Dr John Mohan Razu
In recent times people use a few concepts or the vocabularies such as peace, justice, and non-violence surface prominently in a violent-ridden world. Why all of a sudden, these terms have occupied the center-stage? Invariably the majority of global humanity and the nations of the world are caught-up in conflicts and wars. Whether internal or external aggression, the state use weapons as it is given the complete authority to reign those forces that attacks the governments in place. And so, the state is given a free hand to use power to quell the uprisings.
In the name of security, the State can unleash violence in such ways to subdue those resisting for justice. In the pretext of subduing the growing unrest and demonstrations, the State is equipping with more modern weapons. How much of force a state can use, when to use, and what to use though clearly and explicitly prescribed, the State can overrule them and can go ahead killing resorting to to genocidal acts by ways slaughtering and weaponing hunger.
As a result in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Europe, and North America we find millions of refugees and forced migrants who have been living in miserable conditions. The nation-states push their people out in one pretext or other, and sees that they don’t get-in or come back. We live in such a toxic volatile violent world that revolves around violence and hatred. Countering violence another movement that surged powerfully was non-violence or pacifism.
Ganthi in his political involvement used non-violence as means and method. Accordingly, ‘the universal relevance of the principle of nonviolence and the goal “to establish a culture of peace, tolerance, understanding, and non-violence.’ It is believed that non-violence is the principle and a counter-weapon that could deter the growing violence in societies. In reality, non-violence is considered to have immense moral value for human beings to adhere. This is why all religion promotes non-violence as a virtue and thus shuns violence.
For instance, the sacred text in religions such as Mahabharata, Quran, and the Bible prescribes non-violence as a way of life and living. In the past when violence became a regular pattern and practice, the philosophy and praxis of non-violence gave the counter balancing power to people like Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King, Jr. At this juncture, let me bring Austrian psychologist Alfred Adler writes that human being alone posses the ability to “turn a minus into a plus”. Gandhi’s one of the famous dictums is “Where there is tolerance, peace prevails, where there is intolerance war and chaos follow.” Francis of Assisi on similar vein said: “Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love.”
Above these scholars, Jesus Christ for me is the embodiment of non-violent Messiah who throughout life practised non-violence and strived for peace (shalom). ‘Sermon on the Mount’ is Jesus’ most well-known teaching and on of the history’s revibrating speeches ever. In such a moment of volatility, the second part of the title throws some challenges. It highlights two terms ‘possible’ and ‘probable’, which for me are vital and significant. The term ‘probability’ connotes an idea ‘it might happen’ or not, while ‘possibility’ wants a simple “yes” or “no”.
Probability in its dynamic brings to the fore ‘feasibility’, whereas ‘probability’ provides a quantifiable value which is pushes for a measurement between 0% (impossible) and 100% (certain) conveying the degree of likelihood. We are caught up with ambiguities and ethical dilemmas. Then let me go to the first part of my title which states ‘peace with justice’ meaning peace (shalom) acquires fuller meaning only with justice. It is nuanced be it ‘Justice and peace’ or ‘peace with justice’ lies primarily in their emphasis and the intricate relationship between these two be it complimenting or a pre-requisite for the other.
Despite whatever I said in the previous paragraphs, war and violence are on the rise and have occupied the vast canvass we live. Two wars go on for years such as Ukraine and Palestine. The war on Gaza shows fragility of ceasefire whether it could move from first phase to the second or crumble at any moment as Israelis continue to kill the innocent Palestinians; while Ukraine war do not show any semblance of ceasefire though Zelensky and Trump are striving for a ceasefire and a peace deal. Those countries have refrained from investing on procuring armaments have now started to invest on arsenals and desirous to join NATO.
We are in a world of ‘might is right’ with a credo ‘war is good’. The countries that have financial and military power on sea, ground, and in air coupled with nuclear arsenals can wage wars and annexe its territories and for the ceasefire and peace deals enter into deals such as precious earth minerals and other deals. Peace is nowadays is so expensive that even the world’s most power man who eyed for Nobel Peace Prize for 2025.failed miserably. If this is the scenario, how can we talk about peace and non-violence?
Just war theories, and grand vision of converting the swords to ploughshares and spears into pruning hooks into remains just utopia and imagery. Invoking the Bible and select verses such as “there’s time for war and time for peace”. Justifying and prolonging the war without specifying how to determine war and what is the time for peace? War technology and complex of war are at the peak inventing high-powered sophisticated equipment capable of decimating anything in fraction of time. The supremacy of any nation presently vests on the military, technology, and money power. These are triune pillars that determines everything.
In such a susceptible and challenging times, we are into, I saw something from Narayani Ganesh which is intriguing. He says that “Intention is what eventually gets translated into action. If the intention is aggression, then war cannot be far behind. If the intention is peace, then there is a good chance, that wars could be averted and peace, attained.” He adds by quoting from UNESCO’s Preamble in its Constitution that “Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed.
“His statement or construction of thought revives again and thus illumines hope on peace with justice. Thus far no other term or concept has replaced peace with justice. It continues to illumine light in times of darkness and hope in times of hopelessness. We should not shy awy fr dialogue and negotiations in such volatile times. These are important concomitant factors for the world we live-in. We continue to dream for a better world with peace that encompasses justice for the present and the future generations. And so peace with justice is possible and 100 percent probable. There’s no iota of doubt in my mind as well others who believe peace with justice. I found the following quote is interesting: “In a war of Egos …The loser always wins”.
