War: what it does to us

War:  what it does to us

“He who wishes to fight must first count the cost. Anger may in time change to gladness; vexation may be succeeded by content. But a kingdom that has once been destroyed can never come again into being; nor can the dead ever be brought back to life.”

                                                                                   Sun Tzu, writing in The Art of War

War may be defined as a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties entailing violence on an extreme and vast scale.

We have come a long way in perfecting our weapons of war. In the stone-age people would probably have used stones; in medieval times bows and arrows; swords graduating to guns, machine guns, sophisticated artillery in modern times and today we have fabricated the ultimate weapon – the nuclear bomb!

The Fallout of war is:

Ø Loss of human life;

Ø Wounded and Injured soldiers and civilians;

Ø Loss of vital infrastructure that a country has  to rebuild at a huge economic cost;

Ø Damage to heritage buildings, and other cultural artifacts;

Ø The acute problem of refugees who seek asylum in other countries where they  are  viewed as parasites on the economy and snatchers of employment from locals.

Here it is worth noting the price we citizens of nation states are paying in preparing for war – in maintaining a war machinery or a WAR SYSTEM:

Financial Resources

The financial resources invested – or rather squandered! - in preparing for war are colossal.   The global military expenditure is: USD 2 million plus per minute.  On the other hand, 18,000 children die daily in our global village due to malnutrition and lack of basic health care. (UNICEF) If 90 school buses filled with kindergartners were to crash every day, with no survivors, the world would take notice. But this is precisely what happens every single day because of poor water, sanitation and hygiene. The continuation of this suffering and loss of life contravenes the natural human instinct to help in times of disaster. Imagine the horror of the world if a major earthquake were to occur and people stood by and watched without assisting the survivors! Yet every day, the equivalent of a major earthquake killing over 30,000 young children occurs to a disturbingly muted response. They die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death. 

In addition to the above is the non-productive expenditure incurred on standing armies, navy and air force during peace time.

Human Resources

The human resources invested in Military Research and Development (R & D). Many of the best minds in the past and present millennium have been devoted to researching how to make increasingly better weapons of war to destroy humankind. Human ingenuity has indeed been able to design the perfect weapon; that is, our Nuclear Arsenal which can destroy the world several times over in just a matter of a few hours and precipitate a nuclear winter lasting for several centuries. One can hardly visualize a more gruesome way to utilize (!) human talent, genius and endeavor!

Further, in preparing for war, there is loss of manpower during military maneuvers as well as damage to crops.

Accidental Nuclear Disasters

The chances of accidental nuclear disaster have increased ever since developing countries have started to manufacture nuclear arsenals. The logic here is that these countries lack the technical know how as well as the requisite finances  for proper investment in developing their nuclear arsenals leading to high risk factor of an accident occurring.

Ecological Imbalance

                      

Two major causes of environmental pollution today are:

Ø The radiation emanating from the testing of nuclear weapons;

Ø Chemical waste from military industries.

This link between the present ecological imbalance and the War System is often overlooked.

Types of Violence

Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as “the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, mal-development or deprivation”.  There are various types of violence which can be classified as:

Ø Physical/Direct

Ø Structural

Ø Mental/Psychological/Emotional

Ø Sexual

Ø Subtle

Ø Spiritual

Since the meaning of physical/direct violence is obvious enough, we may only explain, in brief, its other kinds. War is physical violence at its worst, which will be explained later.

Structural violence means neglect, discrimination and exploitation that is inbuilt in certain economic and social structures. For instance, factory workers and laborers in  Third World countries are paid much lower wages than their counterparts in the First World. Thus, a soft toy or lingerie carrying the tag, ‘Made in Korea’ or ‘Made in China’ is priced at one third of a toy or lingerie of similar quality carrying the tag, ‘Made in Sweden’ or ‘Made in France’.

Another example of structural violence is patriarchy. It is manifest in very simple matters too: Let’s say a family returns home tired and thirsty after a hectic outing. Everyone wants water. However, routinely, the father will be offered the first glass of water ----perhaps by the mother who will quench her thirst last!  

There is an amusing and unsuspected kind of structural violence to which Indian women are not infrequently subject. A housewife in a big family may be deprived of a delicious dish simply because the male members were served first and greedily asked for more helpings, so that none of the delicacy in question was left for the lady, who is supposed to eat after men have eaten their fill! 

                                                                                                            

Mental violence refers to psychological and emotional harassment, torture and its equivalents.  A very clear instance of mental violence is provided by what can easily happen in Indian society. A young Indian bride may be made to feel inferior simply because her complexion is dark or when she is repeatedly taunted by her in-laws on the ground that her parents have not provided adequate dowry.

Sexual violence violates the sanctity of the victim. Rape would be an extreme form of this violence.

An example of subtle violence can be seen at the way some International Conferences are planned.  Women speakers are frequently given time slots only in the afternoons or towards the fag end of a session, when attendance gets thinned or participants feel tired and so are no longer eager to listen closely.  

An even more unnoticed form of violence is that which may be called spiritual. By this kind of violence I mean an overemphasis on the human being’s material interests as against his spiritual welfare. When educational systems or parenting focus on developing the body and mind but neglect the spirit, it can be classified as spiritual violence. I call this attitude violence because it injures the totality of man’s being. Such imbalance in upbringing of the young prompts them to take to unduly materialistic life styles, consumerism and extreme individualism which naturally harm interpersonal relationships, and cause loneliness, depression, divorce and various psychic ailments. The cost of indifference to our spiritual interests is indeed very heavy.

Illustration 2

Is Conflict Bad?

When you hear the word, conflict, what immediately comes to your mind?

·        Something bad – negative?

                                                                      or

·        Something good - positive?

Most people choose the former, because generally the word conflict signifies something harmful, conjuring up ugly images or bad memories of violence, insurmountable differences, hatred and war. It has also come to be associated with unpleasant protracted disagreements and so has acquired a connotation of negativity.

Since conflict is a given in our daily lives, conflict per se is not the problem.  The real problem is the way we deal with conflict – the manner in which we handle conflict  or resolve conflict.

It is our chosen methods of resolving conflict that make it bad or good. These methods which are broadly speaking either violent or nonviolent are what give colour to conflict; characterizing it as negative or positive. When we use violence to handle conflict, it is negative / bad; when we resort to nonviolence, it is positive /good – as depicted in the following Illustration No.1

So, contrary to popular opinion Conflict per se is neither Good nor Bad;

CONFLICT is NEUTRAL

Defining Conflict and Analyzing its Cause

Conflict can be basically defined as a:

Ø Disagreement 

Ø Difference of opinion

Ø Clash of interests

The question may here be asked: ‘What causes difference of opinion?’

Likely answers that immediately come to mind are:  

             

                 Different

Ø Beliefs

Ø Values,

Ø Mind-Sets

Ø Attitudes 

Ø Upbringing

Ø Ways of Thinking

However, deeper reflection reveals that all of the above stem from one primary cause: 

As actual existents - that is, as against the mere concept of Man – read Human Beings! - we are all and will always be individuals, or separate centers of thought, beliefs, values, mind-sets,  attitudes and upbringing; and so it is very natural that we are likely to differ in our views. As Gandhi would put it, our individual grasp of the truth of any matter is, as a rule, but relative.¹          

Thus, we cannot wholly rule out the possibility of conflict - seen as difference of opinion - at every level of human interaction, be it personal, professional, political, regional, national and international. Even in a very intimate relationship of love and marriage, there will be a difference of views.

In other words, since human beings will always be different, unique, individuals,

                                      Conflict is Natural and Inevitable

---

 [D1]

Let's Learn Nonviolence!

According to Gandhi, Nonviolence is a science and not a mere feeling or fleeting emotion. This implies that the study of nonviolence admits of all those essential characteristics which distinguish any body of knowledge as a science; and it surely does so:

First, nonviolence is a systematic and rationally intelligible discipline with its own inner principles for regulating individual and social psychology and conduct. It may here be pointed out that Gandhi was highly prophetic in labeling nonviolence as a science, because a host of Universities in Europe, USA and Canada have in recent years introduced Depts. of Peace Studies where peace (nonviolence) is now studied as an academic discipline. There seems to be a felt need for this.
  
Secondly, like any other science, nonviolence calls for detailed, analytic study. Indeed, it has to be learnt and studied patiently, and in detail like any other science.

Thirdly, like every other science, the knowledge it provides can also be put to practical use. But, of course, it can be successfully applied only after an adequate study of its philosophy, history and methods of practice. It is Gandhi’s firm faith that when it is practiced as it ought to be, “nonviolence can never fail; (and that) what fails is our imperfect practice of it”. It is now the task of our age, utterly fed up with rampant violence, to try to see if this faith can stand the test of practice.

Fourth, like other sciences, nonviolence too can solve problems. For instance, the science of physics has solved the problem of darkness by giving us electricity. Similarly, nonviolence too can dispel the ominous clouds of growing violence globally.

The realization that "'Nonviolence is a Science" is a Eureka Moment - which will motivate us to "Learn Nonviolence". It is equivalent to the 'apple' falling on Newton's head that drove him to perseverance and meticulous study which resulted in the Law of Gravitation!

So as a first step I invite you to our forthcoming interactive workshop on Understanding Gandhi.

For registration and details, click here - Gandhi Seminar

Dr Suman Khanna Aggarwal

Take a Pledge on 2 October 2016

       Follow Mahatma Gandhi:  

                                Make TRUTH your God!

Take the above pledge  today on

The 147^th Birth Anniversary of the Father of the Nation

The 10^th International day for Nonviolence

Reveals Gandhi:  “But deep down in me I used to say ….God is Truth, above all….But two years ago, I went a step further and said Truth is God …. And I came to that conclusion after a continuous and relentless search after Truth which began nearly fifty years ago.”

Gandhi’s meaning here is that ‘Truth’ is not merely an incidental quality, but the very essence of (what we call or know as) God. This is further borne out by his assertion: “Devotion to this Truth (as God) is the sole justification for our existence.” Thus making Truth your God is to choose it as your Highest Value which entails the following:

To seek and find the truth - both at the micro and macro levels; the former calls for introspection and acknowledgment of one’s faults and weaknesses, the latter necessitates attentiveness to social and political injustice. An essential precondition of success in finding the truth here is that the individual who undertakes such a task must be truthful himself/herself.  The effort to become true necessarily involves self-purification, which in turn is impossible without faith in a Higher Power’s Grace. To admit to oneself a weakness which no one else knows, may be, at once to feel assured that in doing so the burden of guilt is lightened.

 

To face the truth – is to summon the courage to deal with the above. Because once it has been found, truth also has to be ‘faced’; and this may call for an effort which is distinct and often painful. This is specially so when one is confronted with the ugly truth of one’s own inner weaknesses.

To grow from truth to truth – is a thought that occurs freely in Gandhi’s writings. This means to be constantly aware of and persist with one’s spiritual evolution.

To hear and pursue the voice of truth – is to follow one’s conscience. This means, first, that we become aware of a higher value in life than the merely material; secondly , that Truth alone is eternal and the true source of peace; thirdly, the conscious choice of Truth as the cherished aim of life; and finally, that all possible self-effort is made, through self-discipline and discrimination, to reach the goal.

To commit oneself to truth – is to see, speak and hear the truth – as epitomized in Gandhi’s famous three monkeys!

To live the truth – is to uphold one’s convictions and abide by one’s principles and ideals

To wait upon Truth – is openness and readiness to guidance from God/TRUTH

To track TRUTH through truth – is to realise God as that which really is and that is also the basic (derivative) meaning of truth or satya.  Satya is derived from the Sanskrit root sat – which means – that which is, that which cannot be destroyed because it is.  Thus TRUTH is the END and truth is the means to attain it.  

To see TRUTH face to face – is to feel the Grace of God in one’s truthful journey - this is termed sakshat darshan in the Indian tradition.

To elicit the truth – is to suffer for the sake of truth so that others may see it – as exhibited in Gandhi’s fasting satyagrahas.

To opt for saytyagrha -  is to use only nonviolence as a means of protest and conflict resolution.  Satyagraha  is a compound Sanskrit word: satya means truth graha means holding fast …so Gandhian  satyagarha means holding fast onto the truth even at the cost of life itself.

 When Gandhi began his nonviolent resistance 101 years ago in South Africa, the word used for such resistance was ‘passive resistance’ coined by the Quakers. Though admiring greatly the Quaker stance on nonviolence, Gandhi was very unhappy with the phrase, ‘passive resistance’ as he was of the opinion that nonviolent resistance was anything but ‘passive’! The word ‘passive’ somehow gave a false impression that nonviolent resistance meant inaction;  not doing anything at all.  Being the karmayogi that he was, Gandhi wanted to convey to his satyagrahis – nonviolent resisters- that nonviolent resistance demanded not only their  conviction and commitment to nonviolence but also continuous action geared to righting the wrong one was confronted with. So he offered a small monetary prize in his newsletter, Indian Opinion, for the person who would find an equivalent to the phrase ‘passive resistance’ without the word ‘passive’. Gandhi’s nephew, Maganlal Gandhi came up with the term sadagraha – meaning good  resistance (sad means good) and Gandhi changed sad to satya, thereby coining the word satyagraha for posterity!

   In our age, where formal religion is increasingly becoming the cause of   

   hatred,  bloodshed, enmity, intolerance,  religious fundamentalism,

   suicide bombings  and terrorism,  making TRUTH our GOD seems to be    

   the need of the hour!                                     

Proud to be a 'Peacenik' ...and an Indian!

Like every Indian, I, too, am proud of our PM’s strategic and timely decision to conduct ‘surgical strikes’ on seven terrorist ‘launch pads’ across the LOC in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir this Thursday.  I see this military initiative, after decades of self-imposed strategic restraint, as a deterrent action and a much needed protest against Pakistan’s continued terrorist activities on Indian soil – culminating in the Uri terror attack.

Having said that, I am amazed at Times Now highly opinionated news anchor - Arnab Goswami’s tirade against 'Peaceniks’, on his Times Now Debate, day before yesterday, accusing them of acting against the national interest. He also denigrated decade long efforts at Indo-Pak people–to –people peace initiatives as worthless. Sambit Patra – a panelist on the Times Now debate, echoed Arnab’s sentiments and added insult to injury by saying that ‘Peaceniks’ have questionable motives and suggesting that they are funded to speak and act the way they do by vested foreign agencies. 

As is his wont, Arnab did not allow - Chanchal Manohar Singh, journalist and President of the Society for Peace, Chandigarh, India, and who has been to Pakistan 42 times in the past 12 years to promote popular peace initiatives to make his point.  Neither did he allow Saba Naqvi - journalist and author, to clarity her views on the importance of continuing with other peace initiatives besides military action. It may be mentioned that both Chanchal Manohar Singh and Saba Naqvi, while supporting the ‘surgical strikes’, were merely trying to articulate the need to continue exploring other avenues to combat Pakistan grown terrorism,  besides military offensives.  (The Times Now debate is in some measure an Arnab Goswami soliloquy!)

Arnab Goswami needs to do some research and practice discernment before condemning all those committed to promoting communal harmony and world peace through nonviolent means,  as mere  ‘Peaceniks’ with a hidden vested political agenda.

Our PM too is a ‘Peacenik’ in so far as he is able to judiciously make the distinction between the people of Pakistan and the ruling ruthless military junta promoting terrorism! This is akin to Mahatma Gandhi’s firm belief to, “distinguish between the wrong-doing and the wrong doer” and the Christian mandate to, “Hate the sin and not the sinner”!