peace and conflict

Section –I

1. Define peace. Explain different 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 organized 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.

            Creating a loving, intimate, lasting relationship is the most wonderful thing than a man and a woman can experience in his or her lifetime. Tantamount to what Paul wrote above, Love is the most important thing in the world. The most important thing in life...without love we are nothing. Loving another is the reason we were created. When we stop loving, our life becomes meaningless. The purpose of life is to develop in our wisdom, love, inner peace, selflessness and creative abilities. However, creating and sustaining a loving relationship is Hard, but essential if we want to live a worthwhile life.

            Given the central importance of peace for human well-being, certain institutionalized 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  However, 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 internalized desire to comply; behaviour that is institutionally necessary is internalized as a need disposition in the personal system. However, the normative system proves ineffective in many situations.

            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. It signifies the 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.

           

Some great thinkers of creating and sustaining peace;

            Martin Luther King, Jr., observed that, “our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.” Gandhi noted, “We are constantly being astonished at the amazing discoveries in the field of violence. But I maintain that far more undreamt of and seemingly impossible discoveries will be made in the field of nonviolence.”  We live in an age of both pluralism and terror, and it is critical for us to articulate what might constitute a culture of peace.  Nonviolence is Buddhism’s master precept. Peacekeeping, peacemaking, and peace building are three responses to conflict. Peacekeeping stops people from attacking each other. This minimizes the damage but does not ensure stability. We need to put out the fires, but it would be better to prevent them in the first place by addressing the underlying causes.

            When the Buddha came to understand how suffering arises, he was able to transform the processes that cause and sustain it. He described this insight using the language of four noble truths:

1. Suffering exists.

2. Suffering has causes.

3. We can stop producing the causes of suffering.

4. A path of mindful living can show us the way

            The third noble truth is the cessation of the causes of suffering. This does not presuppose that we can reach a state that is conflict-free, but encourages us to grapple with the details internal and external every time. Conflict can be an opportunity to go directly to the heart of the matter and learn more about ourselves. The fourth noble truth peace as a way of life shows us how to live in ways that reduce suffering and conflict. The Buddha called this the eightfold path:

1. Right understanding: understanding the four noble truths.

2. Right Thought: freedom from that which cannot bring satisfaction.

3. Right Speech: speaking truthfully and skillfully.

4. Right Action: not killing, steal ing, or indulging in irresponsible sexual behavior.

5. Right Livelihood: not engaging in a profession that brings harm to others.

6. Right effort: encouraging wholesome states of mind.

7. Right Mindfulness: awareness of the physical and mental dimensions of our experience.

8. Right Concentration: staying focused.

            This eightfold path encourages peace building as a way of life. It points to ways that awareness can be deepened and the parts of our lives brought into harmony. We begin by living mindfully. Then we can use these tools to dismantle oppressive systems and create a culture of peace.

            Peacekeeping, peacemaking, and peace building are three responses to conflict. Peacekeeping stops people from attacking each other. This minimizes the damage but does not ensure stability.

4. Explain what makes a culture of peace possible and on what pillars it is developed.

            The definition of "peace" is almost limitless.  If we are to appeal to Canadians, we must begin where it is meaningful to each person on an individual level.  If we can achieve a significant improvement in "peace in the home" within Canada, it would lead to a substantial reduction in violence and conflict within the community.  Such an achievement would send a powerful message to people and leaders throughout the world.

            To address peace within the home, it is necessary to identify those issues which cause grief and conflict within families.  Today, many of these issues are of a materialist or emotional nature.  Children are unhappy because they do not have the same material goods as their friends.  Parents are unhappy because they cannot provide their families with the ideal lifestyle.  It seems that if families, regardless of wealth, have a strong family commitment and respect for one another, the level of violence and conflict within the family is significantly reduced.

            The culture of peace is desirable but how it can be achieved must be squarely faced. Every society has certain norms of behaviour that emphasize peaceful, proper conduct and develops certain mechanisms to control, regulate and, if possible, eliminate or neutralize 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 organized or not, best counsel would block this transformation from taking place.

            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 internalized 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.

            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 practiced. In addition, there are certain institutionalized 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 institutionalized methods that derive their sanction from centralized political authority.

            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.

            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 internalization of certain values that inculcate and support peaceful behavior 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 internalized, these values prove durable and are capable of inoculating the people against the attractiveness of violence. Internalization of values that engender peaceableness creates an internalized desire to comply with the norms of peaceful behaviour. It is a behaviour that is institutionally necessary and is internalized as a need disposition in the personal system.

            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. 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.

            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 institutionalizes 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.           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.

5. Define conflict. Explain the specific sources of conflict.

            Conflicts are Frictions or oppositions resulting from actual or perceived differences or incompatibilities. Conflict means different things to different people. For some, a definition of conflict involves fighting, war, trade embargos and so on. For others, it may be a difference in opinion, perspective or personality. We define conflict as a disagreement through which the parties involved perceive a threat to their needs, interests or concerns. Conflict tends to be accompanied by significant levels of misunderstanding that exaggerate the perceived disagreement considerably. If we can understand the true areas of disagreement, this will help us solve the right problems and manage the true needs of the parties. On many occasions, people who are seen as part of the social system (e.g., work team, family, and company) are influenced to participate in the dispute, whether they would personally define the situation in that way or not. In the above example, people very readily "take sides" based upon current perceptions of the issues, past issues and relationships, roles within the organization, and other factors.

            Our reactions to the threat and dilemma posed by conflict should be anticipated to include varying understandings of the situation. This also means that we can anticipate that in many conflicts there will be significant misunderstanding of each other's perceptions, needs and feelings. These challenges contribute to our emerging sense, during conflict, that the situation is overwhelming and unsolvable. As such, they become critical sources of potential understanding, insight and possibility.

            Conflicts are universal. They are present in every family, community, society, state or organization. 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’.

Specific sources of conflict;

           

            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, and racial or caste conflicts.

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.

2. Ethnicity: Ethnicity can be one of the sources of conflicts. Since the demise of authoritarian 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.

            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 demonized. Grievances are enshrined, and other groups are portrayed as inherently vicious and aggressive.

           

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.

           

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. 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.

5. Ideology: Discussion of ideology as a factor for triggering conflict has figured throughout 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.

            We should keep in mind that negotiation requires profound courage on the part of all parties: It takes courage to honestly and clearly articulate your needs, and it takes courage to sit down and listen to your adversaries. It takes courage to look at your own role in the dispute, and it takes courage to approach others with a sense of empathy, openness and respect for their perspective. Collaborative approaches to conflict management require us to engage in the moment of dialogue in profound and meaningful ways, so it is understandable if we tend to avoid such situations until the balance of wisdom tips in favor of negotiation.

Section-II

6. (A). How does participatory democracy assist peace building?

            The preceding analysis does not make it evident that democracy 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. In order to find a satisfactory answer to this question, two further questions need to be answered.

            To facilitate participatory democracy is to carry out decentralization of the polity. Decentralization, 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. 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 decentralization is possible.

            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. The greatest hindrance to complete decentralization is posed by the belief that the size of the polity makes it difficult for installing participatory democracy. M.K. Gandhi has already offered a model of this kind of decentralized polity.

            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 decentralized 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

6. (B). What are the practical hindrances to participatory democracy?

            Participatory democracy is direct democracy, in the sense that all citizens are actively involved in all important decisions. Participating in a democracy by voting is one part of a larger freedom that allows the citizens of a community, and our nation, to make change.          Participatory democracy involves a thorough democratization of society extending beyond what is now considered politics to the practice and ethos of all major social institutions, particularly businesses, schools, churches and families.

            Obstacles to participatory democracy;

            To see how this ideal of an egalitarian, participatory democracy can be realized in practice, it is useful to start by considering a number of difficulties we need to overcome to make it a reality. Three of these can be thought of as intrinsic problems of participatory democracy. The other two obstacles are more concerned with the transition to an egalitarian society.

            The Challenge of Participatory Democracy conditions of existing unequal societies. By contrast, the other two problems are more concerned with the transition to an egalitarian society. In unequal societies, subordinate groups are typically under-represented in or excluded from elected decision-making bodies. Restriction of participation is justified in the name of the stability and the ability to govern democratic political order. 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. 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.

            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.

            The social maelstrom, however, continues and deepens conflict surface; peace is disturbed and democratic politics gets distorted. Thus people want peace and well-being but the formal democracy grants them only uncertainty and conflict.

7. (A). Elaborate Gandhian views on peace education.

            Education certainly is a means to all-round progress of man. In other words, the pathway to human-development goes through the lanes of education. Moreover, true education is the sole basis of achieving one's purpose in life. It is education, which can ascertain ultimate peace for a human being.

            To educate people in these three aspects necessary for "action" Gandhiji gave very relevant programmes which can even now be followed by everyone. For getting the right understanding, Gandhiji evolved eleven vratas (vows) for every individual and for appreciation, he gave the concept of constructive work for the people to work out and to consummate the above two aspects he demonstrated that Satyagraha is interrelated and inter-dependent. Without practicing one, the other is not possible. All put together, it leads to a holistic view of life making the man into a Mahatma.

            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

            Peace Education

            Gandhi’s approach to value education familiarizes us, in holistic perspective, the necessity of basic education that emphasizes social consciousness and the Dignity of every individual. Gandhi considered the moral education as essential component of education, leading to character development

            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. The organizations and institutions involved in making efforts towards fostering peace and harmony often acknowledge Gandhi as the source of their inspiration and action.

7. (B). Make a critical study of satygraha as a means of dispute resolution.

            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 or use of punishment. A self-imposed and demonstrable suffering was calculated to melt the heart of anyone near or dear.

            Gandhian Way Introduction to Peace and Conflict Resolution

            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. But you will not injure even the enemy.

            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. 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.

            Nonviolence and Truth are aligned inseparably. “Ahimsa is the means and Truth the end”, used to say Gandhi. 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.