the world and seemingly vary by level of economic development and geographical location.
Comprehensive Human Development 133
Second are those threats that are global in nature because “threats within countries rapidly spill
beyond national frontiers.”
Table 1
Direct and Indirect Threats to Human Security
Direct Violence Indirect Violence
Violent death/disablement: Victims of Deprivation: Levels of basic needs and
violent crime; sexual assault, terrorism, entitlements (food, safe drinking water,
inter-group riots/pogrom/genocide; primary health care, primary
killing of government officials/agents; Education).
war casualties
Dehumanization: Slavery and trafficking Diseases: Incidence of life-threatening

in women and children; use of child illness (infectious, cardiovascular,
soldiers; abduction; unlawful detention of cancerous)
political opponents+ rigged trials.
International disputes: Interstate Population displacement (national,
tensions/crises+ great power regional, global): Refugees and migration
tensions/crises.
Most Destructive Weapons: The spread Environmental degradation (local,
of WMDs+ advanced conventional, small national, regional, global)
arms, landmines.
Drugs: Drug addiction Natural and man-made disasters
Source: Kanti Bajpai’s paper on ‘Human Security: Concept and Measurement’

Table.2
National Security and Human Security
National Security Human Security
Security for whom Primarily the state Primarily the individual
Security for what values Territorial integrity and Personal safety and individual
national independence freedom
Security from what Direct threats from other Direct and indirect threats
threats state
Security by what means Force as the primary Force as a secondary
instrument of security, to instrument; sanctions, human
be used unilaterally for a development as key
state’s own safety instruments of individual
security
Balance of power is Balance of power is of limited
important; power is utility; soft power is important
equated with military
capabilities
Cooperation between Cooperation between states,
states is tenuous beyond INGOs and NGOs can be
alliance relations effective
Norms and institutions Norms and institutions matter;
are of limited value democratization and
institutionalism enhance
effectiveness
Source: Kanti Bajpai’s paper on ‘Human Security: Concept and Measurement’
The Report proposed a new framework of development cooperation that brings humanity
together through a more equitable sharing of global economic opportunities and responsibilities;
a world social charter, a 20:20 compact for human development aimed to meet the most
important targets of:
a) Universal primary education;
b) Adult illiteracy rates to be halved;
c) Primary health care for all;
e) Family planning services for all willing couples;
f) Safe drinking water and sanitation for all.
It suggests that the major arm suppliers (86% of arms originating from the 5 permanent
members of the Security Council) agree on a targeted reduction in military spending to 3%
a year and the right of every child to food as sacrosanct as the right to vote.
Indeed, comprehensive human development reflected a much broader concept than human
security, as it referred to a “process of widening the range of people’s choices,” while the
latter implied “people’s right to exercise these choices freely and safely—and that they can be
relatively confident that the opportunities they have today are not totally lost tomorrow.” Haq,
in 1994, rightly pointed out that “the human development paradigm is the most holistic
development that exists today. It embraces every development issue—including economic
growth, social investment, people’s empowerment, provision of basic needs and social safety
needs, political and cultural freedoms and all other aspects of people’s lives. It is neither
technocratic nor overly philosophical. It is a practical reflection of life itself” (Human Development
Report, 1994).
Human Security Human Development
Vital core of freedoms All freedoms
Protect from threat/risk Expand
Participation Agency & Participation
Protection Many roles/institutions
Multidimensional Multidimensional
All countries All countries
Include all people Include all people
Needs political will Needs political will
People not territory People not economy
The basic objective of human development is to consider the multiple dimensions of human
wellbeing and “create an enabling environment for people to enjoy long, healthy and creative
lives.” It is contrary to what mainstream economists have long believed that economic growth
is the surest way to increase choice and freedom and create happiness; that “money” alone
is absolutely good because it is the abstract satisfaction of every wish- everything else can only
satisfy one wish.
Numerous studies demonstrated that happiness eludes those who commit themselves wholly
to the path of economic growth. For instance, despite over a century of profound material
growth in America, surveys show that Americans are not noticeably happier; not happier than
a bondless ‘fakir’ trudging the temple areas of Benaras; or a penniless beggar on the streets
of Vietnam.
“To achieve development,” Amartya Sen says, “requires the removal of poverty, tyranny, lack
of economic opportunities, social deprivation, and neglect of public services and the machinery
of repression.” The ‘good life’ is partly a life of genuine choice and not one in which the person
is forced into a particular life- however rich it might be in other respects (Amartya Sen, 1999).
In 2009, the Legatum Prosperity Index took this development issue a step further by tabulating
those ‘obscure corners of welfare’ that encompasses material wealth and quality of life. Rather
than replicating other measurements that rank countries by their actual levels of wealth, this
index produces rankings based on the foundation of prosperity. These are factors that help
to make ‘happy citizens’ in a given country.
Assessing 104 countries accounting for 90% of the world’s population, the PI variables are
built on nine blocks of prosperity identified as:
- Economic Fundamentals
- Entrepreneurship and Innovation
- Democratic Institutions
- Education
- Health
- Safety and security
- Governance
- Personal Freedom
- Social Capital.
The key findings of the Prosperity Index show that:
a) Prosperous countries are strong across the board—they do well in all nine sub-indexes,
indicating that the foundation of prosperity reinforces each other.
b) Freedom cannot be divided. While some nations seek to allow one respect of freedom
while restricting other aspects, prosperous nations reflect freedom in all its dimensions:
economic, political, religious and personal;
c) Sixteen of the top 20 most prosperous countries are in North America and Europe;
d) Good governance is central to life satisfaction and economic progress;
e) Happiness is opportunity, good health, relationships and the freedom to choose who you
want to be
f) Strong communities are better than weak governments;
g) Money can not buy happiness. Only in the poorest countries do increases in income have
a significant effect on people’s life satisfaction (Legatum Prosperity Index, 2009).
Table.3
The Top 10 Prosperous Countries Bottom 10

1. Finland 95. Kenya
2. Switzerland 96. Algeria
3. Sweden 97. Tanzania
4. Denmark 98. Nigeria
5. Norway 99. Pakistan
6. Australia 100. Cameron
7. Canada 101. Central African Republic
8. Netherlands 102. Yemen
9. United States of America 103. Sudan
10. New Zealand 104. Zimbabwe
13.3 GROUND REALITY

Indeed, we have come a long way in discussing prosperity and development, ‘development
and security,’ in our existing literature, Track II dialogues and in other decision-making processes.
Along with figures, facts have apparently endorsed this long period of ‘peace and calm’ (with
no major ‘continental wars” fought after World War II), with people looking more prosperous,
confident and interconnected and global situation more adaptable to ‘quick change’.
The present section is an attempt to examine these ‘myths’ and facts of ‘human development’
with special emphasis on underdevelopment and poverty eradication, terrorism and civilian
deaths and environmental degradation as it exists around us in its most unabashed form.
13.3.1 Underdevelopment and Poverty Eradication
By the late 1990s, the fifth of the world’s people living in highest-income countries had:
86% of world GDP—the bottom fifth just 1%
82% of world export markets—the bottom fifth just 1%
68% of Foreign Direct Investment—the bottom fifth had just 1%
Income of the richest 5% of the world was 114 times that of the poorest 5%
The richest 1% had as much income as the poorest 57%. (Buddhadeb Chaudhury, 2008).
As many as 800 million people in the developing world and at least 24 million people in the
developed and transition economies lacks access to enough food supply. These people suffer
from daily hunger, malnutrition and starvation deaths, and the reasons for food insecurity
arising from a number of factors- including inequitable distribution of food, environmental
degradation, natural disasters and conflicts.
Natural disasters like drought has triggered famines and civil wars in the Horn of Africa,
Ethiopia and India (in August 2009, India declared 177 out of 626 districts as ‘drought-hit’
that resulted in starvation deaths, farmers committing suicide and many people taking to forced
migration). Environmental degradation in the form of rapid deforestation, logging for trade has
resulted in the elimination of 2.4% of the world’s forest cover since 1990. War and conflicts
have equally contributed to reduced food production with serious impact on the poorest
households. The world’s 35 million refugees and Internally Displaced Persons are among
those who experience conflict-induced hunger. In some regions, where food might otherwise
have been available, conflict made people food insecure, affecting their access to adequate
food as well as their ability to lead healthy and productive lives. Somalia, Sudan and Darfur
are some examples of such conflict zones. Many hunger-stricken denizens here have taken to
piracy, terrorism and trafficking (both in arms and humans) as a means of their livelihood.
Even the economic recession that hit the globe last year has further accentuated the gap
between the rich and the poor and their accessibility to food. The astronomical rise in prices
of the basic necessities of life (food, clothing and housing), rampant joblessness and
unemployment (By May 2009, the United States itself had lost nearly six million jobs since
December 2007, with its total number of jobless rising to 14.5 million) has literally pushed the
globe to a ‘no-solution’ situation.
While most post Cold War scholars heralded the new era of ‘globalization’ ‘interconnectedness’
as the beginning of a ‘homogenous liberal’ state with broadening scope for a ‘homogenous
classless society,’ (Francis Fukuyama 1989), a distinct school of thought saw nothing ‘new’
about globalization, even nothing ‘global’ about globalization (Peter Sutch and Juanita Elias
2007). For them the highest levels of interconnectedness are between the most developed
states in North America, Europe and East Asia, while the poorest areas of the world remain
marginal to this. Taking foreign direct investment as an example (when multinational firms
decide to establish factories in foreign locations), Hirst and Thompson show that very little of
the beneficiary goes into the states in the developing world, while the maximum profit goes
to the triad of industrialised states (North America, East Asia and Europe). In fact, the foreign
investment that does go to states in the developing world tends to be concentrated in a few
states like Mexico, Brazil and China—states in Africa receive hardly any foreign investment,
further marginalizing some of the poorest countries in the world from the global economy
(Hirst and Thompson, 1999).
Some scholars have even termed globalisation as a ‘necessary myth’ that states in the developed
world have utilised to protect their own interests. These ‘imagined economies’ represent a
kind of hyperglobalized zone of the global economy in which MNCs roam the globe looking
for cheap labor, enabling global finance shift across the global money market at the push of
a button, and use internet technologies for the fast dispatch of data and information (Cameron
and Palan, 2004).
In this transformed economic space, there’s no alternative to the rising tide of globalisation.
It naturally culminates to a third imagined economy- that of social exclusion that concerns the
way in which groups within societies have been excluded and marginalised from globalisation.
The important point here is that all these economies have been ‘imagined’- they are purely
‘mythical’- but powerful myths/imaginings that have played a damaging role in shaping the
world in which we live today.
Like the vicious circle of poverty, here we have a vicious circle of ‘disparity’ that actively
works both at the domestic and international level:
Vicious Circle of Poverty
Poverty or Low
Low Productivity Income
Small capacity to
save
Lack of
capital Vicious Circle of Disparity
Low level of
International investment
Developed
Economies
More productivity Higher level

of saving
People are happy Higher level of

stakeholders investment (better
safety nets)
Domestic
Marginalized
Economies
Low
Productivity Low level of saving (poor
safety nets/ tightly controlled
Top-down process)
Unequal Capital—Source
of social conflict (ethnic
strife, separatism/armed
conflict) Low level of
investment
Vicious Circle of Disparity Diagrams Conceived by the Author herself

Intellectual challenges to mainstream globalisation therefore calls for anti-globalisation movement

(this term is applied to the groups and networks of campaigners who seek to challenge the
dominance of neo-liberal economic ideas in global politics and what they see as a multi-
national corporate driven global capitalism) which was overwhelmingly linked to the 1999
“Battle for Seattle” to protest against the injustices of the neo-liberal economic order unleashed
by the World Bank, IMF and the WTO.
No doubt, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the United Kingdom, President Nicolas Sarkozy
of France and other heads of states have mentioned the need for ‘a new Bretton Woods’-
even a ‘third generation of international institution.’ The present world body, urgently requires
strengthening, to become in US President Obama’s own description a global institution that
works, not the current G-7 and G-8 or an upgraded G-20 version to include emerging
powers, not ad hoc coalitions of the willing or Robert Kagan’s ‘League of Democracies’ but
a universal global body. Anything less constitutes wishful thinking to escape from the complexities
of addressing daunting global challenges (Thomas G. Weiss, 2009).
It calls for a more dynamic UN with a refurbished ‘Security Council’ that allows ‘flexible
engagement’ with benign power like India, better accommodation for weaker powers like the
African Union to discuss and debate issues transcending national boundaries, precisely those
dealing with ‘problems without passports.” (Kofi Annan, 2002). At the domestic level, much
of the causes of separatism, ethnic strife, and civil war are hidden in deeper economic
deprivation of the periphery, where the richer few are more interested to cut the bigger slice
of cake to suit their convenience. Although much has flown out of hand and little remains to
be done, the call of the hour necessitates to: weigh quality over anything ‘else’; arrest the focal
points of ‘systemic failure’; create state-sponsored and state-administered social safety nets
that create self-reliant job opportunities for the ‘deprived’ section.
13.3.2 Terrorism and Civilian Deaths

The nuclear holocaust on Hiroshima and Nagasaki claimed some 150,000 lives, with many
more left gravely maimed and injured. The ‘war on terror’ and ‘holy war’ by terrorists- have
directly killed 6,20,006 people (according to an independent research carried on in 2006),
created 4.5 million refugees and cost the West more than the sum needed to pay off the debts
of every poor nation on earth.
The extraordinary scale of conflict, claiming lives from New York to Bali and London to
Lahore, and from Lahore to India and Sri Lanka has literally brought to question, whether the
‘War on Terror Can Be Won?.’ For some scholars, like violent crime, deadly disease and
other scourges, terrorism can be reduced and contained, but it cannot be totally eliminated
(Philip H. Gordon, 2007).
According to Singapore’s Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, the new terrorism “stems from a
religious ideology that is infused with an implacable hostility to all secular governments,
especially the West, and in particular the US.” [Dell Higgie, 2004]. Huntington called it the
‘clash of civilizations’.
This ‘religious terrorism’ is very different from insurgency/armed conflicts arising out of economic
deprivation of the periphery, since here the group has a distinct objective, a structured terror
system that keeps the process going.
I
N Training camps O
Terror System Successful missions U
P
Cash inflow (Land, air, maritime) T
U P
U
T T
Environment
Environment (Low-Intensity Conflicts—Ethnic strifes,

civil unrest and state sponsored terrorism)
A Framework of Terror System. The loop shows the recurring process of terrorism,
where successful and failed missions work as ‘feedback mechanism’ into the input.
[The Concept of a Terror System is a replication of David Easton’s Political System]
Terrorism arising out of economic Religious Terrorism
deprivation (Maoists, Naxals)
Flexible objective. Reasons hidden in Fixed objective. ‘Jihad’ and establishment
poverty, unemployment, financial crisis. of a homogenous Muslim state
If adequately addressed, scopes for
peaceful reconciliation
Targeted abductions, seizure and hostage- Aimed at mass annihilation (any means to
taking for purely economic reasons an end) leading to systemic breakdown
Restricted flow of money- fund-raising Unabated flow of money, arms and
from borrowing from a ‘mother group,’ ammunitions (Dropping from Petro
abduction, kidnappings. Dollars, Drug and Human Trafficking)
Reach is transboundary/ intra& inter-state Reach is transnational/techno-savvy
Once broken, hard to regroup Can easily break and regroup into sleeper,
dormant and active cells
Simple ‘leader’ not a ‘mesmerizer’ Charismatic leadership with corporate
aptitude
To combat this sort of terrorism requires a three-pronged strategy to:

a) Detect terrorist group effort to change and adapt; Anticipate, whether those efforts will
be successful; Act—to limit terrorist groups ability to learn or undermine their learning
efforts. Thus:
Detect Act
Anticipate
a) Limiting the terrorist groups’ access to critical knowledge resources;

b) Identifying and preventing acquisition of novel technologies and weapons;
c) Locating and targeting a terrorist group’s “learning leadership”- those individual critical to
the ability to carry out organizational learning processes;
d) Identifying and breaking critical connections among terrorist group members;
e) Denying these groups the safe haven needed for experimentation and innovation. (Rand
Publication, 2005).
Proposals for separate research organizations, departments dealing with Terrorism Studies
in universities, a world counter-terrorism body empowered to examine pragmatic and
psychological causes behind ‘old’ and ‘new’ terrorism can be effective measures aimed to
combat this scourge, vis-à-vis a global body (UN) which is already plagued with numerous
problems.
Since we have lost too many innocent lives in this ‘Fourth Generation Warfare’, now is the
time when actions should speak louder than words; those actions being well-planned, organised
to save our future generation from hidden fanatics.
Civilian casualties during some of the most recent popular attacks worldwide
Attack Civilian dead Injured
26/11, 2008 Mumbai 98 civilians- 14 Policemen; 327 (LeT responsible)
attacks 14 Foreigners
7/7 London 56 700 (Al Qaeda claimed
Underground attack responsibility)
2002, Mariott Hotel 202- 88-Australians 300 (Al Qaeda claimed
bombing in Bali responsibility)
2003 ASG attack on a 100 on board killed Abu Sayyaf Group
chemical tanker named claimed responsibility
Dewi Madrim
WTC 9/11, 2001 attack 2,551 215 (460 Emergency
on twin towers responders)
31 Jan, 1996, LTTE 81 1,400
attack on Central Bank
of Colombo
Red Terror unleashed across different parts of India has already claimed 900 lives so far.
13.3.3 Environmental Degradation and Human Development
To top all other man-made calamities, human society today stands at the ‘edge’ of a sinking
earth that has already started giving enough indications of the final ‘apocalypse,’- Tsunamis,
rising-level of the sea, forest fires in Indonesia, Australia and the West; landslides in the
Philippines and China, hurricanes in Southern America, vanishing species in the animal-chain
and rising temperatures owing to carbon gas emissions and global warming.
A recent report by a research team confirmed that the arctic ice cap will disappear completely
in the summer months within 20 to 30 years, “but in less than that it will have considerably
retreated,” said Professor Peter Wadhams, head of the Polar Ocean physics group at Cambridge
University. In about 10 years, the arctic ice will be considered an open sea. (DNA, 2009).
Already man-made problems of overpopulation, excessive stress on non-renewable resources,

damming water bodies, massive deforestation for industrialization has heralded the pandemic
rise in HINI avian influenza, SARS epidemic, infectious diseases like HIV/AIDs, Tamilflu,
swine flu and still more to come by. Scholars unanimously agree that although a coming
pandemic cannot be avoided, its impact can be considerably lessened, depending on how the
world leaders- from the heads of the G-8, G-77 groupings to local officials decide to respond
(Michael T. Osterholm, 2005).
The ongoing G77 meet at Copenhagen has called industrialised nations to cut their carbon
emission by 40% by 2020 and another 40% by 2035. India has already agreed to voluntarily
reduce its carbon emission level by 20 to 25% from 2005 levels by 2020, while members of
the Association of Small Island nations demanded the creation of a new protocol under the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Precisely the challenges of the post Cold War world, call for collaborative international action,
requiring full engagement of all nation-states—rich and poor, north and south, developed and
developing. The world expects no less and it is everyone’s responsibility to deliver sincerely
(Ban-Ki-Moon, 2009).
13.4 SUMMARY
Even if the future of a comprehensive human development looks very grim, there is no denial
that the series of literature on Human Development Indices, Prosperity Indices has left hardly
any problems encompassing ‘human well-being’ unanswered. Today, issues cannot hide public
attention and public awareness. Issues have also blurred the apparent distinction between rich
and poor, North and South, developed and developing nations. The existing economic,
environmental, regional, nuclear non-proliferation communities are evidences of modern man’s
genuine effort at peaceful coexistence. For International Relations scholars, it is Neo-liberalism’s
ultimate triumph over the constricted, narrow-world of Realism.
The only need of the hour is to infuse this human society with more ‘belief’- more belief in
the system- more belief in a global body like UN; more belief in ‘flexible Bretton Woods,’
more belief in ‘Nuclear Non-Proliferation’ activities, more belief in ‘cleaner environmental’
groupings. Only this belief of being ‘bound together’ and to ‘act together’ can help us chalk
out remedies to combat social anomalies of religious fanaticism, disease, poverty, insurgency
and armed conflicts. For no society in the past has been without problems, and no societies
in the future will be without problems; it only calls to dig out the best out of the worst
alternative; to maximise the minimal profit.
It is good to recall Voltaire’s concept of tolerance here, where a society governed by the
culture of tolerance is based on the premise that it possesses every claim to a complete
knowledge of the given state of affairs- good, bad or status quo. Therefore, wisdom would
consist in one’s admitting that “I may not be right and you may not be wrong.’ Since we are
all products of a frailty- fallible and prone to error, it is natural to pardon each other’s follies.
That’s the first principle of human rights- and the first stepping stone towards overall human
development.

1. Trace the evolution of the concept of comprehensive human development. How much do
human security issues play a significant role within the development paradigm?
2. How is human security different from human development? Discuss two direct and
indirect threats unique to developing countries?
3. How are development and environment related? Does globalisation lead to environmental
degradation?
4. How is religious terrorism different from insurgency arising out of economic deprivation?
Discuss the future of terrorism with special emphasis on its hindering effect on human
development.
5. Write short notes on:
a. Human development and poverty eradication
b. Human Prosperity and overall security
c. Hyperglobalisation.
SUGGESTED READINGS
‘Arctic Ice will disappear in 20 years’, DNA e-paper, November 2009 [A.O. 12-12-09].
Gordon, H., Philip, p.57.
Alagappa, Muthiah., ‘Comprehensive Security: Interpretations in ASEAN Countries’, in Robert
A. Scalapino et al. (ed.), Asian Security Issues: Regional and Global, University of California,
Institute of East Asian Studies, Berkeley, CA, 1988.
Annan, A., Kofi., Problems Without Passports, Foreign Policy, September/October, 2002.
Chaudhury, Buddhadeb., Human Security, Indigenous People and Sustainable Development,
Occasional Paper II, Centre for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Calcutta,
2008.
Ciccarelli, John., (ed), Transnational Crime: A New Security Threat? Canberra, 1996.
Dewitt, David., Common, Comprehensive and Cooperative Security, The Pacific Review,
Vol. 7, No.1, 1994.
Elias, Juanita, and Sutch, Peter, International Relations: The Basics, Routledge, 2007.
Gordon, H., Philip, Can The War on Terror Be Won?, Foreign Affairs, November/December
2007.
Higgie, Del., Combating Terrorism, New Zealand International Review, 19 August, 2004.
http:// www.rand.org. Aptitude for Destruction: Organizational Learning in Terrorist Groups
and Its Implications For Combating Terrorism. Vol. 1, RAND Monograph Series 2005.
http:// www.scribd.com/doc/21690760/2009-Legatum-Prosperity-Index Report [accessed on.
10-12-2009].
http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr 1994/chapter [A.O. 12 December 2009].
Mahbub-ul-Haq., http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr 1994/chapter [A.O. 12 December
2009].
Moon, Ban Ki., Our Responsibility to Deliver, The Times of India, 6 January 2009.
Osterholm, T Michael., “Preparing for the Next Pandemic, Foreign Affairs, July/August
2005.
Palan, R, and A. Cameron., The Imagined Economies of Globalisation, Sage, 2004.
Sen, Amartya., Development as Freedom, Oxford University Press, 1999.
Thompson, G, and P. Hirst., Globalisation in Question: The International Economy and the
Possibilities of Governance, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2nd Edition, 1999.
Weiss, G. Thomas., Toward a Third Generation of International Institutions: Obama’s UN
Policy, The Washington Quarterly, 2009, pp.141-62.
UNIT 14 PEACE EDUCATION
Structure
14.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
14.2 Meaning and Importance
14.2.1 Towards Positive Peace
14.2.2 Institutional Support for Peace Education
14.3 Moral and Spiritual Foundations
14.4 Religious Sources of Peace Education
14.5 Gandhi and Peace Education
14.6 Contributions to Peace Education
14.7 Peace Education in Action
14.8 Summary
Suggested Readings
14.1 INTRODUCTION
We have chosen the way of non-violence simply because we think it’s politically better
for the country in the long run to establish that you can bring about change without the
use of arms
Aung San Suu Kyi
The concept of ‘peace’ is multidimensional. It is widely defined as a state where there is no
conflict, disturbance or hostility. It is seen as a non-violent way of life, a state of tranquility
and harmony. Peace can also describe a relationship between any people characterised by
respect, justice and goodwill. It also pertains to an individual’s sense of himself/herself to be
at peace with one’s own mind (see Peace in Wikipedia). There is no consensus regarding its
definition and has been defined in different ways. For example, to Gandhi, it is related to truth
and non-violence. To achieve this state of ‘peace’, especially in the present conflict-ridden
world, it is being widely recognised that peace education is an essential aspect that would
guide the mankind to shun violence and live in a harmonious society/world. It is being recognised
as ‘an intellectual enterprise devoted to the study of peace and the bringing about of a state
of peace in human society’ (John Baylis, p.277). At the same time, peace education is not just
a concept that is confined to academic curriculum. It is a means to attain social justice, to live
in accordance with moral rights and duties, and recognise one’s relationship to all beings.
Peace education became a platform for the potential of hope for a better world (Meyerhof,
see URL).
Aims and Objectives
After reading this Unit, you would be able to understand:
 The concept and meaning of peace education
 Its moral and spiritual foundations
 The importance of peace education in the contemporary world
14.2 MEANING AND IMPORTANCE

In the previous Units, you have already been familiarised with many aspects of peace and
conflict, from what they are, their origins, sources, types, local, regional and global conflicts
and peace efforts. The humankind has been a witness to conflict in some form or other at all
levels. Violence in all forms is on increase and has percolated even to the school levels. Violent
expressions and aggression are increasingly being resorted to leading further to conflicts.
Therefore, peace has become all the more imminent in such contexts. Efforts are now being
made to inculcate the values related to harmony, respect and tolerance for better interpersonal
relations. These are seen as seeds to ensure in the long-term a conflict-free world. As Meyerhof
put it, ‘peace studies encompass the learning of nonviolent communication, tolerance, acceptance
of diversity and love as the basic law of life’. Thus peace education, most importantly, helps
in deconstructing the mindset and discourses of power struggle by the use of violence. It helps
people to cooperate and negotiate problems at the individual as well as societal levels.
In the 1950s and 60s, the definition of ‘peace’ was confined to the absence of war. The focus
of studies on peace was mainly on interstate conflicts, wars and so on. Subsequently, there
was a departure from this view of peace; the focus shifted to the aspects of structural violence
and the inherent contradictions in social and societal structures. From this, the focus sharpened
on the role of individual’s moral and ethical disposition and is now zeroed down to the ‘human
values’ that guide the conduct of individuals. The shift in this field has been gradual and steady.
Therefore, ‘presently character education, moral education and self-esteem development are
considered aspects of aiding in the individual reaching this personal inner potential and becoming
a valued citizen for peaceful coexistence’ (Ibid). Peace education is thus not a history of
peacemaking as she says but to create peace in one’s environment while standing for truth,
justice and self preservation. It is also more than learning about conflict resolution. If one has
to mediate for establishing peace, it is necessary that one should be receptive to other’s
perception, viewpoint and adjust one’s own perspectives in order to reach an understanding,
compromise and consensus at a collective level.
The objectives of peace education include: (1) appropriating intellectual and emotional
development of the individuals; (2) developing a sense of social responsibility and solidarity;
(3) observing the principles of equality and fraternity towards all; (4) enabling the individual
to acquire a critical understanding of the problems at national and international levels; (5)
creating willingness for continuous learning; (6) accepting and participating in free discussions;
(7) taking decisions on a rational basis; (8) appreciating other’s cultures; and (9) overcoming
obstacles towards promotion of peace.
14.2.1 Towards Positive Peace

Peace education is seen as leading to positive peace. Positive peace means state of tranquility,
calm, quietness, harmony and friendship. It flourishes in the presence of the feeling of brotherhood
and in the absence of the ignorance in mind. As Dr.Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan said, ‘If we wish
to achieve peace we must maintain that inner harmony, that poise of the soul, which are the
essential elements of peace. It cannot be achieved by organizations. It can come only when
our minds become endowed with generosity and goodwill towards all. We must be filled with
the moral power of love and the vision of spiritual unity. We have to solve our problems
through the help of our higher nature’ (S.Radhakrishnan, Religion and Culture, p.135; 173).
Positive peace is one of the most effective means to get the society rid of biases, structural
violence which is mostly latent in nature and such negative traits that impede the progress of
the individual in the real sense. Peace education is invariably linked with this concept that is
Peace Education 147
designed in such a way as to ‘alter attitudes regarding peace in the hope that this will stimulate
changes in structure’ (John Baylis, p.277). Similar views are echoed by Johan Galtung wherein
he states that ‘peace must not only be conceived of as the absence of war and direct violence
(negative peace) but rather, working towards peace as the means to the realization of conditions
leading to a maximal reduction of structural violence (positive peace)’.
14.2.2 Institutional Support for Peace Education
The UNESCO’s call for ‘recommendation concerning Education for International Understanding,
cooperation and Peace Education relating to Human Rights and Fundamental freedom’ in
1974 is said to be the starting point for recognising the need for peace education. It aims to
establish peace across international borders and to augment respect for each other. As the
UNESCO remarked, ‘education should include critical analysis of the historical and
contemporary factors of an economic and political nature underlying the contradictions and
tensions between countries, together to study of ways of overcoming these contradictions
which are the real impediments to understanding, true international cooperation and the
development of world peace’. Education, as it envisions, addresses the real interests of people
as against the practice of exploitation and fomenting war. The introduction of peace education
in school curricula is being undertaken the world over; peace research and education is now
a subject of high relevance in many eminent universities, for example, Bradford University.
Further, institutions like Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, University of Peace,
United Nations University are all undertaking pioneering research work in this field. In India,
most of the institutes related to Gandhian Studies or those undertaking to spread Gandhi’s
message of peace and nonviolence are all immensely contributing to this field of education and
such efforts are being encouraged by both national governments as well as international
organisations. Further, peace education manuals have been prepared and under preparation
in some of the leading educational institutions and research centres like National Council for
Educational Research and Training (NCERT). In the year 2000, the UN declared it as a
‘Decade of Peace and Nonviolence for Children of the World’. This found support from many
peace organisations and educators leading to building up of ‘Culture of Peace’. Peace education
has thus become important in the institutional discourses on peace and the UNESCO mission
of promoting peace. Education for Peace specifically found mention in the Convention on the
Rights of the Child (1989).
14.3 MORAL AND SPIRITUAL FOUNDATIONS

Dale Snauwaert interprets that ‘peace education is premised upon the cosmopolitan belief that
the moral community includes all human beings, that all human beings have moral standing, and
thus war and peace, justice and injustice, are moral considerations. It is not merely a
philosophical ideal—There is an actually existing cosmopolitanism, a transnational, global
moral community based in widespread agreement’ (in Encyclopedia of Peace Education,
2008). Human beings are entitled to a good life; it includes fulfilling such basic needs as good
health, knowledge, feeling of brotherhood and friendship, positive experiences that nourish
one’s attitudes and perceptions. These entitlements are bestowed in the form of rights which
are codified in the law. The moral connotation of this law requires an individual to fulfill certain
obligations like (a) positive duties of mutual care and support (duty to aid); (b) negative duties
of no harm to others (duty to avoid harm) and (c) norms of rudimentary fairness (duty to
protect) (cited in Snauwaert, pp.1-2). These ethical norms ensure human dignity and recognition
of what Snauwaert says ‘the intrinsic value of innate human characteristics and capacities’.
This is supposed to lead to a cosmopolitan moral order that secure human rights, which is
essential for an individual to live with dignity and worth. Unless an individual fully realises this
aspect of moral rights and duties, he/she cannot empathise with others and respond to others
similarly. There is a need to realise the importance of interdependence and interconnectedness
between human beings. As Betty Reardon says, ‘peace education should aim at the
transformation of both the structure of society and the structures of consciousness’, suggesting
that ‘peace education has interrelated moral and spiritual foundation’.
Spirituality is highly inherent in the concept of peace education. The modern day life bestows
on individual immense material prosperity and possessions. Immersed in this materialistic life,
individual fails to recognise the enjoyment of true peace, which is beyond the materialistic
aspect. It further leads to more acquisition, more possessions, more wealth and so on. This
self-centredness blinds one to the needs of others and even deprives others of their due and
just demands. In the long-term this leads to the enlarging gap between the haves and have-
nots, totally altering the coherent social structure. This leads to what is called structural
inequalities that brings us to the concept of structural violence. It is here that the need for
peace education is felt the most. It helps in addressing the crucial question of potential
discord- both internal and external.
The question of values remains as an important component of peace education. Peace education
is crucial in enhancing the virtuous traits in individuals. Respect for others, feelings of sympathy
and empathy, tolerance, harmony and extending a hand of friendship determines the character
of an individual and his/her capacity to interact with others with utmost respect. Commitment
to such values all through life is no easy task. Peace education helps people to live harmoniously
inspite of disagreements and differences of opinion. Peace education without morality, spirituality
and value-commitment becomes a futile exercise and reaps negative results in the long term.
14.4 RELIGIOUS SOURCES OF PEACE EDUCATION

For long, it has been recognised that the Indian traditions insist on peaceful coexistence of all
communities and people. The very culture of the nation, its eternal spirit of unity and diversity,
respect and reverence to all forms of life stands testimony to the traditions of peace in the
society. Various customs, traditions, languages and cultures proclaim peace as the main element
guiding these numerous traditions.
Almost all the religions, in their own unique way, subscribe steadfastly to peace and its
promotion. It should be noted that it is not religion, but the perversion in its interpretation by
many an incompetent people that damages the fabric of harmony. When one gets acquainted
with the sacred texts of various religions, one realises that all religions preach peace; all point
out towards one supreme formless being; all preach respect and tolerance towards other’s
faiths. In short, peace is the central theme of all religions. Some of the religions like Hinduism,
Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism originated in India. The earlier teachings of peace were rooted
in religious teachings and traditions. It has also imbibed the cultures and traditions of later
entrants Islam and Christianity in its culture. Most of these religions preach as to how to live
in and attain peace. The teachings of Lord Buddha, Lord Mahavira, Prophet Mohammed and
Jesus Christ centre on the practice of peace in thought, word and deed. All religions prescribe
the path of truth, one’s moral duty, peace, love and non-violence. They propagate love
towards other living beings like animals and plants/trees. Hinduism has numerous examples
depicting reverence towards nature, plants and animals and worshipping of five elements;
Christianity propounds the Gospel of Love; Islam, meaning ‘Peace’, deals with the code of
conduct to be followed by all that leads to peace; Jainism forbids harming even insects and
other beings; Buddhism promotes peaceful tradition and way of living; and Sikhism propounds
Peace Education 149
peace as the method and means to treat our fellow-beings with love. Most of these religions
insist on adhering to truth, non-violence, limited or non-possession, non-injury to others, and
absolute faith in the Supreme Lord. Jainism prescribes the three-fold path of Right knowledge,
Right faith and Right conduct; Islam, through Quran, gives a message of hope, faith, and
peace; Buddhism preaches the eight-fold path to peace; Hinduism, primarily a way of life, too
prescribes through its Vedic texts and the Gita the immanent need to follow the path of peace.
The teachings are related to achieving peace for world order and humanity. Similarly, the
Baha’i Faith appeals to mankind to accept its inherent essential oneness and strive towards
attaining the global peace through various grassroots local and international collaborative
actions founded on the principles of “unity in diversity, equity, justice, gender equality, moral
leadership and freedom of thought” (BIC #05-0402, 2005, p.2). Considering the importance
of religion, the calls for inter-faith dialogue and activities have been gaining momentum all over
the world. The aim is to encourage freedom of belief and to eliminate religious prejudices and
work together towards common social goals.
India has been home to saints and learned teachers across ages. Adi Shankaracharya has been
recognised as one of the earliest teachers to have propounded peace and harmony. The
subsequent periods have witnessed peace (also religious) apostles like Kabir, Sri Ramakrishna
Paramhans and Swami Vivekananda, who were pioneers of peace and constantly preached
on how to achieve inner harmony and ultimately attain salvation. All of them have taught the
merits of unity of the mankind, abhorred divisions in the society in the name of caste and
religion and focused on the necessity to attain inner peace, in order to be at peace with others.
Jiddu Krishnamurthy was also a prominent spiritual teacher belonging to this genre. Tagore,
Sri Aurobindo, Gandhi and several other leaders, reformers and educationists propounded
their views and ideas on peace and its importance in the field of education from to time.
14.5 GANDHI AND PEACE EDUCATION

No other eminent leader in the realm of the world history is so much associated with peace
and nonviolence as does Gandhi. Infact, any discourse, literature, debate, discussion or piece
of work on peace is deemed to be incomplete without the mention of Gandhi. One can gauge
the extent of importance he gave to peace through his own sayings, speeches, writings etc.
Examples are often quoted regarding his participation in Boer War or his preference for
violence over cowardice as instances of contradictions; while these may be termed as isolated
instances, one cannot ignore the magnitude of force with which he argued for peace as its
astounding champion.
Peace was central to Gandhi’s political, social and religious philosophy and demonstrated to
the world the supreme method of achieving world peace. Gandhi considered violence as the
root cause of all evils. His method was non-violence, identified invariably with peace and truth.
The same is reflected in his thoughts on education too. As S.N.Prasad says, ‘Gandhi’s
concept of education reflects more or less what we call today as peace education. The values
he propounded reflect in his thought, speeches and in communication with others. The most
fundamental principle of Gandhi’s philosophy of peace is “Ahimsa” or nonviolence which is
the law of love, life and creation as opposed to violence or himsa, the cause of hatred, death
and destruction’. Gandhi considered non-violence as an indivisible, important and essential
part of education and should serve as basic component guiding our day-to-day activities.
Gandhi proclaimed that the foundations for the development of morality in a man should begin
as early as in his childhood through moral and ethical education and considered it as important
and necessary for the all round-development of personality in general and to progress towards
the path of peace in particular. Gandhi’s approach to value education familiarises us, in holistic
perspective, the necessity of basic education that emphasises social consciousness and the
dignity of every individual.
Gandhi considered the moral education as essential component of education, leading to character
development. He advocated the introduction of religious studies in education so as to enable
the students to strengthen their moral and spiritual aspects. He felt that it would promote the
values of self-control, patience, and veneration in one’s character. He considered moral education
for “developing culture of the heart or building of character”. Gandhi wanted spiritualisation
of not only politics but also education to realise the ultimate goal of truth. Gandhi saw
education as “the all-round drawing out of the best in the child and man- body, mind and
spirit”. To him, a personality well-substantiated on peace would be able to grasp the intricacies
of human nature and accordingly, conducts himself/herself towards others. Peace thus became
an essential aspect towards the character development.
Gandhi’s concept of education had high components of morality and spirituality. He prescribed
certain rules for the students to ensure morality and righteousness for education does not
consist of mere learning of theories but in gaining knowledge and spirituality. Education, he
opined, should enable one to rationally analyse the situation and act with peace and tolerance
even under difficult circumstances. For this, the students should have a strict regimen of high
morals, self-control and right thinking; spirit of service to society and respect towards all.
Education, as he says, should lead to rediscovery of peace. This is crucial in dealing with
others and in playing a constructive role for the betterment of society, nation and ultimately
towards the world. Gandhi aimed at eliminating the negative traits like communal disharmony
and caste discrimination through constructive work. This, he felt, could be achieved only
through the inculcation of right values.
Gandhi believed that the introduction of religious studies in education would fortify ethics in
students and develop the values of forbearance, tolerance, and humanity. Since every religion
preaches and prescribes peace, it would be easy to inculcate the virtues in the students at a
very early stage. Since India is a nation of diverse cultures, Gandhi thought it best to introduce
the religious studies to achieve peace in the long run. Gandhi’s approach may be termed as
an important component to the construction of a sustainable culture of peace. The organisations
and institutions involved in making efforts towards fostering peace and harmony often
acknowledge Gandhi as the source of their inspiration and action.
14.6 CONTRIBUTIONS TO PEACE EDUCATION

It is an irony that Gandhi, who is widely acknowledged and cited in the works related to
peace, was neither a recipient of Nobel Peace Prize nor included in the mainstream curriculum
on Peace Studies. Eminent Scholars like Arne Naess, Johan Galtung, Gene Sharp,
J.C.Kumarappa, J.K.Mehta, and others have based their studies through direct or indirect
association with Gandhi’s thoughts and ideas. Some other prominent Peace researchers and
educators include John Dewey and Paulo Freire, whose works on peace education have
widely been recognised. There are numerous contributions to peace education by many
eminent men but only few (primarily Western) are being discussed here.
John Dewey (1859-1952), one of the leading philosophers and educational theorists made
substantial contribution to peace education. He advocated the promotion of international
understanding, in other words, ‘world patriotism’ as opposed to the traditional patriotic
indoctrination as taught in different schools. The tragedies of wars made him examine the
Peace Education 151
futility of the same and called for building a nonviolent world, using geography and history for
understanding other cultures, and incorporate the values of peace and global understanding.
Freire’s (1921-1997) philosophy methodically consisted of peace education pedagogy and
practice. He concentrated on the concept of conscientization that provides the foundation of
peace education and the hope for coordination between education and social transformation.
His insistence on dialogue and his discussions of egalitarian teacher-student relations provide
the basis for peace education pedagogy and continue to resound throughout the field. Arne
Naess, one of the most important philosophers of deep ecology and Gandhian satyagraha,
made significant contribution to the field of deep ecology. His love for nature, his contentment
in self-sufficiency made him disregard luxury, the root of all complications. Naess was impressed
by Gandhi’s ‘self-realisation’ and explained that for the ‘self to be realised is not the ego, but
the large Self created when we identify with all living creatures and ultimately with the whole
universe’ (cit in T.Weber, p.95).
Johan Galtung’s works on peace research and education form the most significant contemporary
contributions to the field. Elaborating on the form of peace education, Galtung insists on ruling
out direct violence as well as structural violence, meaning any inherent violence that exists in
the structure (of the society). The content of peace education, according to him, consists in
(1) analysis (2) goal-formation (3) critique (4) proposal-making and (5) action (Empiricism,
1972). Galtung noted that peace education should not overshadow peace action. A much
higher level of peace consciousness, he reiterated, would make up the world in which people
are less easily manipulated and it is in pursuit of that kind of a world that peace education
would be a contribution (Galtung, Form and Content of Peace Education, p.6).
Gene Sharp, in his memorable work on the Political Development of Nonviolent Struggle,
focused on the objective of justice and freedom that requires the empowerment of the oppressed
ones. He advocated addressing the conflicts according to the situation and formulating and
implementing nonviolent struggle to each new situation. The strategies have to be refined and
adaptable, and should be effective replacements to violence. As he says, ‘the growth, adaptations
to newer situations will have problems because people do not know anything about the
peculiar dynamics of the new problem or about the science and methodology of a nonviolent
struggle’. The key lies in understanding the general and specific problems and formulating
strategies according to the need of the situation.
Among the prominent people who promoted and worked for education, few women have
made an outstanding contribution like Jane Addams and Maria Montessori. Addam’s ‘Peace
and Bread in Time of War’ defines what ‘pacifism means to educators and the importance of
teaching toleration and accepting nonviolence as the proper means to achieve peace and
justice’ (Howlett, C.F, 2008). Howlett also says that ‘as an educator and reformer, she
perceived “Peace as a social dynamic based on individual acts of common decency rather
than cold, detached stipulated agreements among national states” (Addams, Peace and Bread
in Time of War, 33-36). Addam considered war as unnatural, anti-progressive, and immoral
and was a throwback to an archaic stage of social history; and “it was fought to maintain the
balance of power, a concept that glorified stasis and left no room for innovation” (Quoted in
Allen F. Davis, American Heroine, 143-145). Similarly, Dr.Maria Montessori asserted that
values like global citizenship, personal responsibility, and respect for diversity must be both an
implicit and explicit part of every child’s (and adult’s) education (Cheryl Duckworth, 2008).
Montessori developed methods that insisted on self-discipline instead of imposing discipline
from outside. She opined that students should be ‘involved in forming and enforcing the rules
of their community; when undesired behaviour occurs, the manner in which it is handled must
honour the humanity of both the student who exhibited the behaviour, as well as the victim’.
The other names that are associated with peace education include Edwin Ginn, Elihu Burrit
and Elise Boulding. One can also find the resonance of Gandhian thought in the works of
Kumarappa, Mehta and others, which are dealt exclusively in the subsequent Course on
Gandhi’s Economic Thought.
14.7 PEACE EDUCATION IN ACTION

Haavelsrud (1975) suggested that peace education, as in the case of all education, should be
conducted in three areas: (1) Information; (2) Attitudes; and (3) Action. It consists of Awareness,
Analysis and Action. Peace education is a part in the larger framework aiming at social
change. It is a transformative change for better. In this scheme, the transformation of the
individual is the primary requisite. This individual transformation gradually brings in a change
in the system/structure. Individually and collectively, it becomes imperative to come together
for ‘learning to live together, creating awareness about others’ tribulations, analysing the situation
rationally and taking action with willingness to produce the positive results’. It is important to
note that peace education can be promoted only in an atmosphere of nonviolence. There is
a crucial link between human nature and violence. As Gandhi believed, the evil can be
overcome by a steadfast adherence to nonviolence. But, holistically, he believed that all human
beings are inherently good. It is through this belief that he brought out the blueprint for
development, ‘Constructive Programme’. It aims at social change through nonviolence. Similarly,
in the process of peace education, the individual is exposed to the stark realities of the world
wherein there are severe disparities and makes him/her understand the ground realities in
which millions of their brethren live. This develops the ability to understand others, and also
the willingness to change things for better. This is what John Dewey termed as ‘world patriotism’,
for creating a better world.
Peace education is not an abstract concept or that which can be imparted only through
classroom teaching. It is a continuous learning process. Peace education can begin from the
family setting and move on to the other levels like school, institutions of higher education,
workplace or areas where related projects take place. It is important to note the following
points for an effective learning in the process:
 Emphasis should be on the participatory and self-initiated learning
 Preservation and advancement of peace should be integrated into discussions
 Development of curricula on peace and practical approaches
 Imparting of peace related knowledge through media
 Imparting of the knowledge through religious institutions
 Knowledge dissemination through social work projects
 Cooperation and collaboration in the fields of education
 Selection of information and evaluation
 Eliminating bias in conflict information
 Organising campaigns, conducting seminars and talks on peace
 Giving training to the educators of peace to cater to all sections of society
Peace Education 153
 Promoting volunteerism to provide learning opportunities

 Maintaining consistent motivation levels to promote peace
The following table depicting the general learning goals related to tolerance, as developed by
eminent peace educator Betty Reardon, helps us in understanding the modalities involved in
this process.
Values Knowledge Capacities and Skills
Human Varieties of human, Living with diversity:
dignity/rights personal and cultural cross-cultural cooperation;
identities, social issues using human rights
standards to make
judgements
Social Multiple forms of Exercising responsibility:
justice/democracy democratic processes and critical reflection;
governance communication of facts
and opinions; political
decision-making
Co-operative non- Alternative ways of Managing conflict:
violent society/peace responding discussion and debate;
constructively to human conflict resolution;
differences and conflicts reconciliation; social
reconstruction; co-
operative problem-solving
and task achievement
Source: Reardon, 1997: Unit 1, p.53. (cited in Margaret Sinclair, Learning to Live Together,
Encyclopedia of Peace education, Teachers college, Columbia University, 2008. see http://
www.tc.edu/centers/epe/)
The curriculum on peace education, as developed by the UNHCR peace education programme,
which is now known as Peace Education Programme of the Interagency Network for Education
in Emergencies (INEE), has in its content specific skills that help in promoting the ideas of
peaceful living. These include:
 Understanding similarities and differences (for older children, exclusion and inclusion)
 Active listening
 Better communication (two-way)
 Handling emotions
 Understanding that perceptions vary and avoiding bias
 Understanding others’ situation and feelings (empathy practice)
 Cooperation
 Appropriate assertiveness
 Problem analysis and problem solving
 Negotiation
 Mediation
 Conflict resolution (with conflict transformation and reconciliation)
 Human rights
 What have you learned about peace?
14.8 SUMMARY
Peace education aims at enhancing the human values that are needed to deal with conflict
situations at an individual and societal level. The sources can be found in the cultures where
peace traditions are strong. Also the religious sources play a crucial role in changing the
mindset towards achieving positive peace and thereby contribute to world peace. Many peace
educators and researchers have made immense contribution to this field. Gandhi was one of
the leading personalities associated with charting out measure for a scheme of education that
would promote peace. With the development of skills and modern techniques, peace education
is increasingly being taken up in various educational programmes all over the world, supported
substantially by the state and national governments apart from international organisations like
UNESCO. Peace education has now become a hope for a better future.

1. What do you understand by peace education? Analyse its meaning and importance.
2. Trace the religious sources of peace education in India.
3. Can Gandhi’s thoughts on education be considered as part of peace education?
4. Analyse the major contributions to peace education field.
5. Write short notes on:
(a) UNESCO and Peace Education
(b) Moral and Spiritual Foundations of Peace Education
SUGGESTED READINGS
Baylis, John., Peace Research and Peace Education, Review of International Studies, Vol.8,
no.4, October, 1982, pp.277-281.
Galtung, Johan., Violence, Peace and Peace Research, Journal of Peace Research, vol.6,
no.3, 1969, pp.167-191.
Gene Sharp on Political Development of Nonviolent Struggle (Documentation Series), Gandhi
Smriti and Darshan Samiti, New Delhi, 2000.
Meyerhof, Nina., From Peace Education to Education for Spiritual Peacebuilding
(www.transformedu.org/)
Radhakrishnan, S., Religion and Culture, Orient Paperbacks, Delhi, 1968.
Weber, Thomas., Arne Naess and Gandhi, Gandhi Marg, vol.32, no.1, April-June, 2010,
pp.87-100.
Peace Education 155
Weigert, Kathleen Maas., Peace Studies as Education for Nonviolent Social Change, Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol.504, 1989, pp.37-47.
UNESCO, Peace and Conflict Issues After the Cold War, Paris, 1998.
From the Encyclopedia of Peace Education, 2008:
1. Danesh, H.B., Unity-Based Peace Education
2. Duckworth, Cheryl., Maria Montessori’s Contribution to Peace Education
3. Galtung, Johan., Form and Content of Peace Education
4. Gan, Barry L., Nonviolence and Peace Education
5. Howlett, Charles F., Jane Addams and the Promotion of Peace and Social Justice among
the Masses.
6. Howlett, Charles F., John Dewey and Peace Education
7. Snauwaert, Dale T., The Moral and Spiritual Foundations of Peace Education
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace
UNIT 15 RELIGIOUS HARMONY
Structure
15.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
15.2 Defining Religion

15.3 Indian Religious Tradition
15.4 Indian Thinkers on Religion
15.5 The Way to Religious Harmony and Peace
15.6 Summary
Suggested Readings
15.1 INTRODUCTION
All religions in the world teach love and tolerance but yet it is not very uncommon to hear
violence and bloodshed in the name of religion. The tension in Israel and Palestine between
Jews and Muslims, in Ireland between Catholics and Protestants, in India the inter-community
discord and ensuing conflicts pose serious questions before us. Does religion talk about
harmony or intolerance? To find answer to this in Indian context we need to deliberate on the
spirit of religious tolerance visible in our historical tradition and the religious philosophy of great
Indian thinkers. It is important to understand that in a pluralistic society like ours inter-religious
tolerance and cooperation are crucial for the survival of nation. In the contemporary world
when people of different religious traditions have decided to make a country of their choice
as their home the spirit of religious tolerance is essential to avoid inter-religious tensions and
conflicts. In this unit we will begin with the meaning of religion and then we will explain in
historical context how the different religions prevailing in India strongly believe in reverence for
human life and preach tolerance towards the believers of other religion. We will also familiarise
you with the ideas of some great Indian thinkers on religion and humanity. This may help you
in understanding that true religion does not encourage intolerance; rather it teaches humility and
tolerance and contributes to durable peace in the society.
Aims and Objectives
After reading this unit you will be able to:
 Define religion
 Explain how religious tolerance is viewed as the guiding spirit of our religious tradition
 Analyse the way to ensure the spirit of religious harmony if peace has to prevail.
15.2 DEFINING RELIGION

‘Religion is realization; not talk, nor doctrine, nor theories, however beautiful they may be. It
is being and becoming, not hearing or acknowledging; it is the whole soul becoming changed
Religious Harmony 157
into what it believes. That is religion’ (Swami Vivekananda). However, philosophers and
scholars have differences on the definition of religion. In the multiethnic and philosophically
diverse global culture defining religion seems more elusive. The following definition of religion
is given in the Oxford Dictionary: ‘the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling
power, especially a personal God or gods; a particular system of faith and worship and a
pursuit or interest followed with devotion’. In explaining what constitutes religion The
Encyclopedia of Philosophy suggests a list of traits across diverse cultures. These are:
 Belief in supernatural beings
 A distinction between sacred and profane objects
 Ritual acts focused on sacred objects
 A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the Gods
 Prayer and other forms of communication with Gods etc.
Numerous issues may be raised in defining religion but commonly one understands religion as
belief in something sacred and prayer and other forms of communication with a supernatural
controlling power. Worship is perhaps the most basic element of religion, but moral conduct,
right beliefs and participation in religious ceremonies, services and institutions are also constituent
elements of the religious life as practiced by believers and worshippers and as commanded
by religious scriptures and sages. Believing in something supernatural even existed in early
civilisations like Egypt, Harappa, Mesopotamia and other parts of the world. Equally important
to understand is the expression of religious feelings and beliefs in diverse ways which has
resulted in different kind of religious doctrines, rituals in the world. Plurality of religions is not
only a fact but also a necessity for the development of society. Mahatma Gandhi very aptly
observed that ‘The soul of the religions is one but is encased in a multitude of forms’.
15.3 INDIAN RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS

We are going to discuss the importance of religious tolerance in the context of India although
the spirit of religious tolerance is equally important in the context of other countries as well.
India is known for its tolerant and liberal attitude towards people of different beliefs from
historical times. Major religions practised in India are Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Islam,
Christianity and Sikhism. It would not be out of place to familiarise you with the evolution of
various religious traditions in India. When we talk about Indian religious traditions in historical
context the first thing that comes to our mind is the religious practices of the Harappan people.
Based on archaeological findings, it is suggested that the Harappan people believed in the
supernatural force and they worshipped deities both male and female and also developed
religious practices and symbolism. This was followed by the Vedic civilisation which saw the
composition of the Rig-Veda, the Yajur-Veda, the Sama-Veda and the Atharva-Veda and each
of these having four fold subdivisions- the Samhitas, the Brahmanas, the Aranyakas and the
Upanishads. Although rituals and sacrifices constituted the most important feature of the Vedic
religion, in the Upanishadic period we find that ritualistic part of religion was relegated to a
lesser important position. The goal of life, according to the Upanishads, is realisation of
Brahman. Self-realisation alone can dispel ignorance and bestow immortality. Religion is not
a search for a creed but a search for an experience of God, a search in which questioning
and inquiry hold a high place together with faith. Hinduism is based on the corpus of Vedic
texts unlike religions like Jainism, Buddhism, Islam and Christianity which began with historical
founders and their teachings codified in a single sacred text or a group of texts regarded as
the Canon. With the development of other religious texts like the Dharmasutras, the Ramayana,
the Mahabharata and the Puranas new features and values were added to Hinduism but the
basic tenet of Hinduism i.e. religious tolerance and religious pluralism remain unchanged.
According to Bhikhu Parekh, in spite of doctrinal differences and sectarian quarrels, the Hindu
religious tradition succeeded because ‘it places tolerance at the centre of morality and religion,
and avoids the all too familiar monistic disputes about which way of life is the best and should
be imposed on others’. Krishna says in the Gita: ‘whatever may be the form in which each
devotee seeks to worship me with faith I make their faith steadfast in that form alone’.
Both Jainism and Buddhism originated in India around sixth century B.C. as a protest against
Brahmanical authority and ritualism of Hinduism. It is also seen as a consequence of changes
in society and polity of the period. According to Jainism, the universe is eternal and God has
nothing to do with creation of the universe. The Jain philosophy divides the world primarily
into the duality of Jiva and Ajiva. Jainism starts with the premise that the soul is found
entangled with Karma since eternity. Accumulated Karmic matter blocks the path of knowledge
and happiness. Right Faith, Right Knowledge and Right Conduct offer a graduated pathway
towards liberation which lays that people and mendicants can follow according to their vows.
The gospel of the Buddha avoided all hypotheses regarding the unknown and distanced itself
from ritualism, theology and metaphysics. Buddhism stressed on the perfection of character
and devotion to virtues. The basic teachings of the Buddha are centred on the reality of human
suffering and the need to find way of lasting relief from all forms of discontent. Peaceful and
blissful Enlightenment is achieved through a gradual training, a Path which is called the Eightfold
Path consisting of the diligent cultivation of virtue, meditation and wisdom.
Islam originated in the West Asia and following Islamic incursions into Northern and Central
India since the eleventh century Islam gradually spread in India. Islamic religious thought is
based on the recognition of the unity of the creator and of man’s submission to his will. Faith
in one and only one God has contributed to the concept of unity in multiplicity. Islam speaks
of equality and justice to all. It believes in universal brotherhood and a bond of faith among
its followers. The Koran affirms ‘All creatures are members of one family of God’.
Sikhism was founded by Guru Nanak. Guru Nanak’s teachings were strictly monotheistic,
without scope for the worship of any deity or human teacher. His teachings emphasised
equality and good actions transcending the boundaries of colour, caste and creed. While in
Mecca he was asked who was superior, a Hindu or a Muslim, to which the Guru replied that
without good actions both were of no consequence. ‘Truth is high but higher still is truthful
living’, said Guru Nanak.
Christianity began with Jesus. The Jews were under the Roman domination and they were
very much opposed to the Roman intervention in their life and culture. Jesus, through his
teachings, showed hope to the people and preached that the kingdom of God is rooted in
service and love. In India, Christianity reached with St. Thomas in the early years but later
on European merchants and missionaries further facilitated the spread of Christianity. Christianity
emphasises love as the essential basis for action and thinking. There is no place for violence.
The Bible says, ‘No man liveth unto himself. We are all parts of one another. God hath made
of one blood all nations that dwell upon the face of the earth.’
With this brief introduction to the essence of major religious traditions prevailing in India,
because of certain historical context India has become the home of believers of various
religions. Each religion, in its own way, has prescribed to its believer’s values to be practised
in life. At a fundamental level there was recognition of the essential unity of all religions. The
message of universal brotherhood is common to all religions. Dogmatism, fanaticism and

exclusivism do not get primacy in any of the religious traditions. Still different schools and sects
emerged within a particular religion and some among them became dogmatic and practised
insularity. Failing to understand and appreciate the essence and value of diversity of religions
and the principle of tolerance and co-existence, time and again we have witnessed religious
conflicts causing great human sufferings. Before we discuss further on issues pertaining to
religious tolerance in the following section, we would explain how Indian thinkers stressed on
the essence of religious tolerance and peace.
15.4 INDIAN THINKERS ON RELIGIOUS HARMONY

Concern for religious tolerance and harmony was expressed at different times in our society
due to tensions in the name of religion. In ancient India great ruler Asoka preached the merit
of religious harmony and in medieval India the same was echoed in the religious policy of
Akbar. The rock Edict XII of Asoka suggests, ‘The faiths of others deserve to be honoured
for one reason or another. By honouring them one exalts one’s own faith and at the same time
performs a service to the faith of others’. ‘Akbar, was extremely supportive of religious
tolerance and he made it a recognized duty of the state to make sure that no man should be
interfered with on account of religion, and anyone is to be allowed to go over to a religion
that pleases him.’ During modern times in the World Parliament of Religions in 1893 at
America, Swami Vivekananda said, ‘I am proud to belong to a nation which has taught the
world both tolerance and universal acceptance. We believe not only in universal tolerance, but
we accept all religions as true.’ One has to break down the small barriers of one’s own world
and to strive for the world which belongs to all of us. ‘The Lord has declared to the Hindu
in His incarnation as Krishna: “I am in every religion as the thread through a string of pearls.
Wherever thou seest extraordinary power raising and purifying humanity, know thou that I am
there.” And what has been the result? I challenge the world to find, throughout the whole
system of Sanskrit philosophy, any such expression as that the Hindu alone will be saved and
not others’ (Swami Vivekananda). Vivekananda wrote, ‘I accept all the religions that were in
the past, and worship them all; I worship God with every one of them, in whatever form they
worship Him. I shall go to the mosque of Mohammedan, I shall enter the Christians Church
and kneel before the crucifix; I shall enter the Buddhist temple, where I shall take refuge in
Buddha and in his law. I shall go into the forest and sit down in meditation with the Hindu,
who is trying to find the light which enlightens the heart of every one’. In his address to the
world parliament of religion Vivekananda asserted, ‘Sectarianism, bigotry, and its horrible
descendant, fanaticism, have long possessed this beautiful earth. They have filled the earth with
violence, drenched it often with human blood, destroyed civilization, and sent whole nations
to despair….I fervently hope that the bell that tolled this morning in honour of this convention
may be the death-knell of all fanaticism, of all persecutions with the sword or with the pen,
and of all uncharitable feelings between persons wending their way to the same goal’.
Gandhi wrote that ‘I feel for and about Hinduism with all its faults and limitations. Nothing
elates me so much as the music of the Gita or the Ramayana by Tulsidas, the only two books
in Hinduism I may be said to know….I know the vice that is going on today in all the great
Hindu shrines, but I love them in spite of their unspeakable failings….Hinduism is not an
exclusive religion. In it there is room for the worship of all the prophets of the world. It is not
a missionary religion in the ordinary sense of the term. It has no doubt absorbed many tribes
in its fold, but this absorption has been of an evolutionary imperceptible character. Hinduism
tells every one to worship God according to his own faith or dharma, and so it lives at peace
with all the religions.’ Gandhi repeatedly spoke of harmony and co-existence. He said, ‘By
religion I do not mean formal religion or customary religion, but that religion which underlies
all religions, which brings us face to face with our Maker. Indeed religion should pervade
every one of our actions. Here religion does not mean sectarianism. It means a belief in
ordered moral government of the universe. It is not less real because it is unseen. The religion
transcends Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, etc. it harmonizes them and gives them reality.’
Dr. S.Radhakrishnan in his Hindu View of Life wrote, ‘While fixed intellectual beliefs mark
off one religion from another, Hinduism sets no such limits. The Hindu thinker readily admits
other points of view than his own and considers them just as worthy of attention as his own.’
References given above on the thinking of some prominent Indian thinkers on religious tolerance
can be extended further. From the beginning the spirit of tolerance and accommodation
formed the core of Indian religious tradition. If we look back to India’s ancient religious
tradition, we find that even in the days of Brahmanical religion dominated by ritualism and
priest craft, there was tolerance for understanding the dissenting religious thought. Otherwise
how could one explain the emergence of different religious ideas in the form of Jainism and
Buddhism, who challenged the Vedic ritualism and practices of casteism? The school of
materialism called the Charvaka did not believe in rebirth and transmigration of soul. Teachers
like Kasyapa and Katyayana questioned the role of karma on the soul. In the Epic period also
we find that there was great tolerance towards religious opinions and teachings which were
not in tune with the dominant religious tradition. Even in modern period, within Hinduism, we
find Rammohan Roy, Ramakrishna Paramahansa, Dayanand Saraswati and many others who
did not speak in same wavelength and were critical also of certain aspects of Hinduism. But
all these did not breed intolerance and put one sect against the other. This rather acknowledges
the spirit of diversity in Indian religious tradition and strengthens the virtue of secularism.
Secularism here needs to be understood in the context of our civilisation, which has always
given the space to individual to practice religion according to his belief and conviction. Secularism
ensures others’ right to religion and reasoning. Deviation from this leads to fundamentalism and
fanaticism. Gandhi’s definition of secularism as Sarva Dharma Samabhava (treating all religions
equally) can be considered as most appropriate way of explaining secularism. The major
strength of the Gandhian argument is that it has used the enormous power of religious belief
in favour of a practice of political tolerance, instead of suggesting misleadingly that to practice
tolerance one had to relinquish religious thinking altogether and accept an atheistic secularism.
In a pluralistic society like ours, where different religious traditions along with number of sects
co-exist cultural pluralism must be respected. Readings of the Veda and the Upanishads show
in clear terms that long before the emergence of different religious sects and institutions that
are today called Hindu, there was an acute realisation that there was a level of immanence
and transcendence. The vision of the human world here is of concord and harmony. The entire
universe was conceived of as a large family, ‘Vasudeva Kutambakam’.
15.5 THE WAY TO RELIGIOUS HARMONY AND PEACE

At the moment when religion seems to have become the principal divisive force in the world,
at the very moment of the full flowering of a modern materialistic civilisation, perhaps it is
crucial to understand the way to religious tolerance. We are living in a world today which is
pluralistic and multicultural. Industrialisation, liberalisation and globalisation cutting across regional,
religious and other boundaries brought communities together. New ideas, beliefs and cultural
movements have contributed to cultural diversity. We all know that for centuries India has
been a multi-religious society. In an essay titled, ‘Tagore and His India’, Amartya Sen argued
not to see ‘the contemporary world as a “clash of civilizations”- with “the Muslim civilization,”
“the Hindu civilization,” and “the Western civilization”. Rabindranath Tagore described his
family as the product of “a confluence of three cultures: Hindu, Mohammedan, and British”….
Rabindranath would be shocked by the growth of cultural separatism in India, as elsewhere.
The “openness” that he valued so much is certainly under great strain right now- in many
countries.’ The importance of reasoning and freedom we find in the writings of Tagore may
help us in understanding the value of various traditions and a non-sectarian outlook. But still
we fail to appreciate the greatness in the religion of others. Gandhi who stood for peace and
religious tolerance became a victim of inter-religious violence. It is a fact that religious diversity
in the past as well as in the contemporary times has caused social and political conflicts. But
this cannot drive us away from religion. We believe or do not believe in religion we are born
as either Hindu or Muslim or Christian. Our religious identity is one among various other
identities like national, regional, linguistic, caste, class, gender, etc. Even within a particular
religious identity one may find differences among its believers on various issues. Based on
religious differences Pakistan was created in 1947 at the cost of huge human sufferings; and
so did the creation of Bangladesh because the Bengali Muslims felt oppressed under the non-
Bengali Muslims. Amartya Sen has observed, ‘The Islamic identity can be one of the identities
the person regards as important (perhaps even crucial), but without thereby denying that there
are other identities that may also be significant. What is often called “the Islamic world” does,
of course, have a preponderance of Muslims, but different persons who are all Muslims can
and do vary greatly in other respects, such as political and social values, economic and literary
pursuits, professional and philosophical involvements, attitude to the west, and so on.’ The
same is applicable for other religions also like Hinduism, Christianity, Sikhism, etc. Religious
disharmony need not necessarily place one religion against the other; there may be occasions
when people within the same religion may fight to establish one’s dominance over the other.
In case of conflicts, if one individual or a group of people belonging to a particular religion
engage in conflict with others belonging to different religion, we should not blame the religion
of those people because in every religion we find people of different ethical or moral values
having different interests. In the past as well as in the present, people of different religions have
lived together. Therefore, the challenge before us is how to face the religious fundamentalists.
Bhikhu Parekh in an article, ‘Dialogue Between Cultures’, has explained that in stead of
suppressing the voices of the fundamentalists one must opt for dialogue to win over the
fundamentalists. Any oppressive measure may provoke social instability threatening the civil
liberties of ordinary citizens. Fundamentalists not necessarily are homogenous group. Efforts
should be made to argue with them and expose their hollowness and to create a rift within
their ranks. ‘The fundamentalists cannot avoid appealing to reason and accepting the discipline
of the dialogue….We must not therefore give up on them altogether, and should listen to them,
understand them, and win them over to the rules of dialogical democracy. We should live by
our values, not theirs, and our commitment to dialogue requires us to exclude none.’ This
prescription of Bhikhu Parekh holds merit. In any democratic set up dialogue helps in resolving
any deadlock. Gandhian philosophy based on non-violence and Satyagraha always emphasised
winning over the enemies through a process of dialogue and positive actions. It is through
public pressure drawing upon our great traditions that efforts have to be made to prevail upon
those who try to misuse religious identity for short-term gains. It would be apt to remember
Vivekananda’s assertion for religious harmony. He said,
‘Much has been said of the common ground of religious unity. I am not going to venture my
own theory. But if any one here hopes that this unity will come by the triumph of any one of
the religions and the destruction of the others, to him I say, “Brother, yours is an impossible
hope.” Do I wish that Christian would become Hindu? God forbid. Do I wish that Hindu or
Buddhist would become Christian? God forbid….if the Parliament of Religions has shown
anything to the world it is this: it has proved to the world that holiness, purity, and charity are
not the exclusive possessions of any church in the world, and that every system has produced
men and women of the most exalted character…. “Help and not Fight,” “Assimilation and not
Destruction,” “Harmony and Peace and not Dissension.” (Complete Works of Swami
Vivekananda).
The core concern of every religion is the well-being of human kind and to help every individual
to realise the ultimate truth of human life. When ever people tried to create discord in the
society misusing the basic tenets of religion, in the long run they failed in their mission and
harmony prevailed upon conflicts. As a citizen we have to raise our voice against the misuse
of religion and allow people to live according to their respective beliefs.
15.6 SUMMARY
In the past as well as in the recent years we have witnessed conflicts and tensions in societies
in the name of religion. We have explained that all religions teach the ways to realise the
ultimate reality or one may call God. We have discussed how India became the home of
various religious traditions. The Hindu religious tradition because of its tolerant spirit succeeded
in living with doctrinal differences. Great Indian thinkers drew our attention to this unique
religious pluralism. The challenge before us is how to put into practice the spirit of tolerance
when people misuse our religious identity. In a democratic society, dialogue is the best means
to persuade people to adopt the true spirit of religion. We have to be vigilant and active in
educating people about the true spirit of religion. We may end with what Rabindranath Tagore
spoke on religion in England, ‘It is significant that all great religions have their historic origin
in persons who represented in their life a truth which was not cosmic and unmoral, but human
and good. They rescued religion from the magic stronghold of demon force and brought it into
the inner heart of humanity, into a fulfillment not confined to some exclusive good fortune of
the individual but to the welfare of all men. This was not for the spiritual ecstasy of lonely
souls, but for the spiritual emancipation of all races. They came as the messengers of Man to
men of all countries and spoke of the salvation that could only be reached by the perfecting
of our relationship with Man the eternal, Man the Divine.’

1. Define Religion and analyse India’s religious traditions.
2. Examine the contribution of various thinkers in the realm of religious thinking.
3. Analyse in your own words the relationship between religion and peace.
SUGGESTED READINGS
Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda.
Gandhi, M.K., Hindu Dharma, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1958
Parekh, Bhikhu., ‘Dialogue between cultures’, in R.M.Suarez and F.R.Coll., (eds), Democracy,
Nationalism and Multiculturalism, Routledge, London, 2005.
Sen, Amartya., Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny, W.W.Norton, 2006
Tagore, Rabindranath., The Religion of Man, Hibbert Lectures, Manchester College, Oxford,
1930. (check Britannica Online Encyclopedia)
UNIT 16 PEACE MOVEMENTS
Structure
16.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
16.2 What is a Peace Movement?

16.3 The Duality of Peace Concept
16.4 Diversity of Ideals
16.5 History of Peace Movements by Region
16.5.1 Germany
16.5.2 Israel
16.5.2.1 Peace Now
16.5.2.2 Gush Shalom, ICIPP
16.5.3 Canada
16.5.4 United Kingdom (UK)
16.6 United States of America (USA)

16.6.1 The Peace Movement in World War II
16.6.2 The Cold War: The Forties and Fifties
16.6.3 The Anti Vietnam War Movement 1962-1975
16.6.4 The Eighties and Nineties
16.6.5 The Iraq War
16.6.6 The Threat of Military Action against Iran
16.6.7 Domestic Peace Movement in the USA
16.6.8 Day of Silence for Peace
16.7 India
16.8 Summary
Suggested Readings
16.1 INTRODUCTION
“Peace is indispensable for the very survival of mankind”.
Maintenance of domestic and international peace is imperative today. The two World Wars
have taken the toll of humanity. Ensuring a genuine and stable peace is the major challenge
facing the nation states today. However, since the end of the Cold War, efforts to establish
a World without Arms and Armed Conflict have in-fact failed. There have been numerous
intra-state and inter-state conflicts across states. The most affected being the states in Asia,
Latin America and Africa. The long drawn conflict in West Asia, between Israel and the
States backing the Palestinian(s); the India-Pakistan conflict have resulted in perennial tension
and uncertainty pervading not only within the affected states, region but also the international
arena. It is in this light that the establishment of Peace and Peace Movements attain relevance
and significance. There have been several Peace Movements in different parts of the world,
yet a world sans conflict is still a far cry. Though the United Nations (UN) has, to an extent,
played a major role in fore-stalling another world war the several conflicts waged/still raging
in different countries/regions, manifest the lack of a sincere effort by Nations to abjure violence.
It is in these circumstances that the role of Peace Movements across nations becomes very
important today
Aims and Objectives
This Unit would enable you to
 Comprehend the Concept of Peace Movements
 Trace the history and role of Peace Movements across Nations
 Strengthen the ethos of peace, negating the recourse to violence in both domestic and
international milieu.
16.2 WHAT IS A PEACE MOVEMENT?

A Peace Movement is a social movement that seeks to achieve ideals such as the ending of
a particular war/conflict (or all wars/conflicts), minimise inter-human violence in a particular
place or type of situation, often linked to the goal of achieving world peace. The means to
achieve these ends include advocacy of pacifism, non-violent resistance, diplomacy, and boycott,
moral persuasion, supporting anti-war political candidates, demonstrations and forming / using
National Political Lobbying groups to create legislation. The Political Cooperative is an
example of an organisation that seeks to merge all Peace Movement organisations and green
set ups, which may have some diverse goals, but all of whom have the common goal of peace
and human(e) sustainability.
Some refer to the global loose affiliation of activists and political interests as having a shared
purpose and this constituting a single movement the peace movement encompassing the
anti-war movement. Viewed in this light, the two are often indistinguishable and constitute
a loose, reactive event-driven collaboration between groups with motivations as diverse as
humanism, nationalism, environmentalism, anti-racism, anti-sexism, decentralisation, hospitality,
ideology, theology and fear.
16.3 THE DUALITY OF PEACE CONCEPT

The concept of peace has two connotations- negative peace and positive peace. Negative
peace is defined as not only the absence of organised violence between such major human
groups as nations, but also between racial and ethnic groups because of the magnitude that
can be reached by internal wars. Positive peace is defined as a pattern of cooperation and
integration between major human groups. Absence of violence should not be confused with
absence of conflict. Violence may occur without conflict and conflict may be resolved by
means of non-violent mechanisms. The distinction between these two types of peace gives
to a four fold classification of relations between two nations.
a) War which is organised group violence;
b) Negative peace, where there is no violence but no other form of interaction either, and
where the best characterisation is peaceful coexistence;
c) Positive peace where there is some cooperation with occasional outbreaks of violence
and unqualified peace;
d) Unqualified peace, where absence of violence is combined with a pattern of cooperation.
Peace Movements 165
The concept of peace as non-war is neither theoretically nor practically interesting, for example,
in describing the relationship that obtains between Norway and Nepal; it can often be explained
in terms of a low level of inter-action resulting from geographical distance and thus will hardly
be identified by many as ideal relations worth striving for. For peace, like health, has both
cognitive and evaluative components; it designates a state of system of Nations, but this state
is so highly valued that institutions are built around it to protect and promote it. It is the
concept of Positive Peace that is worth exploring, especially since negative peace is a condition,
sin-qua-non; and the two concepts of peace may be empirically related, even though they are
logically independent.
In the absence of solid empirical research and a coherent peace theory, the concept of peace
can be explicated by means of examining peace thinking. Just as there is no lack of attention
paid to war, so there is no scarcity of peace plans and an extensive typology would be needed
to do justice to most of the latter. Peace is a problem of social organisation and the theory
of peace and war will hopefully someday, subsumed under the general theory of social
organisation.
16.4 DIVERSITY OF IDEALS

There is much confusion over what peace is or should be which results in a plurality of
movements seeking diverse ideals of peace. Particularly, anti- war movements have often
ill-defined goals.
It is often not clear whether a movement or a particular protest is against war in general, as
in pacifism, or against one side’s participation in a war (but not the others). Indeed some
observers feel that this lack of clarity has represented a key part of the propaganda strategy
of those seeking victory as in the Vietnam War.
Global protests against the US invasion of Iraq in early 2003 are an example of a more
specific short-term and loosely affiliated single-issue movement with relatively scattered
ideological priorities, ranging from absolutist pacifism to Islamism and anti- Americanism.
Nonetheless, some of those who are involved in several such short-term movements and build
up trust relationships with others within them do tend to eventually join more global or long-
term movements.
In direct contrast, some elements of the global peace movement seek to guarantee health
security by ending war and assuring what they see as basic human rights including the right
of all people to have access to air, water, food, shelter and health care. Large cadres of
activists seek social justice in the form of equal protection under the law and equal opportunity
under the law for groups that have previously been disenfranchised.
The movement is primarily characterised by a belief that humans should not wage war on each
other or engage in violent ethnic conflicts over language, race or natural resources or ethical
conflict over religion or ideology. Long term opponents of war preparations are primarily
characterised by a belief that military power is not the equivalent of justice.
The movement tends to oppose the proliferation of dangerous technologies and weapons of
mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons and biological warfare. Moreover, many
object to the export of weapons including hand –held machine guns and grenades by leading
economic nations to lesser developed nations. Some like SIPRI, have voiced special concern
that artificial intelligence, molecular engineering, genetics and proteomics have even more vast
destructive potential. Thus there is not only an inter-section between Peace Movement and
Neo-Luddites or primitivism, but also with the more mainstream technology critics viz as the
Green Parties, Green Peace and the Ecology Movement they are part of. It is one of several
movements that led to the formation of the Green Party political associations in several
democratic countries near the end of the 20th Century. The Peace Movement has a very
strong base in some countries, Green Parties, such as in Germany, perhaps reflecting that
country’s negative experiences with militarism in the 20th Century.
16.5 HISTORY OF PEACE MOVEMENTS BY REGION

The history will begin with the countries that suffered during World War II and which effectively
began the post-war period in a position of submission and wrote peace into their constitutions.
Next will be the English-speaking States of the world and the arguments more familiar to the
English speaking reader, which inter-sect with the current events most strongly, and are the
current focus of the peace movements world-wide.
16.5.1 Germany
Green Parties and related political associations were formed in many democratic countries
near the end of the 20th century. The peace movement has a very strong influence in some
countries’ Green Parties’ viz., Germany. These sometimes have exercised decisive influence
over policy, during 2002, the German Greens influenced German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder,
by their control of the German Foreign Ministry under Joshka Fishher (a green and the single
most popular politician in Germany at that time), to limit his involvement in the war on
terrorism and eventually to unite with French President Jacques Chirac, whose opposition in
the UN Security Council was decisive in limiting support for the US plan to invade Iraq.
16.5.2 Israel
The Israeli-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli conflict have existed since mid-nineteenth century
creation of Zionism; however since the 1948 formation of the state of Israel by the Allied
Powers led by the US and the UK, the West Asian region has been in turmoil. After the
formation of Israel, the non-Jewish population who were living there since a few centuries-
post the exodus of the Jews to different parts of the world, have been ejected and rendered
homeless. Infact the Palestinians have become refugees living on the periphery of Israel and
on the banks of the river Jordan for long. The struggle of the Palestinian people that witnessed
decades of violence and suffering has ultimately led to the establishment of the Palestine State.
However, the belligerent stance of Israel, its occupation of Palestinian and other Arab lands,
its regular establishment of Settlements in occupied Palestine has rendered the region sans
stable peace. It is significant to note that not-withstanding this policy of the Israeli state, peace
movements and efforts to establish peace in the region have been essayed even by organisations
based in Israel. Infact the Palestinian issue is so critical that securing stable peace and the
establishment of the Rule of Law, equity and justice for the Palestinians is mandatory for
regional/international peace and stability.
16.5.2.1 Peace Now
The mainstream peace movement in Israel is Peace Now (Shalom Akshav), whose supporters
tend to vote for the Labour Party or Mere. Peace Now was founded in the aftermath of
Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s historic visit to Jerusalem, when many people felt that the
chance for peace might be missed. PM Begin, acknowledged that the Peace Now rally in
Tel Aviv at the eve of his departure for the Camp David Summit with Presidents Sadat and
Carter- drawing a crowd of 1,00000 the largest peace rally in Israel until then- had a part
Peace Movements 167
in his decision to withdraw from Sinai and dismantle Israeli settlements there. Peace Now
supported Begin for a time and hailed him as a peace-maker, but turned against him when
withdrawal from Sinai was accompanied by an accelerated campaign of land confiscation and
settlement building in the West Bank.
During the war against Lebanon in 1982, Peace Now, under the aegis of the Committee
Against the Lebanon War, held large protests, which drew several Peace Now grassroots
activists. Also, Peace Now members who had been drafted-for the war- called the movement
leadership from the front line, giving eye witness testimonies on the false-hood of government
propaganda on the conduct of the war. This resulted in Peace Now changing its position and
launching an intensive campaign against the war.
The Sabra and Shatila massacre in September 1982, precipitated an unprecedented week of
protest demonstrations throughout Israel, dozens of demonstrators being dispersed with tear
gas and hauled to detention in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. It culminated with Peace Now’s
4,00000 rally in Tel Aviv, the largest gathering of any kind in Israel’s history up to then, which
ultimately led to the establishment of the Kahan Judicial Commissioin of Inquiry whose half
a year of deliberations led to the impeachment of Defence Minister Ariel Sharon for indirect
responsibility for the massacre.
Peace Now is an advocate for a negotiated peace with the Palestinians. Originally this was
worded vaguely; with no definition of the Palestinians are who represents them. Peace Now
joined the dialogue with the Palestinian Liberation organization (PLO), started by such groups
as the Israeli Council for Israeli-Palestinian Peace and the Hadash Communist Party. Only
in 1988, did Peace Now accept that the PLO is the body regarded by the Palestinians
themselves as their representative.
During the first Intifada, Peace Now held numerous protests and rallies to protest the army’s
cruelty and call for a negotiated withdrawal from the occupied territories. At that time, Peace
Now strongly targeted then Defence Minister Yitzak Rabin for his rigid stance against the
Palestinian protesters. However, after Rabin became Prime Minister, he signed the Oslo
Agreement, shook hands with Yasser Arafat (Palestinian Leader) on the White House Lawn,
Peace Now strongly supported him and mobilised public support for him against the settlers
increasing vicious attacks. Peace Now had a central role in the 4th November 1995 rally after
which Rabin was assassinated by Yigal Amir, an extreme-right wing militant. Since then the
annual Rabin memorial rallies, held every year at the beginning of November, have become
the main event of the Israeli Peace Movement, drawing crowds in the tens or hundreds of
thousands. While officially organised by the Rabin Family Foundation-Peace Now’s presence
in these annual rallies is always conspicuous.
Now a days, Peace Now is particularly known for its relentless struggle against the expansion
of illegal settlement outposts on the West Bank. Dror Etkes, head of Peace Now’s Settlement
Watch is highly regarded for his meticulous work and on one occasion was invited to testify
before a US Congressional Committee at Washington DC.
16.5.2.2 Gush Shalom and the Israeli Council for Israeli Palestinian Peace
Gush Shalom, the Israeli Peace Bloc, is a radical movement to the left of Peace Now. In its
present name and structure, Gush Shalom grew out of the Jewish Arab Committee against
Deportations, which protested the deportation without trial of 415 Palestinian Islamic activists
to Lebanon in December 1992, and erected a protest tent in front of the Prime Minister’s
Office, for two months until the government consented to let the deportees return. Members
then decided to continue as a general peace movement with a programme strongly opposing
the occupation and advocating the creation of an independent Palestine side by side with Israel
in its pre-1967 borders (The Green Line) and with an undivided Jerusalem serving as the
capital of both states. While existing under the name Gush Shalom only since 1972, this
movement is in fact the lineal descendant of various groups, movements and action committees
which espoused much the same programme since 1967, and which occupied the same space
on the political scene. In particular, Gush Shalom is the descendant of the Israeli Council for
Israeli Palestinian Peace (ICIPP) which was founded in 1975. The ICIPP founder included
a group of dissidents from the Israeli establishment, among them was Major General Mattiyahu
Peled, who was member of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) General Staff during the 1967
Six-Day War and after being discharged from the army in 1969, turned increasingly in the
direction of peace.
The major achievement of the ICIPP was the openings of dialogue with the PLO, with the
aim of making Israelis understand the need of talking and reaching a peace deal with the
Palestinian Terrorists and conversely making Palestinians aware of the need to talk to and
eventually reach deal with The Zionist Enemy. Infact after the signing of the Oslo Agreement
in September 1993, meetings with the PLO became not only legal but also official government
policy. Members of Gush Shalom (into which the ICIPP merged), who came to meet Yasser
Arafat found themselves rubbing shoulders with senior Israeli government officials. Another
Gush Shalom campaign involves the boycott of settlement products, with a detailed list of
industrial and agricultural products maintained on the Gush Shalom website, with the public
in Israel and abroad called upon not to consume such products- since the proceeds go to
strengthen the settlements which are the main obstacle to peace in West Asia. Unlike Peace
Now, Gush Shalom persistently supports Conscientious Objectors and those who refuse to
render military service to the occupation.
At present, Gush Shalom activists are mainly involved in daily struggle at the Palestinian West
Bank villages which have their land confiscated by the separation barrier, erected ostensibly
to stop suicide bombers and actually to implement the de-facto annexation of large tracts of
land to Israel and to make them available for settlement expansion. Gush activists are to be
found, together with those of other Israeli movements like Ta’Yush and Anarchists against the
Wall, joining the Palestinian villagers of Bil’in in the weekly non-violent protest marches held
to protest confiscation of more than half of the village lands.
Although Gush Shalom earned itself respect among peace-seeking Israelis as well as in the
US and Europe, it is regarded by mainstream Israelis as a purely pro-Palestinian movement.
This is not surprising given the enormous campaign waged against the movement in the Israeli
media, with Gush Shalom’s own voice hardly being given an opportunity to be heard.
Gush Shalom’s position was and remains that all people have the right to self-determination
and to oppose foreign rule and occupation, and that the Palestinians have this right no less than
Israelis, had it when they launched an uprising against British Colonial rule between 1945-
1947, and the Americans exercised it between 1775 and 1781. That in no way gives the right
to attack the civilian population of the oppressor nation, and such attacks deserve all
condemnation. Both sides to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as long as it has not been
resolved, must adhere to that rule, and avoid harming civilians. (It is less known, either in
Israel or internationally, that the number of Palestinian children killed in IDF attacks and raids
since 2000 are three times the number of Israeli children killed in Palestinian suicide bombings).
Peace Movements 169
16.5.3 Canada
Canada has a diverse peace movement, with coalitions and networks in many cities, towns
and regions. The largest cross-country umbrella coalition is the Canadian Peace Alliance
(CPA) whose 140 member groups include large city-based coalitions, small grassroots groups,
national and local unions, faith, environmental, and student groups, with a combined membership
over Four Million Canadians. The Canadian Peace Alliance has been a leading voice, along
with its member groups opposing the The War on Terror. In particular, the CPA opposes
Canada’s complicity in what it views as misguided and destructive US Foreign Policy. Canada
has also been home to a growing movement of Palestinian solidarity, marked by increasing
number of grassroots Jewish groups opposed to Israel’s policies, in many cases likening them
to Apartheid War Crimes, and Ethnic Cleansing. The Canadian Peace Congress (1949-
1990) was a leading organiser in the peace movement for many years particularly when it was
under the leadership of James Gareth Endicott who was its President until 1971.
16.5.4 United Kingdom (UK)

The National Peace Council (NPC) was founded in 1908 after the 17th Universal Peace
Congress in London (July/August 1908). It brought together representatives of a considerable
number of national voluntary organisations with a common interest in peace, disarmament and
international and race relations. The primary function of the NPC was to provide opportunities
for consultation and joint activities between its affiliated members, to help create an informed
public opinion on the issues of the day and to convey to the government of the day the views
of the substantial section of British life represented by its affiliated membership. The NPC
folded in 2000 to be replaced in 2001 by the Network for Peace, which was set up to
continue the networking role of NPC.
Post World War-II, Peace Movement efforts in the UK were initially focused on the dissolution
of the British Empire and the rejection of imperialism by the US and the USSR. The anti-
nuclear movement sought to opt out of the Cold War and rejected such ideas Britain’s Little
Independent Nuclear Deterrent (BLIND) in part on the grounds that BLIND was in
contradiction even with Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).
Anti-nuclear campaigning in the early 1950’s was at first focused on the small Direct action
Committee (DAC) who organised the first Aldermaston Marches in 1958. The DAC were
later to merge into the much larger Committee of 100 (Committee for Nuclear Disarmament-
CND). The formation of CND tapped widespread popular fear and opposition to nuclear
weapons following the development of the first hydrogen bomb, and in the late 1950s and
early 1960s anti-nuclear marches attracted large followings, especially to the annual Aldermaston
March at Easter. However as the Committee of 100 had a non-hierarchical structure and no
formal membership, many local groups sprang up calling themselves Committee of 100. This
helped in the promulgation of civil disobedience but it produced policy confusion and, as the
decade progressed, the Committee of 1200 groups engaged in actions on many social issues
not directly related to war and peace.
The Vietnam Solidarity Campaign (VSC), led by Tariq Ali, mounted several large and violent
demonstrations against the Vietnam War in 1967-68 but the first anti-Vietnam demonstration
was at the US Embassy at London that took place in 1965.
The peace movement was later associated with the Peace Camp Movement as Labour moved
more to the centre under Prime Minister Tony Blair. By early 2003, the peace and anti-war
movement, mostly grouped together under the banner of Stop the War Coalition, was
powerful enough to cause several of Blair’s cabinet to resign, and hundreds of Labour Members
of Parliament to vote against their government. Blair’s motion to support militarily the US plan
to invade Iraq continued only due to support from the UK Conservative Party. Protests
against the invasion of Iraq were particularly vocal in UK. Polls suggested that without the
UN Security Council approval, the UK public was very much opposed to involvement, and
over two million people protested in Hyde Park, London.
16.6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (USA)

Although there was a substantial organised resistance to foreign wars in the US since the
nation’s origins, this was often simply an outgrowth of non-interventionism or religious pacifism
and not in general a coherent mass movement with unified goals until after World War II.
These movements were dismissed by most in the US Foreign Policy establishments as impractical
as the country entered the Cold War era (1948-1990). Some peace groups viz as the United
World Federalists, hoped to secure world peace through integrated world government.
16.6.1 The Peace Movement in World War II

Opposition to World War II was limited in the US but included the War Resisters League,
the Fellowship of Reconciliation and the Catholic Worker Movement.
16.6.2 The Cold War: The Forties and Fifties

With the Cold War tensions rising, the Progressive Party became a home for the peace
movement. Like the American Peace Mobilization before the war, they were accused of
harbouring communist sympathies. In the election campaign of 1948, the Progressive Party
supported appeasement of the Soviet Union and a ban on Nuclear weapons. They opposed
the Berlin airlift and the Marshal Plan. They received over one million popular votes but no
electoral votes. There was a relatively small amount of domestic protest relevant to the Cold
War in the 1950s, which witnessed a large build up of both nuclear and conventional weapons
both in the US and the Soviet Union. The lack of protest was in part due to McCarthyism
(General MacArthur raised the ante of anti-communism through his rabid stance on the military
front and in the field against the Communists and Communism as an ideology per-se) and the
general disdain for those who did not view communist expansion as a threat. It was at this
time that the Eisenhower administration developed the policy of Mutual Assured Destruction
(MAD). According to this notion, the two super-powers’ possession of nuclear weapons was
viewed as a deterrent that would prevent any such war from taking place. MAD became a
central doctrine to the US Foreign Policy to contain communism. One may reasonably date
the open and public resistance to this process to the departing comments of Eisenhower
(1960), who warned that the US was in peril of being politically dominated by a military-
industrial complex. During the Kennedy era, it was a white knuckled nuclear brinkmanship
with the Cuban Missile Crisis (October 1962). However, the signing of the Test Ban Treaty
and the Nuclear Arms Control talks of the 1960s was a shot in the arm for the pacifists.
16.6.3 The Anti Vietnam War Movement: 1962-1975

The peace movement in the 1960’s in the US succeeded in bringing an end to the Vietnam
War. Lyndon Johnson, not running for re-election as President, was the direct result of the
anti-war protests across the US. Some advocates in this movement advocated unilateral
withdrawal of US forces from Vietnam to avoid further bloodshed and ease tension in the
region. The opposition to the Vietnam War tended to unite groups opposed to US’s anti-
communism, imperialism and colonialism and for those involved in the New Left, capitalism
Peace Movements 171
itself, such as the Catholic Worker Movement. Others, as Stephen Spiro opposed the war
based on the theory of Just War. Advocates of the US withdrawal were known as doves
and they called their opponents hawks.
High profile opposition to the Vietnam War turned to street protests in an effort to turn the
US political opinion against the war. The protests gained momentum from the Civil Rights
Movement that had organised to oppose segregation laws, which had laid a foundation of
theory and infrastructure, on which the anti-war movement grew. Protests were fueled by a
growing network of independently published newspapers (known as under-ground papers)
and the timely advent of large venue musical festivals as Woodstock and Grateful Dead
Shows, attracting younger people in search of generational togetherness. The Anti-war protests
ended with the final withdrawal of troops after the Paris Peace Accord was signed in 1973.
Momentum from the protest organisations became a main force for the growth of an
environmental movement in the US.
16.6.4 The Eighties and Nineties

During the 1980s, the US peace activists largely concentrated on slowing the super-power
arms race in the hope that it would reduce the possibility of nuclear war between the US and
the Soviet Union. As the Reagan administration accelerated military spending and adopted
a tough stance vis-s vis the Russians, the peace groups via Nuclear Freeze and Beyond War
sought to educate the public on what they believed was the inherent risk and cost of such a
policy. Outreach to individual citizens in the Soviet Union and mass meetings, using then-new
satellite link technology, were part of peace making activities in the 1980s.
The US peace-makers’ priorities during the Nineties included seeking a solution to the Israeli-
Palestinian impasse, belated efforts at humanitarian assistance to war-torn regions such as
Bosnia and Rwanda and mitigating the harm caused by the UN sanction on Iraq. These
sanctions upto 2003, led to the deaths of about 500,000 children from fully preventable
causes including common infections and malnutrition. The American peace activists brought
medicine into Iraq in defiance of US law, in some cases enduring heavy fines and imprisonment
in retaliation. Some of the principal groups involved were Voices in the Wilderness and
Fellowship of Reconciliation.
16.6.5 The Iraq War

Before, during, and after the War in Iraq began, a concerted protest effort existed in the US.
In March 2003, just before the US and British military invasion of Iraq, a protest mobilisation
called, The World Says No to War led to as many as 5,00,000 protestors in cities across
the US. Since the occupation of Iraq, several protest organisations have persisted in the US
against the US policies in Iraq. US activist groups including United for Peace and Justice,
Women Say No To War (CODE PINK), Military Families For Peace, (MFFP), Military
Families Speak Out (MFSO), Not in Our Name, Answer Veterans for Peace and The
World Can’t Wait, continue to protest against the Iraq War. Methods of protest include
rallies and marches, impeachment petitions, the staging of a War Crimes Tribunal in New
York (to investigate crimes and alleged abuses of power of the Bush administration), bringing
Iraqi women to tour the US and tell their side of the story, street theatre and independent film-
making, high profile appearances by anti-war activists as Scott Ritter, Dahr Jamail, resisting
military recruiting on college campuses, withholding tax payment, letter-writing to legislators
and newspapers, blogging, music and guerilla theatre. Independent media producers continue
to broadcast pod cast and web host programmes about the movement against the Iraq war.
16.6.6 The Threat of Military action against Iran

Beginning in 2005, opposition to military action against Iran started in the US, the UK and
elsewhere, including the creation of the Campaign against Sanctions and Military Intervention
in Iran. By August 2007, fears of an imminent US and /or Israeli attack on Iran had increased
to level that several Nobel Prize winners, along with several anti-war groups including the
Israeli Committee for a Middle East Free from Atomic and Biological and Chemical Weapons,
Campaign For Nuclear Disarmament, CASMII, CODE PINK and many others, warned
about what they believed was the imminent risk of a war of an unprecedented scale, this time
against Iran, especially expressing concern that an attack on Iran using nuclear weapons had
not been ruled out. They called for the dispute about Iran’s nuclear programme to be resolved
through peaceful means, and a call for Israel, as the only Middle Eastern State suspected of
possessing Nuclear Weapons, to join the –Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.
16.6.7 Domestic Peace Movement in the US

The Peace Movement in the US is perhaps less popular in the media but supported by vast
numerous professionals in several areas, viz Gang Violence Prevention, Domestic Abuse
Counseling, Violence against Children Awareness, and Character Education in Primary Schools.
Gang violence prevention is primarily a regional effort led by Local Law Enforcement and
Special Programmes within Schools. Domestic Abuse Counselling is supported by several
non-profit organisations. Violence against Children Awareness, Character Education is a
growing programme in American primary school education, recognised as a pillar of strength
in the foundation of US society along with strong family support. Character education resources
are used broadly to shape young minds.
16.6.8 Day of Silence for Peace
Also known as the Peace Movement the Day of Silence for Peace follows the tradition of
rallies that use silence to be noticed. Participants wear a piece of white cloth across their
mouths with Peace written on it to symbolise their unity and readiness to change their world.
It means they are tired of the status-quo and are willing to challenge it. It hopes to achieve
unity and a sense of empowerment for its participants- including the knowledge that they can
have an impact without traveling to the far corners of the earth. The first Day of silence was
observed on 23rd October, 2003.
16.7 INDIA
The greatest Peace Movement in the World was led by the apostle of Peace M.K.
Gandhi to rid India of British Colonial Rule. India attained independence from British rule
by a peaceful and non-violent movement of the people. Gandhi’s technique of Ahimsa and
Satyagraha caught the imagination of mankind and has been and is replicated in several protest
movements across the world. Infact the mighty British were forced to grant independence in
1947, due to the power of peaceful protests of the people of India transcending region, caste
and religion. Though there were a few aberrations, the non-cooperation and civil disobedience
methods adopted by Gandhi were basically peaceful techniques. The British did leave India
but left it divided by partitioning it and creating Pakistan. Over the past decades there has
been conflict and a trust deficit between the two countries. However, for peace to prevail
in the region it is important that the people, civil society and champions for peace compel the
governments of both the countries to work out a peaceful solution to all outstanding problems,
in the interest of stable peace in the South Asian Region.
Peace Movements 173
In the domestic milieu, the two regions Kashmir and the North-East have witnessed violent
conflict leading to death and destruction over decades. The people of Kashmir and the North-
East seem to be hapless victims of history and are caught between the violence of the
insurgent/separatist tendencies, as also the counter action by the men in uniform. Several
groups and members of the civil society have been yearning and urging both the sides to end
the saga of confrontation and work towards a peaceful resolution of all the issues in contention,
politically and through dialogue.
In this regard, the efforts of groups in the North-East viz the Naga Mothers Association, Naga
HoHo Church Organisations and other Civil Society groups have been responsible for the
holding of cease-fire in the state, since 1997. However, a permanent solution to the problem
in the North-East is still elusive. Both the insurgent groups-operating in different parts of the
North-East- and the government have to seek a peaceful solution to the problems facing them.
It is imperative to state that no problem can ever be solved by the recourse to force/arms.
The need of the hour today in Kashmir and the North-East is to ensure stable peace and
secure the confidence of the people living there. In this direction, it is important for the
government to end/ re-orient its policy of using excessive force to suppress dissent. In this
direction a re-look at the Armed Forces Special Powers Act 1958, operative in these two
regions is merited. It is time that the concerned heed to the call of all right thinking people
to do away with the draconian provisions of this Act that has led to several innocent people
being subjected to pain and suffering. The peaceful protest/fast in Manipur by Irom Sharmila,
since 2001(almost a decade), for lifting of this Act has now become the focal point of the
peace movement against all kinds of violence and atrocities being perpetuated in the region.
16.8 SUMMARY
If peace movements do end wars, does that mean protests are futile? Definitely not. Indeed
peace movements have shaped history. The list begins with setting limits on war makers. In
raising the cry Never Again peace organisations played an important role in bringing about
the Geneva conventions against the kind of chemical weapons used in the First World War,
just as the campaign for nuclear disarmament helped insure there would be no repeat of the
slaughter at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Peace activists helped create climate that led to a series
of Nuclear Arms Limitation Treaties, beginning with the Atmospheric Test Ban of 1963 and
running through the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties of the 1970s.
Peace movements are also important in laying down demands for a just peace. They were
especially powerful at the end of the two World Wars, when diplomats were under strong
pressure to create a world worthy of wartime sacrifice. Peace movements took seriously the
extravagant promises of a World Safe for Democracy and Deal for a New World and they
demanded redemption of these pledges in industrial democracy, Full employment and
racial equality. They pressured framers of the UN to prevent future wars by creating
international machinery to resolve disputes and by removing the social and economic grievances
believed to be the root cause of war.
Peace movements are also important players in the struggle over the distribution of resources.
The struggle over resources leads peace movements towards social justice. As Martin Luther
King observed Peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the presence of Justice. Of
course, peace and justice movements are no more effective in ending social injustice than in
ending wars, but they can be important weights in the social balance of power.
What are the lessons for today? It seems unlikely that peace movement will stop the Iraq
War any time soon, let alone the permanent war on terror that started in Afghanistan and Iraq
a few years ago and will expand to who knows where? Linkage between peace and economic
justice would expand the ranks. At the very least, today’s movement can do what peace
movements have always done- claim the moral high ground by affirming life over death.

1. Define Peace Movement and elucidate its characteristics.
2. Write about the duality of the peace concept.
3. Detail the ideals underlying peace movements.
4. Write in brief the history of the peace movement in:
(a) Germany
(b) Israel
(c) Canada
(d) United Kingdom (UK)
(e) United States of America (US)
(f) India
5. Assess the relevance and importance of peace movements today.
SUGGESTED READINGS
Bennet, Scott H., Radical Pacifism: The War Resisters League and Gandhian Non-Violence
in America, 1915-1945, Syracuse University Press, 2003
Chatfield, Charles., Peace Movements in America, Schocken Books, New York, 1973
George, S. Jacob., Intra and Inter-State Conflicts in South Asia, South Asian Publishers, New
Delhi, 2001
Marullo, Sam, and Lofland John., Peace Action in the Eighties: Social Science Perspectives,
Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, 1990
Moorehead., Troublesome People: The Warriors of Pacifism, Adler and Adler, Bethesda,
MD,1987
Roger, C., A Just and Lasting Peace: The US Peace Movement from the Cold War to Desert
Storm, The Noble Press, Chicago, 1991
Russell, Bertrand., Civil Disobedience, New Statesman, London, 17th February, 1961
Web Sources:
1. International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, http://www.icanw.org/
2. International Coalition for the Decade of a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence,
http:nvdecade3.org/
Peace Movements 175
3. Linus Pauling and International Peace Movement: A Documentary History, http://

osulibrary.oregonstate.edu/special collections/collpauling/peace/index.html
4. Peace is Active, http://culturalpeace.blogspot.com//
5. Peace Group: Cultural, http://culturalpeace.blogspot.com//
6. Wikipedia.org, http:enwikipedia.org/siki/Peace_movement
7. WorldWalk-Peacetour, http://worldwalk-peacetour.info//
SUGGESTED READINGS
Adler, P., The Future of Alternative Dispute Resolution: Reflections on ADR as a Social
Movement, in S.E. Merry and N.A. Milner (ed.) The Possibility of Popular Justice: A Case
of Community Mediation in the United States, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1995.
Anderson, P., Trends in ADR since 1990, The Practical Litigator, Vol. 8, 1997, pp. 7-144.
Aubert, V., Law as a Way of Resolving Conflicts: The Case of a Small Industrialized Society,
L. Nader (ed.) Law in Culture and Society. Aldine, Chicago, 1970.
Azar, E.E, & Burton J.W.,(eds), International Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice,
Wheatsheaf, Brighton, 1986.
Banks, M., (ed), Conflict in World Society: A New Perspective on International Relations,
Wheatsheaf, Brighton, 1984.
Bernard, Jessie., “The Sociological Study of Conflict”, International Sociological Association,
The Nature of Conflict, UNESCO, Paris, 1957.
Bercovitch, Jacob, and Richard Jackson., Conflict Resolution in the Twenty-first Century:
Principles, Methods and Approaches, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 2009.
Bharatan Kumarappa., (ed.) For Pacifists, by M.K. Gandhi, Navajivan Publishing House,
Ahmedabad, 1949.
Bondurant, J.V., Conquest of Violence, The Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict, University of
California Press, Berkeley, 1965.
Bradney, A, and F. Cownie., Living Without Law: An Ethnography of Quaker Decision
Making, Dispute Avoidance and Dispute Resolution, Ashgate, Aldershot, 2000.
Bretherton, D., Weston, J& Zbar, V., Peace Education in a Post-Conflict Environment: The
Case Study of Sierra Leone, UNESCO Prospects, vol.23, 2003, pp.219-230
Brian, Barry, Theories of Justice, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1989.
Burton, J.W., Conflict: Resolution and Prevention, Macmillan, Basingstoke, 1990.
Clarke-Habibi, S., Transforming Worldviews: The Case of Education for Peace, Journal of
Transformative Education, vol.3, no.1, 2005
Crowfoot, J.E. and J.M. Wondolleck, Environmental Disputes: Community Involvement in
Conflict Resolution, Island Press, Washington, 1990.
Danesh, H.B., Towards an Integrative Theory of Peace Education, Journal of Peace Education,
vol.3, no.1, 2006, pp.55-78
Danesh, H.B, and Danesh, R.P., Conflict-free Conflict Resolution: Process and Methodology,
Peace and Conflict Studies, vol.11, no.2, 2004, pp.55-84
David, J. and Kalupahana, The Buddha and the Concept of Peace, Vishva Lekha Publishers,
Sri Lanka, 1999.
Desai, Mahadev, The Gospel of Selfless Action or the Gita According to Gandhi, Navajivan
Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1946, Other editions: 1948,1951,1956.
Deutsch, M., Constructive Conflict Resolution: Principles, Training and Research, Journal of
Social Issues, vol.50, 1994, pp.13-32
Suggested Readings 177
Diehl, Paul F, and Gary Goertz., Territorial Changes and Militarized Conflict, Journal of
Conflict Resolution, vol.32, no.1, March, 1988
Diwakar, R.R., Saga of Satyagraha, Gandhi Peace Foundation, New Delhi, 1969
Dugan, M., A Nested Theory of Conflict, A Leadership Journal: Women in Leadership,
Sharing the Vision, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1996, pp. 9-20.
Duffield, Mark., Post-Modern Conflicts: Warlords, Post Adjustment States and Private
Protection, Civil Wars, 1998, vol.1, pp.65-102
Falk, Richard A,., Robert, C. Johansen, and Samuel, S. Kim., (eds), United Nations and a
Just World Order, Westview Press, Boulder CO, 1991.
Falk, Richard A,., Robert, C. Johansen, and Samuel, S. Kim., (eds), Constitutional Foundations
of World Peace, State University New York Press, Albany, NY, 1993
Fisher, M.W., Contrasting Approaches to Conflict, J.V. Bondurant (ed.) Conflict: Violence
and Non-violence, Aldine Atherton, Chicago, 1971.
Fountain, S., Peace Education in UNICEF, UNICEF, New York, 1999 (http://www.unicef.org/
girlseducation/files/PeaceEducation.pdf)
Fry, Douglas P., The Human Potential for Peace: An Anthropological Challenge to Assumptions
about War and Violence, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 2005.
Gallie, W.B., Philosophers of Peace and War: Kant, Clausewitz, Marx, Engels and Tolstoy,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1978.
Galtung, J., Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization,
Sage Publications, New Delhi, 1996.
Galtung, J., The Way is the Goal: Gandhi Today, Gujarat Vidyapith Peace Research Centre,
Ahmedabad, 1998.
Galtung, Johan, Cultural Violence, Journal of Peace Research, Vol.27, No.3, 1990, pp. 291-
305.
Galtung, Johan., The Struggle for Peace, Gujarat Vidyapith, Ahmedabad, 1984.
Gandhi, M.K., Non-Violence in Peace and War, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad,
1944.
Gregg, Richard B., The Power of Non-Violence, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad,
1960
Gulliver, P.H., Disputes and Negotiations: A Cross-Cultural Perspective, Academy Press,
New York, 1979.
Guyde, Mallac., Seven Steps to Global Changes: Gandhi’s Message for Today, Ocean Tree
Book, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 1987
Howlett, Charles F., John Dewey and Peace Education, Encyclopedia of Peace Education,
Teachers College, Columbia University, 2008
Jeong, H., Conflict Management and Resolution, in L.R. Kurtz and J.E. Turpin (ed.)
Encyclopaedia of Violence, Peace and Conflict, Academic Press, London, 1999.
Kallen, Horace M., Coercion, in R.A.Edwin., (ed), Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences, vols.3&4,
Macmillan, New York, 1956, pp.617-19
Kriesberg, Lowis., International Conflict Resolution, Yale University Press, New Haven CT,
1992
Lowe, Ben, Imagining Peace: A History of Early English Pacifist Ideas, 1340-1560. Pennsylvania
State University Press, University Park, 1997.
Lynch, J., ADR and Beyond: A Systems Approach to Conflict Management, Negotiation
Journal, Vol.17, No.3, 2001, p. 213.
Merrills, J.G., International Dispute Settlement, Sweet and Maxwell, London, 1984.
Mitchell, C.R, Handbook of Conflict Resolution: An Analytical Problem Solving Approach,
London, 1996
Murray, J.S., A.S. Rau and E.F. Sherman, Process of Dispute Resolution: The Role of
Lawyers, Foundation Press, Westbury, 1996.
Naess, A., Gandhi and Group Conflict: An Exploration of Satyagraha, University of Forlaget,
Oslo, 1974.
Oberschall, Anthony., Social Conflict and Social Movements, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ, 1965.
Pelton, L.H., The Psychology of Non-violence, Pergamon Press, New York, 1974.
Radhakrishnan, S., Eastern Religions Western Thoughts, Oxford India Paperbacks, Delhi,
1989 (fifth impression 1993)
Rath, B.S., Gandhi and Conflict Resolution, Gandhi Marg, Vol. 7, No.12, 1986, pp.850-57.
Reardon, B., Comprehensive Peace Education: Educating for Global Responsibility, Teachers
College Press, New York, 1988
Roberts, M., Mediation in Family Disputes, Aldersho, Arena, 1997.
Ross, Marc H, and Jay Rothman (ed.) Theory and Practice in Ethnic Conflict Management:
Conceptualizing Success and Failure, Macmillan, Basingstoke and London, 1999.
Sustac, Zeno, and Claudiu Ignat., Alternative Ways of Solving Conflicts (ADR), Promila and
Co. Publishers, New Delhi, 2001.
Williams, James G., The Bible, Violence and the Sacred: Liberation from the Myth of Sanctioned
Violence, Harper, San Francisco, 1992.
Winslade, John, and Monk Geraid, Narrative Meditation: A New Approach to Conflict
Resolution, Jossey Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 2000.
Zampaglione, Gerardo, The Idea of Peace in Antiquity, Translated by Richard Dunn, University
of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, 1973.
Zartman, I.William., (ed), Elusive Peace, Negotiating an End to Civil Wars, Brookings,
Washington D.C., 1995.
Zunes, Stephen, Kurtz, Lester, and Asher, Sarah Beth., (eds), Nonviolent Social Movements:
A Geographical Perspective, Blackwell, Oxford, 1999
(Compiled by Dr. Sailaja GUllapalli, Gandhi Smriti & Darshan Samiti, Rajghat, New Delhi.)

MGP 005

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MGP 005

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MGP 005

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIT 1 WHAT IS PEACE?

1.2 Defining Peace

1.2 DEFINING PEACE

1.3 TYPES AND LEVELS OF PEACE

1.4 MEANS OF CREATING AND SUSTAINING PEACE

1.5 PEACE FOR WHAT AND HOW?

1.7 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

2.2 Meaning of the Terms

2.2 MEANING OF THE TERMS

2.3 MEANING OF PEACE

2.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF WELL-BEING

2.5 JUSTICE AND ITS MEANINGS

2.6 WORLDVIEWS ON PEACE, WELL-BEING AND

2.6.1 Modern Worldview of Peace, Well-being and Justice

2.6.2 Traditional Worldview of Peace, Well-Being and Justice

2.8 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

3.2 Relation between Peace and Democracy

3.2 RELATION BETWEEN PEACE AND DEMOCRACY

3.3 MAN AS HOMO POLITICUS

3.4 RIFT IN THE FLUTE

3.5 MENDING THE RIFT: PARTICIPATORY

3.7 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

3. Democracy in a World of Tension—A Symposium. Ed. Richard MacKean. Quoted in G. Sartory,

6. “Cross-national Variation in Political Violence, A Rational Action Approach,” Journal of Conflict

8. Gleditsch, op. cit, p. 645.

10. Gleditsch, op. cit, p.651.

12. The Federalist Papers, No. 10.

13. Ibid, No. 59.

14. ibid, paper No. 60.

17. Ibid, p. 269.

19. Ibid, p. 10.

23. See Young India, 26 January, 1925.

4.2 Need for Peace

4.3 What makes Peace Possible?

4.4 Pillars of the Culture of Peace

4.2 NEED FOR PEACE

4.2.1 Peace and Aggression

4.3 WHAT MAKES CULTURE OF PEACE POSSIBLE?

4.3.2 Internal Measures of Compliance

4.3.3 Culture of Peace Defined

4.4 PILLARS OF THE CULTURE OF PEACE

4.6 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

5.2 Defining Conflict: Conceptual Clarifications

5.2 DEFINING CONFLICT: CONCEPTUAL

8. One finds altogether a different understanding of the meaning of international conflicts /

5.3 FUNCTIONS/OBJECTIVES OF CONFLICT

5.4 TYPES AND LEVELS OF CONFLICTS

5.6 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

6.2 Sources of Conflict: Theoretical Perspectives

6.4 Specific Sources

6.5 Global Sources of Contemporary Conflicts

6.2 SOURCES OF CONFLICT: THEORETICAL

6.3 GENERAL SOURCES

6.3.1 Aggressive Human Nature

6.3.2 Socio-economic and Political Inequalities

6.3.3 Denial of Human Rights

6.4 SPECIFIC SOURCES

6.5 GLOBAL SOURCES OF CONTEMPORARY

6.7 TERMINAL QUESTIONS